1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 12, Number 1
[ Page 8403 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
E. Barnes: I'd like to welcome Peter Seidl, a former legislative intern who is a researcher with the B.C. portion of Change in the Workplace, a nationwide study looking at changes in labour-management relations and human resource management. I don't see him, but I know he's up there someplace. Please join me in making this constituent of Vancouver-Burrard welcome.
L. Fox: In the gallery this afternoon we have a young lady who works very hard on behalf of the constituents of Prince George-Omineca and representing myself within that constituency, Emmy Hyette. Sitting with her is Claire Vessey, my MLA assistant here in Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.
H. De Jong: From time to time the question is asked: who is tending the farm? Today I want to introduce some people who have been tending the farm for the last seven years without having the opportunity to come to Victoria. They are Ted and Gretta De Jong, our son and daughter, with their four children: Tyler, Jared, Alexis and Kasi. I ask the House to give them a warm welcome.
D. Mitchell: We have in the gallery today two longtime residents of West Vancouver: Dr. Bill Bie, who practised medicine at the Vancouver General Hospital for the last 50 years; and his wife, Jean. Jean Bie was an assistant to a former Liberal Attorney General in Saskatchewan. They're accompanied by Jean's sister Shirley Caswell from Victoria. Would the members of the House make them welcome here today.
Hon. A. Hagen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Multiculturalism Act.
Hon. A. Hagen: It is my pleasure to introduce the Multiculturalism Act. This bill formally expresses the government's commitment to multiculturalism. It promotes the principles of cross-cultural understanding and positive race relations, and recognizes the inherent right of British Columbians of every race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin to be treated with dignity and respect and to have full access to and free participation in the economic, cultural, social and political life of our province. It reaffirms that violence, hatred and discrimination have no place in our society.
To demonstrate the government's commitment to these principles, the bill proposes that every ministry and Crown corporation submit annual reports to the minister setting out initiatives undertaken to promote the policies set forth in this bill. It also proposes that the government carry on services and programs in a manner that is sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of B.C. The bill will formally enshrine the multicultural advisory council in the statute. This council provides invaluable advice to the government on multicultural issues of significance to British Columbians.
Bill 39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House and request leave to make one more introduction that was just passed to me.
Leave granted.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to introduce Rev. Gill and Rev. Gail Lindsley of Carson City, Nevada, and their son Adam. Would the House please make them welcome.
F. Gingell: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has introduced legislation that allows civic employees to run for political office. In Surrey, CUPE municipal staff have been meeting during working hours, at taxpayers' expense, to discuss their strategy to ensure that their candidates get elected. What is this minister going to do to stop this flagrant misuse of public tax dollars?
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs will recognize, as all hon. members will, that we should not be discussing legislation in any detail during question period.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It must be a slow day for the opposition. We have a duly elected council in Surrey. They have a labour relations portfolio in the personnel department and a qualified council to deal with local issues. They have every power in the world to do it as they see fit. We believe in local government; they can deal with it.
F. Gingell: Municipalities are the creation of this province, and provincial tax dollars are used to support municipal governments. The taxpayers of this province demand that action be taken to stop the flagrant misuse and inappropriate expenditure of provincial taxpayers' money. What is the minister going to do about it?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think I have already covered it. If the member wishes to communicate with the mayor and the council, he can. Maybe he wishes us to intervene in Gordon Campbell's campaign with regard to his use of his public office in his campaign.
[ Page 8404 ]
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: That's the most disgraceful statement I've ever heard. The mayor of Vancouver has already apologized, and this bunch of parrots....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. leader will take his seat. This is question period, and I think all hon. members know full well the guidelines for question period.
I will now recognize the next questioner, the Leader of the Third Party.
F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, am I not being...?
The Speaker: I have recognized the Leader of the Third Party.
ENFORCEMENT OF WILDLIFE ACT
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Environment. In light of Justice Govan's ruling on the Donald St. Jean case, what specific steps has the minister taken to ensure that the applicable sections of the Wildlife Act are enforced equally among natives and non-natives alike in British Columbia -- assuming, of course, that the minister has read the judgment?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's my understanding that this case is being considered for appeal. Therefore I will not be commenting.
J. Weisgerber: For the minister's benefit, Judge Govan ruled that the ministry's formal policy of granting general dispensations to natives for violations of the Wildlife Act is discriminatory, illegal and offensive. He further ruled that the Crown may not, by executive action, dispense with laws; it is not only manifestly unfair, it is a breach of section 15 of the Charter. Can the minister tell us whether he has accepted Justice Govan's ruling, in view of the Court of Appeal's recent rulings in the cases of Regina v. Dick and Regina v. Alphonse?
[2:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: My previous answer stands.
The Speaker: A final supplemental. However, I would remind the hon. member that the minister has said he will not comment on this case.
J. Weisgerber: Have wildlife officers now been instructed to enforce all sections of the Wildlife Act without regard to race or colour, or has the minister issued specific instructions that would exempt natives from certain sections of the act? If so, can he tell us which sections of the act no longer apply?
Hon. J. Cashore: Wildlife officials continue to function in light of the developing scenario, and they continue to be in close contact with my office on this. We will continue to keep you informed on this.
PROSTITUTION DANGER TO GROUP HOME YOUTH
V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Social Services regarding a concern the community has. Would the minister please explain for the benefit of the community how she is responding to the report that a 14-year-old pimp is using girls from a Coquitlam group home as prostitutes?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I too was very concerned to hear that yesterday. So we went to see if there was any contact between the RCMP and our ministry with regard to this issue. There was none. We followed that up with the RCMP and found that there is no specific concern with a group home in our ministry. The incident does not involve children in care in this ministry. The young man that the RCMP are dealing with is not a ward of the state, so there is no direct involvement with the ministry or with our group home. We have the assurances of the RCMP, and we've spoken directly to the group home to seek assurances that there has been no contact with our group home.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's reply. I ask the minister again: what is she doing to convey to the public some sense of assurance? The public hears these reports, and unless they get a response to assure them....
Hon. J. Smallwood: I had an opportunity to speak to reporters in following up on this issue. When we're dealing with vulnerable children, in particular, it's very important to be very careful about any accusations that we might make.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
V. Anderson: Has the minister advised other group homes and others who might be concerned by this, so that they can be forewarned? Because in similar situations where advice goes out to schools, it's very important that they are aware of it ahead of time.
FUEL TAX EFFECT ON B.C. AIR CARRIERS
D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Finance. The government recently rescinded its ill-conceived jet fuel tax, but only for eligible international air freighters. I'm concerned. Can the minister assure this House that air carriers based in British Columbia are also exempt? Will he guarantee that foreign carriers will not have a tax advantage?
Hon. G. Clark: We're absolutely delighted with the prospects of development at the Vancouver International Airport. There are exciting plans for the development of a third runway and new terminal. We've been in consultation with Mr. Emerson, who I
[ Page 8405 ]
believe members opposite might be familiar with, the CEO of the airport authority. They made an appeal to the government that if we could eliminate this tax on business that is not now in Vancouver, they would go out and market that and successfully add to the business in British Columbia. So we listened, took the advice of that business community and acted. We're now optimistic about significant expansion of air freighter traffic in Vancouver as a result of the relationship we've developed between the Vancouver International Airport Authority and the B.C. government.
D. Symons: I enjoyed the minister's flights of fantasy, but I didn't hear an answer to the question. Are we going to be disadvantaging B.C.-based companies? That was the question.
Hon. G. Clark: Air cargo is not now carried in British Columbia.... There is no business. It was argued that there was a disincentive to that business by various tax forms and other issues. The airport authority made significant concessions. The government has made a concession in order to go out and recruit new business -- to add business to British Columbia.
I want to assure members of the House, however, that we've had discussions with domestic carriers who have not been in that business. They are not disadvantaged. If business grows in this new area, we will continue monitoring with the domestic airlines to ensure that there is no disadvantage, so that our airlines can compete for this new incremental traffic, this new business opportunity, here in British Columbia.
TATSHENSHINI DECISION AND B.C. MINING INDUSTRY
D. Jarvis: It's good to be back, hon. Speaker.
The Premier told the people of B.C. about the new wilderness park while standing in front of a poster a few weeks ago -- a picture of a white glacier, a pristine river, Indian paintbrush and other wildflowers. I'd like to ask the Premier: sir, were you aware that this scene is not the Tatshenshini but 15 kilometres inside the Alaska border in the Tongass National Forest?
The Speaker: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour.
D. Jarvis: To the Minister of Mines. Several days ago you said that the miners of B.C. had bought into your programs and were actually even expanding their mines. Why didn't you say that the Gibraltar mine was laying off 50 percent of its employees and, also, that this expansion was three years down the line?
Hon. A. Edwards: Isn't it interesting that when we're looking toward expansion three years down the road, the member across the way doesn't want me to talk about it. He only wants me to talk about something that would suit him. But let me tell you that the mining industry in B.C. is looking three years down the line, and that's very exciting. We continue to look forward to what the mines can do one year, one month or three years down the line.
D. Jarvis: It's too bad that you didn't tell us about the bad things, only the good things.
In any event, because of your Windy Craggy decision it appears that this government is continually undermining the CORE process. I ask the minister: why are all the miners in B.C. resigning from the CORE table?
Hon. A. Edwards: I haven't heard that all the miners in B.C. are resigning from the CORE table, but there are certainly some who have gone away. But it is interesting to look at the kind of support that our decision is getting. It is becoming more and more obvious that it has support. A release that came out earlier this week from the Champagne-Aishihik people in the Yukon says that their first nations support the decision to preserve this very unique wilderness area. It's very clear that those people support it, contrary to what this member said yesterday. So I like to be very careful about what kind of question I take from this member, who seems to generate more heat than light sometimes, and sometimes gets more gigajoules out than he might otherwise expect.
FUNDING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN
H. De Jong: My question is to the Minister of Education. During a previous debate the minister mentioned that the block funding previously available for the specific purposes of special needs children would be reallocated through a system of grants to all applicable schools. Can the minister confirm that statement today?
Hon. A. Hagen: During the estimates we extensively discussed the fact that in our independent schools program we would now be targeting funds to special needs children in the same way that we target funds to children in the public education system. A policy has been developed to meet the needs of those schools that are providing special needs services to children in the independent schools, and those schools are funded accordingly.
The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: Earlier in question period -- and I'm bringing it up after question period -- the Minister of Municipal Affairs made a comment that we wish to respond to. The Speaker ruled the Leader of the Opposition out of order, yet failed to rule the minister out of order. Perhaps the Speaker can give us some indication as to why she's ruling our members out of order before they even have a chance to ask the question.
[ Page 8406 ]
The Speaker: As I'm sure the hon. member well knows, that is not a point of order. But for the information of all hon. members, the guidelines around question period are clear in terms of not....
Interjections.
The Speaker: I ask for order while the Chair is replying to the point of order. The guidelines for question period are clear, and so is the prerogative of the Chair to recognize members who stand to ask questions. If members stand to ask questions, the Chair makes that choice to recognize the member. The Chair has ruled in this matter. It is not a point of order, and I will not take debate on the point of order from the hon. member.
The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is rising. If it is a new point of order, the Chair will hear that. Please proceed.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's a new point of order. The Leader of the Opposition was indeed recognized for a supplementary. He was cut off in order to sit down, hon. Speaker, before you had even heard his question. How can you rule him out of order when you don't even know what he's going to say?
The Speaker: Order, please. Regrettably, I have to say that the hon. member is debating with the Chair, which is not allowed. The Chair is always willing to discuss matters outside the chamber if discussion is desirable, and I invite the member to do that.
Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to call committee stage of Bill 65, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1993. I also wish to advise all hon. members that Committee A will convene in the Douglas Fir Room to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
[2:30]
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 65
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
On the amendment to section 3.
L. Hanson: Just before the change in the agenda we were starting to debate the amendment. I was trying to make the point that in other sections the bill seems to leave a certain amount of discretionary decision on the part of the director of employment standards that if minor variations from the Employment Standards Act are offset by other issues, the total result is that the variation from the employment standards minimum would appear to be minimal, if that's fair to say. What I think the minister is doing by this amendment and the requirement to notify is asking the various parties to make a value decision as to the level of change from the employment standards minimum. It's possible that during a negotiating process there may be a report of a deviation from the minimum standards simply because they're not happy with the result of the negotiation process, so my colleagues and I would have to oppose the requirement for both parties to advise the director of possible deviations from the employment standards minimums.
I see nothing wrong with the requirement to file the agreement and the director then making up his or her mind as a result of the evidence before them, but not on the basis of an opinion by either or both of the parties. For this reason, I would have to oppose the amendment. Maybe the minister would comment.
Hon. M. Sihota: First, let me express my gratitude to the hon. member and the critic from the Liberal Party for agreeing to the change in scheduling this morning to accommodate the Minister of Health and the Liberal Health critic.
I agree that you could have a situation where the parties themselves negotiate an agreement and one party to the agreement notifies us through the ministry that they don't think a provision in the agreement complies. That could happen. Notwithstanding this provision, we probably would have found out in any event because the party would have complained. It just makes it easier, from an administrative point of view, to know the range of provisions that may be captured by the legislation. It saves us the job of having to work our way through 4,000 or 5,000 collective agreements every time they're filed. If a party thinks there's a question, they notify us. I agree that a party that's simply upset about an agreement may do that, but this is simply the provision that flags the concern. It doesn't mean the concern is valid. It just allows us to do the investigation a little more quickly.
L. Hanson: I can understand and appreciate what the minister is saying, but it still seems to me that it's a hazard to the bargaining process. I suspect that even though the result may eventually be possible without this amendment, the requirement would encourage the two parties to see how far they could deviate from the standards and then through the process ask the director to mediate or in fact analyze the changes that have been made to see if they're acceptable. If the minister is suggesting that the two parties would reach an agreement and then say, "We've deviated, but we don't know if this is acceptable," and that it's the quid pro quo on the other side of the thing that should have the balancing effect, I think it's already encompassed in the bill. I think the two parties have that ability anyway with the other sections of the bill. But I see little protection for either party, or for the employment standards side, in this requirement to advise.
Another concern I have is that if there was a reluctance on the part of either of the two parties that had reached this negotiated agreement to advise the director because they felt that there wasn't any change regarding the employment standards, and upon scrutiny of the agreement the director finds that there is, what is the situation then? Does the director say:
[ Page 8407 ]
"You fellows didn't live up to the letter of the bill"? What penalties are involved?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are a number of points. First of all, just to go back to your first point, if there is a disagreement between a union and an employer with regard to whether or not it falls below the minimum standards, one would expect that issue to be dealt with through the grievance process and not by us, through employment standards.
The second point is that we would go in if there was a significant violation in an agreement, where the parties essentially colluded -- if I can put it that way -- to violate the provisions of the legislation. The third point is that if there is a violation of section 3(4) -- in other words, the amendment -- and the parties don't comply with the section, there's no offence at all. We just have the power to investigate, as we would under section 82 of the legislation. In other words, there's no offence provision here. The consequence is that if we discover it, we will have to go in and investigate, and there may be some consequences as a result of that investigation. But there's no offence per se for having violated section 3(4).
L. Hanson: I can certainly accept that. But I wonder why we need this section to amend the act. Obviously, when you read the whole act, there is an inference that the absolute line regarding minimum standards can be a little hazy, or there wouldn't be a requirement for the director to make a decision as to whether it has met the minimum standards. To suggest that if that's the case, it doesn't really make any difference.... You're requiring the two parties to advise if they think there's any deviation from it. But if in their negotiating process they don't see any deviation -- that's their understanding of it -- then they don't have to report. The director then gets the agreement, looks at it and says, "Yes, there is a deviation," and goes back to investigate. I'm not sure what the minister is accomplishing by this amendment, which says that you are supposed to tell us if there is a deviation. It seems to complicate the system more than it already is. Of course, a lot of this comes with the understanding that we disagree philosophically with section 2; it's not needed. It puts a responsibility on the two negotiating parties which, in the rest of the act, the minister clearly said is the responsibility of the director.
Hon. M. Sihota: It strikes me that the value of having this section -- apart from the administrative issue that I raised earlier -- is that during the negotiation process it forces the parties, knowing that the section is there, to discuss areas which may be close to that line, and to engage in a process of self-compliance as a consequence thereof, knowing that a duty is placed here. Hopefully, the parties will work out those differences so as not to have to invite an investigation by the director.
L. Hanson: I find that a little hard to digest, because the fact that Bill 65 is there pretty well puts everybody on notice as to what the rules are. I'm not sure that, simply by the existence of the act, the requirement to advise the director of some deviation enhances the awareness of the two parties. The minister well knows the negotiating process; they would certainly be aware of it. I find it a little hard to understand that reasoning, quite frankly.
Hon. M. Sihota: As you know, later on in the legislation, it allows people to negotiate variances and to sort of dip below certain standards. If they do, then the value of us knowing that, and having them tell us that, is so that we can make an assessment of the legislation and how it stacks up against the agreement. That would be another benefit of having this provision.
[2:45]
Your argument, basically, is that it may be overkill, given the fact that the notice is there. I guess my argument is that there are some benefits. I enumerated three of them: some administrative ease would come to us; some greater knowledge on the part of the parties -- which you noted with a degree of legitimacy, quite frankly, that they would know about in any event; and thirdly, not to just trigger self-compliance, but to notify us so that we can be confident that they haven't violated the principle of the legislation.
L. Hanson: I understand what the minister is saying. But I think the main opposition to this amendment is the fact that it requires the two parties to make a decision that clearly is given to the director of employment standards in the legislation. That's the difficulty I have with it.
Hon. M. Sihota: This legislation tries to encourage self-regulation as a matter of approach. These provisions are in the legislation to encourage a degree of self-regulation and to allow the parties to work out these kinds of issues and to regulate themselves so as to limit the calls to the director of employment standards to deal with the other areas, where people are unorganized and require assistance. Again, it furthers that objective.
G. Farrell-Collins: Given that it's an encouraging section as opposed to anything that has a penalty, isn't this type of thing better left to policy? Isn't it better to let people know that we would like them to do this? If they choose to comply, it would help us out. Isn't that more the way to go in this case, rather than shift the onus for self-recrimination to whether it's a real violation that they're going to be penalized for? Isn't it asking people to make decisions which it's not really their job to make? I know they may well be aware of the areas where they fall below, but isn't that decision better left to the director? Isn't there something where we can get rid of the amendment and just use it as a policy and not have to bring it into a form of legislation where there's no requirement to comply, despite the fact that it states that there is no penalty? It's merely a guidance or encouragement, as the minister said. It seems to me that that type of thing should be done with policy and letting people know. We seem to do an awful lot of things as policy rather than actual
[ Page 8408 ]
legislation, including fair wages -- which is fairly major. For a small clause like this, rather than put the parties in that potentially difficult position, isn't it better to have it set by policy as opposed to legislation in this case?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not sure if you're really disagreeing with the intent. You may be disagreeing with the way in which it is exercised -- i.e., legislation versus policy. Should it be within a statute or should it be a matter of practice? We have always chosen to put it into statute. It does serve some purposes over and above what I've already enumerated to the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon, in the value that it would provide us in being able to monitor and analyze what's happening on an ongoing basis. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions allow for these variations within the parts in legislation. Because of that, this will give us an opportunity to regulate, watch, monitor and analyze what is transpiring in this case and to see whether any further changes are warranted.
G. Farrell-Collins: When we are drafting legislation I think it's important that we make a point of not drafting legislation that people don't want to follow -- or if they break it, there's nothing there to stop them. Those types of things are better set as policy -- asking people to comply and getting a process in place. I don't necessarily agree in principle that it's the duty of the employer and the union to flag those things for the director -- to do his job for him or her. But if the minister insists on doing this, then it should be done through policy as opposed to legislation, because it's throwing out part of the act with no recourse if people don't comply. It's the wrong attitude to foster out there. Legislation should be there so people comply with it. To put something in legislation that you sort of want people to do and you're asking them to do -- without any repercussions -- is the wrong way to go when it could more easily and more effectively, in the long run, be done by policy as opposed to legislation.
Hon. M. Sihota: In his report, which forms the basis of this legislation, Professor Thompson indicated that he found it unacceptable that people would engage in contracts that were below the minimums established in legislation, particularly in an area of social policy. We've had that debate, of course, during second reading. Within a particular part, we still allow contracts -- and obviously we'll be dealing with that after we deal with this amendment -- that fall below the minimum to be made.
In recognition of that, it seems to me that there is some value in having the parties themselves advise us where they have chosen to make a decision, so that we can make an assessment of the legislation as it relates to the collective agreement or the agreement that has been negotiated. So there is that value, and I don't think that that should be dismissed out of hand. We feel that to require that as an affirmative duty on the parties is appropriate in legislation. You're right, it could be done simply as a matter of practice or policy. But given what we're allowing the parties to do here, it seemed to me that in order for us to assess what's transpiring and, quite frankly, to save some administrative resources, it would be a benefit or of some assistance if the parties themselves were to provide the notification.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to take it too much further. I just want to perhaps offer my interpretation of what's going to happen. I think you're likely to find that those employers and unions that you're not really worried about are going to report, and the ones you're trying to deal with aren't going to report. I don't think you're going to achieve anything by putting this section in here, other than put a section or clause in an act that further reinforces the fact that these people don't have to follow the law if they really don't want to. I think that's all you're going to accomplish. I don't think we're really going to provide any net benefit to anybody here and perhaps do some harm in the long term. But it is a philosophical issue, and it's a choice the minister is making. I won't support it, because I don't think it's the right way to go. I don't think the minister is going to achieve what he intends, and, in my opinion, he is really not going to achieve anything at all by doing this.
Amendment approved on division.
On section 3 as amended.
G. Farrell-Collins: We're dealing with section 3, which I guess is the amendments to section 2. I want to bring up a couple of things here. I guess we can address it from a couple of different points of view. If I may, I'd like to look first at subsection (3) of section 3. I have some comments on subsections (1) and (2) also -- the timing etc., and how that will work.
If we could just focus for a minute on subsection (3), particularly part (a), it says: "...the sections of the applicable Part or regulations are deemed to...." I'll just read subsections (3) and (3)(a) to see how they fit together so we can sort of get moving on this. Subsection (3) states:
"Where the provisions of a collective agreement respecting a matter referred to in Column 1 of subsection (2) do not, when considered together, meet or exceed the minimum requirements established by the sections of the applicable Part or regulations referred to in Column 2 of subsection (2), when considered together, (a) the sections of the applicable Part or regulations are deemed to be incorporated in the collective agreement and to replace the provisions of the collective agreement respecting the matter...."
I think there's perhaps a potential for a misinterpretation of this section, and it's really only wording. I think it states that if even one item or clause of a collective agreement within that part falls below -- the way (a) is worded -- "the sections of the applicable Part," then all of the sections that fall within Part 3, 4 or 5, whichever applies, would now become part of the collective agreement. I don't think that's the intent; I think the intent is that the deficient clauses within that applicable part would come into play. I think we have a bit of a problem here which may be cleared up with a very small amendment. I apologize to the minister for
[ Page 8409 ]
not giving advance notice of it, but I'll just read the amendment and then pass it over to him for consideration.
I'm amending subsection (3)(a) to state: "the sections of the applicable Part or regulations are deemed to be incorporated in the collective agreement" -- which is what's there already, and then I'd like to add -- "to the extent necessary to replace the provisions of the collective agreement which do not meet the minimum requirements established by the sections of the applicable Part or regulations." Essentially, it pinpoints the actual deficient clause in the collective agreement and applies the minimum standard to that, as opposed to applying the whole part to the collective agreement. I think it's a wording problem. I would move that amendment.
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't agree. I've tried to read it again, because I read it in much the same way that the hon. member had read it, I could see how he had read it in a different fashion, now that he provides us with the amendment and his comment that preceded it. But it seems to me that the words "sections of the applicable Part" -- and I underline the word "applicable..."
An Hon. Member: With a capital P.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, even if it's a capital P. "...or regulations are deemed to be incorporated in the collective agreement and to replace the provisions of the collective agreement respecting the matter...." It seems to me that the purpose of that section is to correct the particular section that's deficient.
[3:00]
The other point that I'd make is that even if I were wrong, the court, when looking at this kind of situation, would ask itself what the Legislature was trying to do -- which may behoove many of us with regard to this legislation. But it would seem to me that the court would easily conclude -- particularly because I'm about to say it -- that we weren't trying to replace a whole chunk of a collective agreement, but rather the diseased portion, if I can put it that way. If the court or the director of employment standards was to do any surgery on a collective agreement, they would only do it to that portion which required attention.
G. Farrell-Collins: I understand the minister's argument. However, in my opinion, the words "replace the provisions of the collective agreement respecting the matter" are suitably vague. I don't think that the minister, who is obviously concerned -- as we all are -- about the employees in this case, would want to see an employer go through this process and say to the director, the arbitrator or the courts, if it has come to that -- whoever is doing it -- that this section means that they can actually downgrade those provisions within that part to make them.... In fact, they are required to under subsection (3)(a), because of the wording.
I understand what the minister is trying to say, but I'm not convinced that it's as clear as he thinks it is or as he's suggesting it is. We know that this is a very complex and difficult bill. I think the proposed changes will make it very clear, with a relatively small change, that that's not the intent. I hope that we can provide that direction right here today, so that we don't have lawyers, employers and trade unions arguing this before the courts, where it costs money. I think we can clear it up right here and not force that type of decision somewhere down the line. As I said, the amendment is offered in good faith. My intent here is to try and make the wording clear, so that nobody has to come back and fight this before the courts.
Hon. M. Sihota: The more I read this, the more I become persuaded that it fits. Subsection (3)(a) says "the sections of the applicable Part." The presence of the word "sections" makes it clear that we're not talking about the entire part.
G. Farrell-Collins: I disagree. We can argue the semantics of it, but to me "the sections of the...Part" can just as easily mean all the sections as a particular section.
If the minister wants to change the wording to say "the relevant sections of the applicable Part," that would make it clearer. Maybe that would be a simpler amendment. But by just saying "the sections of the applicable Part," that could mean all the sections of the applicable part. There's certainly no limitation; it's not exclusive sections. In fact, in my opinion, it could just as easily be interpreted as inclusive sections, to include every single one of them.
As I said, if the amendment I've offered doesn't clear it up, or if there's an easier way to put in the relevant sections of the applicable part, I'd be happy to make that change or have the minister make it. I just think it's important that we clear this up here, so it's not going to cost a lot of people a lot of time and effort later on.
Hon. M. Sihota: If you look at section 2(2) of the old legislation, it says: "Where a collective agreement contains any provision respecting a matter set out in Column 1 of the following table, the Part of this Act set out opposite that matter in column 2 does not apply in respect of employment pursuant to that agreement." Then it lists two parts. Then section 2(3) states: "Where a collective agreement contains no provision respecting a matter set out in Column 1 of the table to subsection (2), the Part of this Act set out opposite that matter in Column 2 shall be deemed to be incorporated in the collective agreement as part of its terms." We have had no difficulty with people interpreting those provisions. These are even clearer than what was in there in terms of what is being put forward as a legislative provision. So I'm not persuaded that.... I see what you're doing, and I can see the thought process that got you here as clearly as you can see how mine got me here as well. But it seems to me, given that the older provision has survived and given the clarity we have provided with this one, that we're okay.
[ Page 8410 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that the minister is arguing that where in the old act under section 2(3), the second sentence says: "...the Part of this Act set out opposite that matter in Column 2...." Is the minister saying that the sections of that part are clearer? I'm not trying to be obstructive. I'm saying that by saying "the sections of that Part," we may be.... I can argue it the other way around and say that by doing that -- by saying "the sections of this Part" -- you're pushing it just as much in the other direction. By saying "for the sections," you'll be including all of them by making that change and by saying that explicitly in the act. As I say, I'm not trying to bang this thing around for hours. I'm just trying to put in a small change to clarify it, so that this debate doesn't have to go on with everybody else out there.
Hon. M. Sihota: You and I have probably saved some client a lot of money by having this debate right now. I think we've clarified it during the course of debate. It may well be that the arguments that you and I have made, or variations of them, would be arguments that people would make before the director. I think it's been clarified as a consequence of these discussions.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister and I spent some time in this House last fall, and I recall that during the debate on Bill 84 I used the same argument. The minister advised me that while what goes on here may guide, it doesn't really direct.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll explain that. These matters would go before the arbitrator and the director of employment standards, where people would routinely bring in Hansard as a matter of evidence. The comment that I would have made on Bill 84 -- whenever we were debating it -- would have been on a matter before the court. If you recall the debate that we had on Bill 84, there were a number of occasions when I said that I was reluctant to comment on the interpretation of a particular section. I knew those sections would be adjudicated by the Labour Relations Board, where an opinion by the minister through Hansard debate would be entered as part of the argument. That carries a lot of weight at an administrative level; it doesn't at the court level.
It is true that one could bring this discussion forward to the courts; it just won't carry the same amount of weight. In fact, quite frankly, it would carry very little weight, unless someone made this argument at the administrative level, and the tribunal or the arbitrator in question relied on it, and the judgment mirrored what we both agree is the intent of the section. In that case, it would carry a lot of weight. So it just depends on when and how it's raised.
But given the way that these things work with the director and the arbitrator, I think this discussion will clarify it. I say that on the record very consciously, so that it can be taken advantage of should there be a division of opinion with regard to the interpretation that you suggested some may take.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess we are going to disagree on it. It's far more beneficial to make it clear at this stage, and I think it's our job to make it clear. Indeed, I think that's what the whole committee process is about. By being reluctant to do so, I think we are causing other people down the line to have this type of discussion or argument, which will cost them money. I would just as soon see it cleared up one way or another -- if not with this amendment, then with one the minister puts forward. But if he's not willing to do that, I guess that's his choice.
Amendment negatived on division.
G. Farrell-Collins: The next portion I'd like to look at is subsection (3)(b), the next paragraph down. I have a couple of questions before I get too involved in it. My understanding of the briefing I received was that the director has recourse to intervene and repair deficient collective agreements, at the director's initiation or when a complaint is filed to the director by either of the two parties. My understanding also is that dispute resolution mechanisms exist within collective agreements to do similar things. My reading of this is that an employee, an employer or a union representative could file a complaint with the director as well as go through the grievance process in their collective agreement. Is that a correct interpretation? Are both options open to the various parties?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, that isn't correct. Under section 80 of the legislation, the parties have to decide which route to go through. The intention is that they go through the provisions of the collective agreement.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is saying that the intent is quite clear under subsection (3)(b): that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists through the collective agreement or through collective bargaining, that is the intent, as opposed to having the director intervene. What scenarios would the minister see where the director would intervene? Would that only be if there was no complaint lodged by the other party and the director, of his or her own initiative, sought to go through that process?
Hon. M. Sihota: I may forget to answer one part of your question, so if I don't answer it totally, just ask me again. We don't need a complaint to launch an investigation. The amendment I introduced that we just debated would be a basis upon which we could take a look at an issue. I think there was something you asked right at the beginning that I haven't answered.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just read section 80 very quickly. Section 80 deals with other matters, particularly subsection (3)....
Hon. M. Sihota: And subsection (4).
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, and subsection (4). Subsection 3 states that "...matters other than wages shall be limited to matters that arose in the 6
[ Page 8411 ]
months...." I guess you're relying on section 80(4)(b): "...recourse before a court, tribunal, arbitrator or other form of adjudication of the subject matter of the complaint." Is that correct? What you're saying, then, is that there's no recourse to the director under another form of adjudication. You're talking about the dispute resolution mechanism that exists within a collective agreement; you're including that in there. Is it required to state that, in your opinion, or is that just going to be understood?
[3:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: That is always understood in legislation. But just one note: I say that the director may decline; there may be situations where the director would. In any event, that's incidental to your question. The answer is that those dispute resolution systems always seem to be captured by this provision.
G. Farrell-Collins: As long as that intent is understood, because historically this act hasn't really dealt with collective agreements to any great extent. We're now making it clear that another form includes any dispute resolution mechanism that exists within a collective agreement. It must be sought first, and the director, as you said, may decline. I would hope that the director would decline to get involved when that was in place.
Let me ask another question. Although I don't agree, the minister says the intent of this bill is to deal with rat unions, or unions that are, as he says, employer-dominated. If that's the case, isn't it unlikely that either party would be looking at using this process? Is it then that the complaint goes back to the director? If the director gets a complaint, the director will say: "Well, I can't get involved because of 80(4)(b)." Is the leeway still there for the director to step in when he or she feels that the process isn't working?
Hon. M. Sihota: That's captured by the answer I gave a few minutes ago which I described as being incidental. It was incidental to that question, but it is direct in terms of the provision "may." The director can investigate under section 82. The "may" provision in there doesn't exempt them from taking a look at a situation where there may be dispute resolution provision existent in an agreement.
G. Farrell-Collins: Back to sections 80(4)(a) and (b), subsection (4) states: "The director or his authorized representative may decline to investigate a complaint where the employee or person...." I haven't flipped to the front here -- does that include a trade union? I know this wasn't specifically written to deal with collective agreements. Could somebody argue that only an individual employee can lodge the complaint, or can a trade union lodge a complaint on behalf of an employee?
Hon. M. Sihota: I see where you're going. Just let me say that it's a matter of policy. The employment standards branch has always accepted complaints from a trade union as an agent of employees. That has been the practice and policy of the branch, and nothing here changes that.
G. Farrell-Collins: Again, it's my understanding that this section -- in fact, the majority of the act -- was drafted to deal with employees who aren't protected by a collective agreement. Although there has been past legislation, we're putting in a section here to deal with that, and we're specifically addressing those persons who are represented by a trade union. I just want to make sure that the implication of this is clear and that it will apply. I don't see it in the act. I would have thought that there would be some definition of.... Either we make the changes here, or we put "person or employee" in a definition and include a representative of a trade union in order to accommodate that. In my opinion, we're missing a couple of steps here. We're relying on past practices as opposed to actually putting it in place.
Hon. M. Sihota: Parts of this legislation to deal with trade unions have been examined by the director, examples being 5.1 and 6. With regard to the order of non-payment, which the director can make, what directs the investigation is when the director receives or obtains information pursuant to section 12. It isn't defined by whom; this is "receives information." Of course, this has always been relied on in terms of the order-to-pay provision to allow trade unions, for example, to bring a matter to the attention of the director.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's fine as far as it relates to payment, but we're not just dealing with the payment of wages here; we're dealing with the whole kit and caboodle. That's what happens, I guess, when you take a piece of legislation that was drafted specifically for non-collectivized employees and try to dovetail them and make it apply to those with collective agreements. The wording of the whole act that we're relying on to support those changes doesn't coincide. I'm concerned that we're going to sort of hammer and glue this thing together and end up finding that one part is made of completely different material than the other part and that the two aren't going to work very well without the subsequent consequential amendments throughout the bill or in the definition section to clear up some of the incongruities. I'm still not comfortable that we've cleared it up and put the act and this section of the new bill together in such a way that it will function easily and smoothly. I don't know how we can go about fixing it, or whether we should be making some small changes to try to make it work more smoothly.
Hon. M. Sihota: Remember, hon. member, that prior to the changes that were brought to section 2(2) the legislation applied to trade unions. In many ways, all we're doing is going back to the time before the Social Credit government brought in the provisions that we're trying to remedy here. I don't have that discomfort, because that's how it used to apply. The second point I was going to make is that if you're arguing that the word "employee" is deficient in terms
[ Page 8412 ]
of being able to capture a trade union and it needs greater clarification, I don't think it does, for all the reasons that I've just amplified. But I will say that we do have this broader review going on, as you are well aware, with regard to employment standards. I think it's okay here, but it's certainly an issue that we can ask them to recanvass prior to the tabling of their report, I believe, this fall.
G. Farrell-Collins: Coming back a few steps in the argument process to where we were dealing with the "director may" portion, is it possible for the director to launch a separate investigation or process, even while that collective bargaining dispute resolution mechanism is playing itself out? With the "may" provision, it seems that the director could launch an investigation that would parallel the process going on through the normal collective agreement.
Hon. M. Sihota: It is possible that could happen.
L. Hanson: I thought I heard the minister say that if this section of the act didn't work as he expected it to work, we could wait until the report comes through this fall. The question I have to ask the minister is: why didn't we wait for that report this fall, then?
Hon. M. Sihota: Finally some politics in this debate.
No, what I was trying to get at was.... I think the word I used was that I had no discomfort with the way in which it was worded. If the hon. member really felt that this additional issue, the definition of "trade union," had to be clarified in terms of drafting the legislation, it could be looked at in that review. But I think it's captured, in any event. I wasn't trying to ignite that political debate.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's too late. I will take a minute to deal with that. I know the minister has been grappling with this bill, as the opposition and the Third Party have, and indeed as both organized labour and their employer groups have been. Some time ago it was suggested that we were moving a little quickly on this piece of legislation, and that despite the political decisions made by the minister and the philosophical intent of the minister, perhaps we were rushing Professor Thompson and rushing the groups. I would say that's bearing itself out as we go through this.
The minister may be comfortable with the provisions that are in here. But I'm not hazarding a guess -- I know that members of the employer community and certainly members of the trade union community are not as comfortable with it as the minister says he is. In reality, I suppose the minister is probably not as comfortable with it as he says he is either.
I'm trying to be constructive on this and clean up some of these things, because if it's going to go in, I want to see it work -- unlike some of the other things we've done through this House, including sections of Bill 84. I think it's important that we do ask these questions and that we go through this, so that despite the hurried pace, despite the rush, and despite the discomfort that many people are honestly feeling over this whole process and this whole bill, we can try to fix up some of these things as we go through it.
Coming back to my original question: can the director launch or start an investigation into an apparent deficiency while the collective bargaining process or provision in a collective agreement is ongoing? The minister said yes, that may happen. Are we discouraging that? Are we encouraging the collective bargaining process to work? If a trade union and the employer are grappling with this, is there some time frame that we want to give the director to deal or not deal with this? How long are we going to let them work through it? I know there are other provisions in the act as far as time frame goes, but....
Hon. M. Sihota: Past experience tells us it's highly unlikely that the director would do that, but I'm not going to preclude the director from doing that. That's why I worded the response in the fashion I did, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess we're arguing a small point. I know the minister would probably rather see the dispute resolution mechanism work on its own and have the director come in only as a last resort to get involved in the process. I just want to know what the intent of it is. I understand that according to the act, the director still has that prerogative. But is the intent here that we let the collective bargaining process run its course, work through the dispute resolution mechanisms that exist there -- mediation, arbitration, whatever the process is -- and have the director come in only as a last resort when we don't seem to be getting anywhere?
[3:30]
Hon. M. Sihota: To be honest with you, hon. member, the only reason for my hesitancy is that I don't want to say something -- for all the reasons we just talked about a few minutes ago -- in terms of what I say on the record being used as evidence if there was a hearing to deal with these kinds of issues. That's the only reason I'm hesitant to confirm the tenor of your comments. I would say that the practice has been precisely that: it is sort of seen as an unusual move. But I just don't want to say something on the record that would fetter the discretion of the director. I must confess that you have accurately described the practice as it has been.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have just a last question, then. Are we not expecting this act to change that practice? Are we assuming that that practice will continue as it is right now?
Hon. M. Sihota: Two things: first, anything I say here ought not to be interpreted as fettering the discretion of the director in the case that he feels there's a reason for him to do so; but generally that has been the practice. And no, I can't see anything here that would change that general practice.
[ Page 8413 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Given that open-ended statement, I would assume that the minister applies that caveat only to this section and not to all his comments on this bill. Otherwise, we may as well pack up and go home, I guess -- which isn't a bad idea.
Hon. M. Sihota: Does it mean that if I place that caveat for all of the other provisions, we will be able to pass this quicker?
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess, having canvassed that one at some length, I would like to go backwards a little bit if we can -- or forwards, I guess -- to deal with some of the provisions. I'd like to look at section 3, sections 2(1) and 2(2) in particular. I have some concern with the wording, of course, particularly in section 2(2), where it says at the last few lines: "...if the provisions of the collective agreement respecting the matter, when considered together..." The whole Bill 65 almost hinges on the words "when considered together." It is a very nebulous group of words that can mean so much. I want to try to get some direction from the minister as to what we're headed at here, because I know that there is a great deal of concern out there as to what those three words are going to mean. The interpretation can be very broad. Really, the parameters are endless. The variations of what "when considered together" means are endless. We're looking at a whole part of an act, and all the individual provisions in that act, and then we're looking at the collective agreement and all the provisions within that collection agreement that relate to that part. We're trying to juggle them in some way. We're putting a huge onus on the process to try and come up with what that means. We're going to end up in mediation and arbitration. As I said when this first came out, I have heard labour lawyers who have commented on Bill 65 that they are going to make a lot of money. I would say that in fact they are, if they have any time left after Bill 84.
The interpretation of those three words is really going to be the most contentious part of this act. Given the restricted time frame the minister has given on it, it is important that we provide some direction as to what that means and what the intent is behind putting those three words in there.
Hon. M. Sihota: I agree with you that the words "when considered together" are pivotal in the determination of the section. They try to capture what we're trying to do here: they allow for some flexibility within a part -- I think you know this anyway -- that would allow one to slide below the minimum level, but in other parts to exceed it and allow one to examine the agreement as it relates to that part as a whole, and to see whether or not it meets the standard in the act.
Let me just quote an example which is illustrative of the point as it relates to part 3. The act requires payment of double time after 11 hours each day. In a collective agreement, perhaps double time is paid after 12 hours on a daily basis, and in addition for all hours worked on Sunday. That's how you could allow for some variation within the part, but when considered as a whole, you are still meeting the minimum standard that fits within the part.
G. Farrell-Collins: In trying to determine what that means when considered together, the minister has given us one example, and I appreciate that. It's probably impossible to go through every single scenario and drag them up and work through them, although I suppose we could do that -- we'd be here a heck of a long time.
I'm wondering if that provides the necessary flexibility. In second reading debate the Premier and the minister both commented that the flexibility still exists in the bill. The example that the minister just gave us, while only one example, is a very small amount of flexibility.
We have talked about other things and have heard anecdotal comments -- and I'm sure the minister has heard them too -- about people banking overtime and taking that as vacation time; people working for long hours for a number of weeks and then taking a lot of time off. Those types of provisions don't really feed back and forth, because they exist in different parts. Also, not just the amount of vacation but the rate of vacation pay may be negotiated relative to some overtime provisions elsewhere, where there is a drawdown on the vacation pay but better overtime provisions elsewhere, or vice versa. Those things fall within different parts. Are we not taking away that type of flexibility by doing it by part? In looking at this it seems to me there are some realistic and fair trade-offs that exist and help to improve the collective agreement and that are between parts, as opposed to within a specific part.
Hon. M. Sihota: I am trying to think of a way in which I could frame an answer that avoids going back into second reading debate; I am not too sure that's possible. The legislation allows for some flexibility. It does not allow for totality of flexibility -- if there's such a way of putting it -- and as you know, it limits the degree of variation within parts. I think that has to be looked at in some kind of context.
As I said during the course of second reading debate, nobody else had the kinds of provisions that the previous administration brought in that allowed for a wide range of variances or flexibility -- whatever you want to call it. It seems to me that there is a public policy objective -- and granted, we get into more of a philosophical question at this point -- in saying: "If this is the law, then people ought not to be able to dip below the law in providing for conditions of employment for workers." You heard enough of that in second reading debate; I don't really want to go into it any more than that.
You can't turn the clock back ten years, and you know full well that some agreements have taken advantage of the provisions the previous administration brought in. You have to provide for some recognition of that approach having become now a part of our labour relations culture -- if I can put it that way. Therefore I think one is left with the sole option of making sure that there is some recognition of that
[ Page 8414 ]
culture in the legislation. But I also think, at least from a philosophical point of view, that we want to achieve the objective of full compliance and not have people sliding below on any aspects of it, as is the case in every other jurisdiction in Canada. We're trying to provide a degree of flexibility here but deny the full range of opportunity for variations that existed under the previous legislation. I don't believe for a moment that it would allow the extent of flexibility that you would like to see. But I think we both acknowledge that that difference of opinion is based more on ideological grounds than on any other grounds.
G. Farrell-Collins: I will also try to stay off second reading debate as much as possible.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: It is hard sometimes, particularly for some of us.
[3:45]
I would argue that this bill brings in arbitrary flexibility, and I don't think it's necessarily based on a practical sense. I think what has happened is that the bill tries to come down somewhere in the middle, as the minister says, to respect the labour relations culture that has been there and that has provided this flexibility. Yet on ideological grounds the minister wants to stop those types of violations of the law and has made some sort of effort to come down somewhat in the middle, although we would certainly differ as to where in that spectrum he has come down. My feeling is that we've come down in a very arbitrary manner and that somebody drew a line in the sand and said: "Here's what we're going to do." I don't think we've really achieved the flexibility that's necessary. Certainly those issues were raised during second reading.
Also, as we're dealing with the ideology of it, I would argue that given what I've heard in second reading debate, this section in particular is ideological. It's something the government has brought in because of their stated opposition to those deficient collective agreements in those rat unions, as they call them, that exist out there. My understanding is that almost all of those so-called employer-dominated unions came in in 1986 and after that time period. I would suggest that the collective agreements that were negotiated before that were done so in good faith and that this wasn't a problem at that time. Indeed, the types of flexibilities that existed -- which may well be different from what's in these two columns -- were reasonable exchanges of benefits on the part of both parties, and they were done in good faith. In fact, they benefited both the employer, as to competitiveness, and the employee, as to flexibility in the job. Certainly having the company more competitive made their jobs more secure.
I would like to, if I may, move an amendment to this section. Again, given the time frame of this, I haven't had a chance to give this to the minister for his consideration. It would be that section 3 be amended by adding the following subsection (5):
"Notwithstanding subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section 2, where a collective agreement was in force within the meaning of the Labour Relations Code as of December 31, 1985, and that collective agreement or a renewal collective agreement was in force on the date this act was brought into force and a provision of the collective agreement respecting hours of work, overtime, annual vacation or vacation pay, termination of employment or layoff, general holidays or maternity and parental leave does not comply with this act, such provision of the collective agreement between the parties shall be exempted from the application of this act until such time as the parties to the collective agreement negotiate a change in the terms of such provision."
As the minister stated earlier and throughout second reading debate, the intent of this bill is not to destroy the flexibility, to use his own words, that exists where agreements have been brought in in good faith. Indeed, I think the minister and the ministry have tried to come up with some flexibility or the provision for some variances to continue to be allowed. As I stated earlier, however, I do believe that the process of doing it has been somewhat arbitrary and in fact treads on the toes of those collective agreements. Employers and trade unions negotiated those in good faith, and they've been in operation for a long time without any real problems.
I think this amendment addresses the minister's ideological or philosophical problem with employer-dominated unions yet still allows collective agreements that were negotiated in good faith and indeed have proven themselves over a long period of time to function normally and continue. It's only right to allow collective agreements that have operated properly with the people who negotiated them to continue. They've operated in good faith for a number of years and certainly have not tried to violate workers' rights in any way at all. It would be a service to those employers -- and indeed those employees -- to allow those provisions to continue.
Hon. M. Sihota: Just on a point of order, I look to the Chair for direction on this, but I would venture to say that the amendment is out of order, in that it undermines the intent of the section as it is now. The section seeks to cover all collective agreements, and this would grandfather -- if I can put it that way -- agreements that were executed prior to December 31, 1985. On that basis I would argue that it's out of order.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. The Chair is inclined to agree with you. It is a fairly complex matter, but in light of the minister's rejection, the Chair will sustain that position.
G. Farrell-Collins: Just a submission, hon. Chair -- if it's not too late -- before you make up your mind. I understand the minister saying that it's to include all collective agreements. Certainly the intent was clear throughout second reading debate that there are agreements that there's no problem with. I think what we're trying to do here is comply with the House's ruling and decision on the intent, certainly with what was discussed in second reading, yet not tread on the section too much. Clearly the intent is to try to stick with what the House passed in second reading and to
[ Page 8415 ]
implement it in a very limited sense by grandfathering some of these provisions to make the section comply better with what the House passed during second reading on Monday last.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will stick with the original position that the amendment is out of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would give the minister some time to think it over. Perhaps he has some ideas of other ways of doing similar things. Maybe the date is a problem, and he might want to look at something like that. I would encourage the minister to look at other ways of achieving the same end, certainly to keep the section more in line with the discussion that the minister and the Premier had on second reading so that we can change this section to really stick with the intent that existed. I would encourage him to do so. We wish to go on with other areas of this bill, and he can come back to it at a later time.
L. Hanson: We still have a few minutes, then. This section of the bill -- by the way, it seems to be retroactive too -- says that if a collective agreement has a variance in these standards listed in column 1, such as hours of work and overtime and annual vacation, this would override it and replace it with the standards in the Employment Standards Act. During the course of negotiations, it doesn't seem to me that an exchange for some reduction in the issues in column 1 would necessarily follow. The minister suggested that after 11 hours it was double time, and in exchange for changing that to 12 hours, an agreement could be made to pay double time on a Sunday. Effectively, it deals with working overtime or on a holiday. If, during the course of these negotiations, the hours were increased from 11 to 12 before double time became effective and another concession was given in exchange -- such as a half-hour coffee break instead of a 15-minute coffee break as an everyday example; or a concession of double time on Sundays, as the minister mentioned -- the way the minister is applying this act, the only measurement of a balancing effect would be by the director. The balancing effect couldn't be another concession that had nothing to do with column 1.
Hon. M. Sihota: You're right -- if you're saying that it couldn't be outside that part. But the coffee-break example is within that part, so you could actually do that.
L. Hanson: That was a poor example, but I know the minister can use his imagination on what example it might be. If it's outside this list in column 1, then the director would not consider it a balancing effect.
With that in mind, I would like to introduce an amendment to section 3. As we're getting near closing time, we can table it now to give the minister and his staff an opportunity to look at it. I move the amendment now, Mr. Chairman:
"Section 3 is hereby amended by adding to section 2 the following subsection: nothing in this section alters or makes void any provision of a collective agreement in effect before the coming into force of this act, or any provision of any agreement negotiated to replace such an agreement, provided that such replacement agreement is concluded before the expiry of the collective agreement which it replaces."
Hon. M. Sihota: They're worse than mine.
L. Hanson: I don't doubt that maybe that is going to be the minister's ruling. But I would like to spend a minute talking about why it isn't worse than the other one.
Hon. M. Sihota: Or better.
On the amendment.
L. Hanson: Or better. In fact, this would seem to me, first of all, to give the two parties the opportunity of completing the agreement. It would preclude that unfairness of this act that would reinstate in the agreement a minimum standard that was realistically and knowledgeably negotiated away in exchange for something else that comes outside the parameters of this list. In fact, if the two parties wished to continue that in existing agreements, it would give them the opportunity of renegotiating that before the agreement expired. If either party felt that was not fair and reasonable, they could not conclude an agreement before the expiry of the old one, and then automatically would come under the provisions of this act.
[4:00]
It seems to me to give a balance to the negotiations that went on under other circumstances, and not have those balances or that negotiation that went on under different rules overruled and made retroactive by this act. But if either party felt that they wanted to have the agreement cancelled and the employment standards minimum put in place in their next agreement, it would simply be a matter of not completing the agreement before the expiry of the old one, and then the new rules would apply.
So I ask the minister to consider that amendment. It is quite different from the other amendment in the sense that it gives the parties, if they wish, the opportunity to grandfather the old, and also, if either party doesn't wish that, a very simple solution: having the new rules apply. It would not make retroactive an agreement that was made in the negotiating process to give up some of the minimum standards in exchange for something else before that had expired.
I see the time limit has arrived. I would ask the minister to think about this when we come back.
Hon. M. Sihota: It seems to me there are two things. First, the fact that we've got a provision in there that gives the party six months to get their act together gives them ample opportunity to attend to the problem.
Second, it seems to me that -- on a point of order -- this provision is out of order. Indeed, if the previous amendment was out of order, this goes further than the previous amendment and would really defeat the intention of the section. I'm not going to ask the Chair to
[ Page 8416 ]
rule on it at this time, so the hon. member can have the benefit of having this amendment alive for a bit longer. But I'm confident that it's out of order.
With that said, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
The committee, having reported progess, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading of Bill 71.
HEALTH PROFESSIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. E. Cull: The proposed Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, is the third of three bills that I am introducing this session to improve the governance of health professions in British Columbia. The Health Professions Amendment Act, 1993, and the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, 1993, were previously introduced, and they contained many of the same measures that are included in this bill.
Essentially, the bill makes five common amendments to 14 professions statutes. These amendments are intended to improve the accountability of the self-governing bodies which regulate health professions in British Columbia and to enhance their ability to carry out their mandate more effectively.
The first amendment increases public representation on college boards to a minimum level of one-third. As members know, this is one of the actions committed to in our New Directions strategy to ensure that decisions regarding self-regulating professions are made consistently within the public interest.
The second amendment is the addition of a duty and objects clause. This defines the public interest mandate for all governing bodies that regulate health professions. This is tantamount to a mission statement, and lists a number of objects which the college must seek to achieve in order to fulfil its duty and to protect the public. These objects include the following: to establish, monitor and enforce standards of education, practice and ethics; to provide programs related to patient relations, continuing competency and other matters; and to require registrants to provide access to or information about access to health care records in appropriate circumstances.
The third amendment is a requirement for an annual report to the minister from all colleges and associations at the end of each fiscal year. This is intended to improve the accountability of the self-governing bodies to the government and the public, and will enhance government's ability to supervise the colleges and monitor their effectiveness in carrying out their mandate.
The fourth area of amendment is intended to assist regulatory bodies in their efforts to maintain quality assurance and their ability to investigate complaints from the public regarding incompetent, impaired or unethical practitioners. An inspector for the college may conduct routine inspections of a member's practice without a court order. Furthermore, new search and seizure provisions allow a person, authorized by a board, to apply for a court order, allowing him or her to conduct a search of the member's practice, and to seize any evidence relevant to an allegation of professional misconduct, impairment or incompetence.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
The fifth and final change is the addition of a power to suspend a member from practice prior to a disciplinary hearing. This extraordinary action is sometimes necessary to adequately protect the public from practitioners who may pose an immediate threat to patients.
The regulatory bodies affected by this bill include the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Chiropractors, the College of Dental Surgeons, the College of Psychologists and the Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia.
This bill is an interim measure to address immediate and serious deficiencies in our health professions legislation. As announced when we discussed the other two bills that are related to this and our New Directions strategy, a more comprehensive review of the scopes of practice and legislation for established professions will be conducted by the Health Professions Council commencing in the fall of this year.
In the meantime, these amendments will enhance the ability of health professions to regulate their members more effectively. This legislation clarifies that the overriding responsibility of every college is to act in the public interest. I'm pleased to be able to bring forward these amendments to this legislation at this time.
I just want to make three other remarks before I conclude my second reading statement. One, I want to acknowledge the fact that the opposition critic, who I believe is coaching a friend who is giving birth today, talked to me earlier about this legislation and graciously agreed to our proceeding with second reading debate. She has raised a number of issues related to the other legislation and also has indicated her support for these changes. The second point I would like to make is that this legislation has been extensively discussed with all of the professional bodies that are affected by it, and all of these bodies are in support of the amendments. Finally, I would like to say that because of the issues that have been raised, particularly with respect to sexual misconduct by health professionals, these recommendations and these amendments to the health professions legislation will provide many of the safeguards that the professions and the public have been calling for. They give the regulating bodies more tools to work with to be able to ensure that they can protect the public from all kinds of professional misconduct.
With those comments, I move second reading of this bill.
[ Page 8417 ]
J. Dalton: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, I believe that we no longer have a quorum.
Deputy Speaker: Your point is well taken, hon. member.
The Chair sees that we do have a quorum now, and recognizes the hon. member for Okanagan East.
J. Tyabji: I rise for second reading on Bill 71. As mentioned by the minister, the opposition Health critic couldn't be here. As the minister also mentioned, in principle the opposition is in favour of many of the changes in the bill. We do recognize that there has been extensive consultation prior to the bill being tabled in the House.
The first point that I want to make very strongly, though, is that we're in the last days of the legislative session and we have a bill here that's over 76 pages long, that was only tabled in the House on Monday and that has companion legislation in the same ministry. We've had virtually no time to review it. We've had very little knowledge ahead of time about when the bill was going to come up for debate. We're now in second reading of the bill without, I think, adequate time to canvass the impact of sections of the bill, not just in terms of our own view of how the health care system should be reformed or in terms of the Royal Commission on Health Care, but in terms of each and every group that will be affected by this.
One thing was a little bit tricky. It took a while to realize that several sections of the bill were translated verbatim from every different act affected by this. Fifteen acts will be amended by this bill. In those amendments, we find a consistent approach on two fronts. One is a move to acknowledge through legislation some of the actions that were being taken by people within the professions before. I'll be discussing a little bit later whether or not we agree with the scope of the legislation. But many excellent amendments listed here are long overdue in terms of freeing people within the professions, giving them some comfort in knowing that the actions they're taking from their perspective to advance either their profession or the public interest have legislative support.
The second tendency we see throughout this bill is the same one we see throughout this government: ministerial appointments who report back to the minister and a centralized control of the process. As I said, there are 15 acts regulating health care professions. In each one of these, the minister will be appointing no less than one-third, and in some cases just over one-third, of the people on the governing body. That's a concern. Time is of the essence here, and I didn't know until a few hours ago that I was going to be the lead critic on this. But having reviewed this and talked to some of the people who had input into the preliminary consultation on the bill, the one comment that came forward was that they did not advocate the minister appointing one-third, or in some cases more than one-third, of the governing body. In fact, I understand that in one case a selection process was brought forward with the recommendation that the minister approve that selection process for public representation. The minister is saying that this bill is consistent with the more open style of health care that allows for public representation. That's only partially true. Although there will be members of these governing bodies who are not from the professions, those members will be appointed by the minister. So it's not as if there's going to be some wide-ranging, non-partisan public process. Quite the contrary. Notwithstanding the recommendations of the people who will be governed by the governing bodies that a public process be followed, perhaps with ministerial veto or the minister having to approve the process, we find that the minister is appointing the members.
It's very difficult to go through this volume of legislation in adequate detail in so little time. But we note that under the amendments to the Nurses (Licensed Practical) Act, the minister had an opportunity to change a very archaic ministerial interference in the governing body. It says: "...4 members must be nominated by the minister, and the minister must designate one of them to be chair and another to be vice chair." In that case, both the chair and the vice-chair of the governing body for the licensed practical nurses are people handpicked by the minister; and on that governing body of 12, four of them, or one-third, are chosen by the minister. That's hardly a public process that we can have some comfort is at arm's length from the ministry.
[4:15]
So the intent of the bill, I think, as the minister has expressed, is twofold: one, to allow some freedom for the professional bodies to act in a manner in which to some extent they've acted before without legislative support; and two, to allow public representation on the governing bodies. That's the minister's perspective. As opposition, we have a problem that the public representation is going to be directly tied to the office of the minister. That's centralized and much more autocratic than it could have been. There was definitely a choice, in that the one-third representation of the public could easily have been through a wide-ranging selection process that went throughout the province and allowed for public input and for the governing body's membership to select which people from that public selection would be on their own governing board, with either the minister selecting the process or the minister vetoing the selection because of whatever the minister's reasons would be.
The other thing that I note here.... We have had some interesting debates, particularly this session, on the mind-set of a government that allows for wide-spread abrogation of individual rights -- expropriation and rights of search and seizure without appeal or an accountability process. I'd like to point to the section.... As I say, there are eight sections of this bill that repeat themselves through all 15 acts that have been amended, so you have these same eight elements. The only thing that is different is the composition of the governing body by profession. Out of these eight sections that are repeated, we find in section 6, section 9.2(1), the powers and the duties of inspectors appointed by the governing body: "...an inspector may investigate, inquire into, inspect, observe or examine
[ Page 8418 ]
one or more of the following without a court order" -- and we understand that in extraordinary circumstances we might, and I say "might" because it would really depend on the circumstances, allow that kind of leeway to the inspector -- "(a) the premises, the equipment and the materials used by a member to practise...(b) the records of the member relating to the member's practice of chiropractic and copy the records; (c) the practice...performed by or under the supervision of the member." These are things that an inspector can by discretion go in and inspect without a court order.
Although we recognize that to some extent there has been a need to do that before, there is no accountability the way it is shown. When we look further under the powers and duties of inspectors, we see that the board may direct an inspector to perform those functions, and that in the event of the board directing the inspector, the inspector must report in writing to the board what the findings are. But in the first instance, where the inspector can on his or her own discretion go in, copy records and basically examine the premises, equipment and materials, and inspect, observe or examine the practice of this member, which are huge powers, there is no accountability. Nowhere in here does it say that on completion of the exercising of the powers and duties of the inspector, the inspector must then submit a written report to the board, and in the event that the board finds those reasons questionable, the board then goes to the minister. Somewhere there has to be an accountability process. Notwithstanding that, there should be some reporting of the inspector's actions to the general membership. We find here that we have the governing body in a position to appoint an inspector with a wide range of powers and duties that the inspector can follow up on, with no accountability and no reporting-back process. If there were a provision for an automatic report that the inspector would present to the board for presentation at the annual general meeting of the membership, then we would say okay, now we have some accountability.
Although we recognize that in a large majority of cases there will be no need for this and that inspectors will act responsibly, we should always allow for the chance that this might be -- not necessarily wilfully -- abused, that there could be an opportunity or circumstance where those powers and duties are used without justification; and when that happens, there should be a reporting process. We don't expect that the minister or the minister's staff could possibly monitor all the times when the powers and duties of inspectors would be used in all 15 of these statutes that are being amended.
We see that they have search and seizure under court order, which is very interesting. I'd like to canvass that more in committee stage. Although yes, we have to go to the Supreme Court, and we have all these provisions in here of all the different justifications for going to the Supreme Court, we know that there is going to be some litigation cost involved in going to the Supreme Court for some kind of ruling. Widespread powers are given in the section on search and seizure, which is another of the eight things that are repeated throughout the bill. This bill lists many things that are justification for the Supreme Court to provide an order. For example, the Supreme Court can provide a court order to exercise widespread powers of search and seizure in the event that a person who is a member "is suffering from a physical or mental ailment, an emotional disturbance or an addiction to alcohol or drugs that impairs the person's ability to practise chiropractic." That's a subjective paragraph. Who decides what an emotional disturbance is? It's interesting to note in that provision that it's not "and" that's being used, it's "or." The different reasons why the Supreme Court could provide an order for search and seizure in terms of a member of this professional body can be separated out.
It says here: "...enter into the premises or onto the land of the person named in the order at any reasonable time and conduct an inspection, examination or analysis, (b) to require the production of any record, property, assets or things" -- that's pretty wide -- "and to inspect, examine or analyze them, and (c) on giving a receipt, to seize and remove any record, property, assets or things inspected, examined or analyzed...for further inspection, examination or analysis." What is that? A chair? I don't know. It's not exactly what we would call tight legislation. So we've got sweeping search and seizure by court order. It has to go to the Supreme Court, and the justification that the Supreme Court will be looking at in providing that order includes, if we separate it out, someone suffering from an emotional disturbance. That's something we might want to tighten up.
How can we adequately canvass the parameters of the interpretation of that section when the bill was just introduced on Monday? And as we know, it's not as if this is the only bill on the order paper. I hate to quote from the media, but the term "landslide of legislation" is very appropriate. This is part of the landslide, and it's a big boulder. We can't possibly canvass the implications of these sections adequately, and I do have a problem with a person's rights being revoked in a manner that might allow for any kind of arbitrariness. The fact that one of the five reasons given for providing a court order is something as potentially trivial, in terms of discretion, as an emotional disturbance is a problem. It's unfortunate that we don't have more time to go over this.
The interesting thing, again, is that we know that the bill has tried very hard to say that those things that have fallen under the court order for search and seizure should be given back as soon as possible, and the judge of the Supreme Court will try to make sure that they get back to the person who has been inconvenienced or affected, I guess you could say, by the search and seizure provisions. But it still might not apply. Even though property is being searched and seized potentially in a discretionary way and there are provisions for that to be returned immediately, in the next section we say that if there's a judgment that this shouldn't be followed, then just ignore it. That could be a problem.
I do have a hard time doing this. It was only about three hours ago that I knew I would be speaking to this bill. There's no way anyone can give due consideration to legislation of this magnitude. We are dealing with legislation that amends 15 different statutes on the health care professions. Surely the minister, who spent
[ Page 8419 ]
so much time in the consultation leading up to this bill, wants due consideration of the legislation. In that case, I wonder why we haven't had a little bit more time, considering we have so many bills languishing on the order papers that have been there for a little while.
When we get to the eighth section that repeats.... As I say, we've got these big chunks, and under each of the 15 statutes we have repetitions. The only thing that really changes is the designation of the governing body, whether that be a board, council or college. When we get to the eighth part, which is called "Extraordinary action to protect public," there is no appeal process that I can see, except through litigation. Litigation is generally beyond the means of the average person, although we might argue that people in the professional field have more money than those who are below the poverty line. I don't know that we want to argue that. In my mind, whenever there's an opportunity to bypass litigation, we should take it. I think it's unfortunate that the only appeal provision is to the Supreme Court, because I think that's going to result in some extra cost.
There doesn't seem to be an adequate process for determination -- for example, when the board determines that the extraordinary action taken to protect the public can be lifted. The reason I say that is that things are laid out in this section: here are the extraordinary actions that can be taken to protect the public. It says: "If the board considers the action necessary to protect the public during the investigation of a registrant or pending a hearing of the board, it may (a) set limits or conditions on the practice...or (b) suspend the registration...." In the event that the public safety is at risk -- and I'm sure the minister has all kinds of specific examples -- that seems fair. However, when you go down to subsection (4) you see: "If the board determines that action taken under subsection (1) is no longer necessary to protect the public, it must cancel the limits, conditions or suspension and must notify the registrant in writing of this as soon as possible." I should say as well that the decision to suspend is not in effect until the member has been notified or until three days after the notice has been sent out, which is good. But in this case, there doesn't seem to be a process of determination, unless there are regulations that accompany the bill, which I don't see any sign of; and we'll get back to the definitions a little bit later.
Because there's not really a process of determination, it seems like you've got 15 different governing bodies who are left with a large discretionary avenue for determining when.... It's sometimes easier to determine when public safety may be at risk, and we would always want to err on the side of caution. But in the event of a situation where a member of a profession has had their professional duties stripped by the board, I think we would want to have some set of guidelines to whatever governing body it is, saying these are the guidelines by which, as soon as there is a reasonable determination that there is no longer justification to take extraordinary action, it would be lifted immediately, so that it's not left in a situation where the board has taken the action and then gets busy doing something else or in the course of business doesn't review it, and we have some poor person out there who has had their practice restricted and at the point that they no longer constitute a threat to public safety are still in a position where their rights have been abrogated by a board that has discretionary power in terms of re-establishing those rights.
[4:30]
Whenever any kind of extraordinary action is taken, I think you want an automatic accounting process to the ministry or somewhere else. I think you want to make sure that those governing bodies are going to be accountable not just through the legal system and through the litigation process. In some way -- whether it be through the ombudsman's office or through the Attorney General's office -- I think there should be some objective body that would then be on the receiving end of just a simple reporting process, so that we don't have the ability for extraordinary actions to be taken without the knowledge of some senior branch of government that might say: "Just a minute, we think this has overstepped the line."
We've seen this kind of legislation come out repeatedly through the Attorney General's and the Minister of Environment's offices throughout the session. So we do see that there's a real pattern developing here; it's sort of a benevolent dictatorship, if you will: "We know we're doing the right thing." Actually, I should say the most glaring example was Bill 33. We have the mind-set of the government coming out in this and other legislation that says: "We know best, and therefore we will do this legislation because we're in government. And we'll make sure that nobody steps over any lines, because if they do, as the Attorney General said,'Well, the media will catch us in the hallway and then we'll take care of it through the public relations process'" -- which the opposition doesn't find suitable.
I think a few definitions are lacking -- from my reading of it; I have to say again that my reading of this is just a couple of hours of work -- so in her closing comments the minister might want to address this. Several things come up a number of times in the 15 different sets of amendments. One is the overriding concern to protect the public, in terms of the public interest. I don't see a definition of public interest in the bill. Maybe that's coming with guidelines -- I don't know. But to me, if there isn't a definition of public interest for the purposes of this bill, then I think there's a problem.
The other thing that comes up a number of times, in terms of the governing boards having certain objectives, is "unethical practice." What constitutes unethical practice has to be determined by those bodies -- by the membership. I'm not sure if it's in this bill or accompanying guidelines, or if the minister is going to be overseeing this, but many professional bodies do have their own code of ethics. It's not clear in this bill whether or not the code of ethics of those professional bodies is assumed to be the code of ethics to which unethical practices is making reference, or whether.... The minister is saying yes, it is. I think it would be useful for the purpose of the bill, considering that we've got 15 different statutes -- and perhaps they're in the
[ Page 8420 ]
source bills; I haven't gotten through all of those yet -- that the code of ethics of that professional body will be paramount. But to me that isn't made clear here.
I'll be very curious, when we get to committee stage.... When we talk about professional misconduct and appropriate circumstances, that's another thing I'm not sure who determines. For example, there are ten things that any of these 15 governing bodies are under obligation to follow through on. We have something like: "...to require registrants to provide to an individual with access to the individual's health care records in appropriate circumstances." I don't see appropriate circumstances defined. I don't see who's going to be setting that definition and whether it will be the minister, the minister's office or that governing body deciding what the appropriate circumstances are. If the governing body is setting its own code of ethics and appropriate circumstances, is there some kind of review or appeal process to ensure there's some kind of consistency? I'm not sure.
I think the big difference between this bill and what the opposition would have brought in is the fact that the opposition believe that the answers to our problems lie with the public. So we allow the public to come forward in the decision-making process, and government monitors that and safeguards the general public interest. But government doesn't drive the process of solving the problem, the public does. The only role of the government is that when the public process comes through with decisions and solutions, government ensures that those are reasonable, fair solutions that can be implemented in a reasonable manner. To me that is the fundamental difference.
This bill puts enormous control over all 15 governing bodies into the hands of the minister. We have one-third of the representation directly appointed by the minister. We don't know to what extent the governing bodies will have input regarding those members. Although there are fixed terms of office for those representatives elected to the governing body, in my reading of the bill I haven't seen any fixed terms for the appointments by the minister. In the absence of fixed terms for appointees, it seems to me that there's a real opportunity for those people to become the controlling members of the governing body. Under the section that deals with optometrists -- that's hidden on page 55 of this deluge of legislation here -- we see that the section talking about the composition of the governing bodies says: "The minister may appoint 3 persons who are not optometrists to be members of the board." Then it says: "There must be 6 optometrists elected to the board under the bylaws for a term of 3 years." So those that are elected have a fixed term of three years. But I don't see a defined term for the appointments that the minister is going to have. In the absence of a defined term, we can imagine a situation where one-third of the board has been around for awhile -- let's say they've been on for five or six years -- and six new ones come in. It's obvious that the advantage is going to be with those who've been on the board longer. To me that is unfortunate, because those people who have been appointed without fixed terms are not members of the general public; they're direct ministerial appointments. That is unfortunate because it would be useful for those professions to be able to canvass from the public lists, or whatever the minister deems acceptable. Then we could debate the process. At least we would have a public process that would be a lot more advantageous to the operation of the profession than having the minister move in and centralize control by having people appointed.
Some of it gets a little bit outrageous in terms of ensuring that the minister has the one-third representation. For example, when we talk about the sections that deal with registered physiotherapists, massage practitioners and chartered physiotherapists.... I should say at this point that the one thing that is really good about this bill is that it recognizes many more professions than before, and it's about time.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I don't know that it's recognized. In this one we've got the definition of profession being enlarged.
Hon. E. Cull: They're all recognized now, legally.
J. Tyabji: The minister is saying that they're all recognized legally. What I'm trying to say is that in the statutes we've got enlargements of the definitions of the professions in each section. From my reading of it, that gives the denturists, massage therapists and others more protection under the legislation.
Hon. E. Cull: No.
J. Tyabji: The minister says no. Okay. That's funny, because in my riding I've been canvassed by denturists and massage therapists who've been saying that they wanted to be included in the definitions of professions under the statutes as they exist. And my reading of it is that that's what they've finally gotten.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister says no. Well, then, I guess I'll have to go back to....
The point I was getting to is that the governing body under the Physiotherapists Act, one of the later statutes dealt with here.... We have a Council of Physiotherapists and Massage Practitioners composed of two persons elected by members of the chartered physiotherapists' association under part 1, two persons for the registered physiotherapists under part 2 and two persons under part 3, which is the massage section. Three persons are appointed by the minister. When you go through it further to see the constitution of it, you see that with the chartered physiotherapists you want to make sure one of the three is....
Hon. Speaker, I'm the designated speaker for the bill -- I notice that the green light is on.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please continue.
[ Page 8421 ]
J. Tyabji: As I was saying, for the chartered physiotherapists we see the members of the council elected under subsection (1), where two persons are elected, and one is appointed by the minister; in the second one, registered physiotherapists, two members are elected under subsection (1), plus the one appointed by the minister; and under the massage section, two are elected, and one is appointed by the minister. So the drafting of the bill is ensuring that it's not good enough to have three of the nine appointed by the minister; it has to be one for each of these three sections.
I can't find it right now, but there is also a section that determines the composition of that governing body: some of them have to be from outside the lower mainland. I thought that was interesting. I haven't had enough time to research what the representation by that profession was, but I would assume that if the profession wanted to ensure they had a governing body representative of areas outside the lower mainland, they would do it through their annual general meeting -- or when they made recommendations to the minister for appointments to the council. So I thought it was interesting to see that even that had been legislated. There's not going to be any allowance for too many people from the lower mainland to be represented on that governing body.
Under the Nurses (Registered Psychiatric) Act, we see some interesting changes to the composition of the board. Officers and directors are elected and comprise two-thirds of the board; and persons appointed by the minister comprise the other one-third -- or in this case it could be more than one-third, if it turns out that the nearest whole number is over one-third and doesn't divide. Then it says: "The board, if authorized under the bylaws, may appoint (a) a person to fill a vacancy..." or "no more than 2 non-members of the association or one student member of the association in substitution for members elected under subsection (1)(a)." It's interesting that that has been added; it's very different. The way in which they can do that is a departure from the other governing bodies. The board has the ability to appoint instead of elect. I'm sure we can get into that in a little more detail in committee stage.
That more or less sums up some concerns that we have. The bottom line is that it's very unfortunate to have something of this magnitude come forward with so little time. Given that fact, there's no way on earth that we could know the implications of these things for all the different professional bodies being affected. That's unfortunate.
We have a problem with the lack of accountability in the reporting process, when powers that are given are being exercised. We don't have a problem with the powers being given, because we recognize that sometimes there are circumstances where that's necessary, but there should be an accounting process. There should be an automatic process and an appeal process other than litigation -- something that's less expensive than litigation for people who have been subject to extraordinary action because of public safety concerns.
With that, I look forward to committee stage of the bill.
G. Wilson: I'm pleased to take my position in debate on Bill 71. If ever there was a bill that needs a committee stage, this is the one. Clearly the intention of second reading is to discuss in principle what the government is putting forward with respect to a particular bill. A bill of this magnitude and size -- it is 77 pages long -- has clauses that affect 15 different groups within the province. It talks about various rules and regulations that will apply to self-governance and self-administration of 15 health care professionals' associations. We are clearly going to have to look at the detail and specifics of this bill carefully in committee stage.
I found it interesting that, with the remarks put forward by my colleague for Okanagan East, second reading almost became committee stage -- with direct intervention and interaction from the minister, almost bypassing the Chair, to exchange views and ideas on what was intended and what was and wasn't meant.
I don't intend to take a long time on my comments in second reading, because this bill is clearly one that is looking after the interests and objectives of health care professions in this province. It does establish, without doubt, a regulatory authority. Within that regulatory authority it does provide that one-third of the members are not members of the professions that must be regulated under this act. Philosophically, in principle, I think we would agree that that is a desired factor. It does require some reporting of these agencies to government. I tend to agree with the analysis raised by the member for Okanagan East with respect to the enhancement of powers of each of the regulatory authorities. I think that they are substantial in some instances, especially with respect to the investigation of practice by members within their profession and the empowerment that is given with respect to those members where, in appropriate circumstances, there is an opportunity to impose limits on the practice of a member of the profession pending the hearings that may take place as a result of some form of charge being laid or brought against one of those members.
[4:45]
In principle, it's hard not to support this bill. I think all of us would like to see a greater degree of authority in the provision of regulatory and investigative powers being given to the 15 health care professions, to provide an opportunity for them to have some form of control over.... I don't like the term "policing," but there's certainly some kind of assessment, review and evaluation -- a better term -- of the individuals who make up the professions.
In principle, I think we can support this bill, and having had an opportunity -- as brief as it has been, given that this bill was only tabled a few days ago, and it's a substantial bill.... In the last two days, we have had an opportunity to talk with many of the health care professions. Quite clearly, we found there was an opportunity for those professions to have had input into this bill. To that extent I think we can support it.
We do have concerns, and those concerns were clearly articulated in the comments by the member for Okanagan East. I think we need to serve notice to the minister -- as I understand we are going to try to
[ Page 8422 ]
conclude this portion of the debate by 5 o'clock -- that we require a relatively extended block of time for Bill 71 in order to go through the detail of this in committee stage. To us on this side of the House, many aspects of this bill are not clear and we need clarification.
In principle, we can support it. We believe the bill has been drafted with considerable consultation, and to that extent we are supportive of the government's action. We do, however, believe that it would be nice, now that the bill is before us, if there were a longer period of time given for reflection and review, and for reconsultation with the various health care professional agencies in order for them to make sure that what is included in this bill is what they thought they were asking for when their submissions were made. With that, I would take my seat and look forward to committee stage on this bill.
L. Fox: I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill 71, the Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.
In her opening statements, the minister suggested that this had received considerable consultation and that it was supported by all the associations contained within the act. That's partially true, but it is my understanding that while there has been consultation with all of these associations, the consultation was a very speedy process, it was not in depth and it did not reflect all of the concerns of the respective associations. Bill 71 was never intended to come before this sitting of the Legislature. It's only because of the delay and the fact that the Legislature is still sitting that we see this bill. It was sped up by the minister because she saw an opportunity to bring this in during this session instead of a later session. But when this was initially drafted, it was not intended for this session at all. What bothers me substantially about the 77 pages of legislation, with 66 clauses, that is before us is that it was introduced two days ago in the House, and here we are today speaking on second reading.
In the minister's opening statement, she more or less led us to believe that this was an initiative by all of these associations. I know that the minister was lobbied by some associations for this legislation, but that is not true of them all. Let's not pretend that this is an initiative of all 15 associations. This is an initiative of the minister. There's nothing at all wrong with the minister seeing an opportunity to bring forth legislation to improve the operation and regulation of colleges. That in itself is commendable. But we shouldn't try to suggest that this is an initiative of all the associations; it's not.
I personally have no difficulty with laypeople being placed on boards. It serves the public's best interests to have that. But many of the concerns of some of these associations are around that aspect. They have asked the minister that those particular board members who are appointed be phased in; it should not be an abrupt change -- although I recognize that clause 65 is a transitional clause. In reading the transitional clause, I can only hope that is reflects the fact that there will be a phased-in transition and an opportunity for communication between those respective associations and the minister in setting up that transitional period. The clause appears to say that, but given the limited time we have had to research this, I haven't been able to get a legal opinion as to whether or not my suspicions are correct.
That's one of the problems. This legislation deserves good opposition, but when you bring in the number of bills that this government has in the last four weeks, there's no way an opposition can come forward in two days and give a good, honest critique or constructive criticism of a bill of this size. So what happens during these debates is that we try to presume what clauses mean; we try, in our own capabilities, to understand what the intent of the legislation is; and we get into a situation where we're not constructive. The opposition ends up trying to figure it out, because it hasn't had the opportunity to consume everything within this legislation. We end up trying to figure out what clauses mean as we stand, rather than having the opportunity to do the research necessary to give good, constructive criticism.
One of the reasons why I suggest that Bill 71 was not intended for this sitting is that it impacts back on Bill 55. I suspect that we will have to see some amendments to harmonize Bill 55 with Bill 71, because there's an overlap there. I perceive that there will be a need to amend Bill 55 during committee stage, and we only had second reading yesterday or today. I'm not sure now which day it was; so many different pieces of legislation have come before this House in an ad hoc way that it's very difficult to remember what day you debated which bill. In any case, in reading both of these bills I perceive that there will be a need to amend 55 to harmonize it with 71.
There's no question in my mind that this was rushed through. It was not intended for this sitting of the Legislature, but the minister seized on an opportunity to force it through in a way that we've seen with all kinds of legislation that has been brought into the House. Last night the Forests minister caused the Speaker extreme difficulty because of his arrogance in trying to call second reading on an act that was not agreed to before the evening sitting. The people of British Columbia deserve more than this. They deserve more than having 77 pages of legislation laid on the table two days before second reading stage, which prohibits both opposition parties from looking at it in a constructive way and from giving their thoughts in a constructive way and looking at amendments to help what the minister is intending to do.
Because of the haste of this legislation, the minister is, I'm sure, going to bring in many amendments at committee stage. She had this drafted in such haste that it will be like many other bills that have been tabled in this House -- full of error and problems concerning the flow from one act to another. I'm sure we'll see amendments in the same light that we've seen amendments to many other bills. In principle the Social Credit Party will support the bill. I have no problems with the principle of the bill, but I certainly have problems with the process and also with the arrogance with which this government treats the opposition, and therefore the people of British Columbia, by forcing legislation to come to second reading two days after it is tabled in the Legislature.
[ Page 8423 ]
Hon. E. Cull: Both of the opposition critics have spoken about the shortness of the time between first reading and second reading. I acknowledge that it has been a very short period of time, and I'm just going to take a second to explain why.
Originally, this bill was intended to come forward next week. As a result of discussions that took place this morning between the critics and myself around personal needs related to the opposition critic and her commitment to a woman who is giving birth today, and other commitments in timing, we decided to switch committee stage bills that had been set up for this evening and replace them with second reading bills that we thought we would do this morning. These things happen. It's part of the give and take in this place, and I think all members have to recognize that.
The other thing that we need to acknowledge is that while the bill is 70 pages long, the same seven or eight amendments are made to 15 acts. I want to talk a little bit about that. Fifteen different acts cover health professions in this province, including one omnibus act, the Health Professions Act. One of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs was that we eliminate all of these separate acts and come up with one large umbrella act to cover all health professions in the province. The health professions told us: "Please don't do that. Please preserve the unique qualities of our acts." The member who was speaking on behalf of the opposition critic pointed to a lot of things that appeared to be peculiarities in particular acts. Why was there this geographic breakdown for this area? Why was there a structured council there? That's because these acts have some history. The professions came into being at different times with different needs, and they are reflected in their legislation. We could have accepted the recommendation of the royal commission, eliminated all of those and come up with one homogeneous health professions act. But the professions themselves said: "There are some valuable things in our legislation; our historical identity is in that legislation. Please don't change it." For that reason, we didn't.
[5:00]
The member for Prince George-Omineca has just been talking about whether this act was ever intended to come in at this point or not and about its relationship to the Health Professions Amendment Act, which is also in front of this House. I have to assure him that the Health Professions Act, which is the other bill that we debated yesterday, deals with that omnibus act that exists right now to bring into place new professions. All of the provisions that are in there are intended to enhance the powers of the council. They don't overlap with this legislation, which is intended to make sure that the colleges, once they're set up, have a similar set of powers.
If the member recalls the debate we had yesterday on the Health Professions Amendment Act, he knows that one of the reasons we're expanding the Health Professions Council is so that they can do a full review of all of these 15 statutes and the scopes of practice covering health professionals. That is going to take some time to do; in fact, we need to get the other act through so we have some additional bodies to do the work. We're going to commence that work this fall.
But some pressing issues have grown particularly over the last number of months that members of the opposition have called to be dealt with: specifically, physician sexual misconduct, but not only misconduct in that area and not only in that profession. The existing legislation lacks some tools. We had a choice of continuing with the inadequate legislation for another year, despite public concern about these issues, or making some amendments now that seem to have the full support of the professions and give them the tools to do what they have to do.
I want to just touch on a couple of points, although I do certainly agree with the comments made by the opposition that this bill deserves good evaluation and scrutiny during committee stage. Because it's technical and complex and it amends 15 acts, committee stage is the obvious place to do it.
There was quite a bit of discussion about the selection process for public appointees. We reject the suggestion that the professional bodies should somehow be involved themselves in choosing these people or nominating the list of people. Public appointees have to be lay appointees. They have to be separate from the professional people and shouldn't be selected by them. Otherwise they would probably be subject to the same cynicism as the public has about the professionals themselves when it comes to self-regulation.
But I'd like to point out to the members that in the last 18 months a number of boards or councils have been appointed under this minister, such as the Seniors' Advisory Council, under legislation established by the former government giving the Minister of Health sole authority to appoint all its members. We could have done what your government did the last time around and just appointed people without having done any kind of review. Instead, we said to the council itself: "Go out, work with the seniors in the communities, come up with a list of nominations, and the minister will appoint them." The Vernon Jubilee Hospital board is another example, where we canvassed every major group in the community and said: "Give us some names, and we will appoint them." The AIDS secretariat is being appointed this week from a list of nominees from that sector. There's the Capital Health Council. Yes, the Capital Health Council here in Victoria has been appointed by the minister. But what was the process we used to do that? We asked the founding members of the Greater Victoria Hospital Society and the Capital Regional District to undertake a public process to elicit nominees from their community, which they then put forward to me for appointment. There are ways of ensuring that ministerial or cabinet appointments are done in a way that does involve the public, and I think that my record on this speaks for itself.
The member of the official opposition who is filling in for the critic made a number of specific comments that I'm not going to get into. I would like to point out to her that these are amendments to existing acts. When she is concerned about search and seizure amendments, she has to go back to the original legislation and see
[ Page 8424 ]
what was there. Many of these provisions are simply repeated from the existing provisions. The comments about alcohol addiction and mental ailments, etc., are the same, and I think that all speaks for itself.
With respect to the extraordinary powers and there being no appeal except through litigation, that is precisely what people have been asking for, because when things were appealed back through a professional body, it was taking too long to get some of these things heard, and people were concerned. The public was concerned that some health care practitioners were continuing to practice while tying up the process endlessly through the internal appeal processes of the professional regulating bodies.
There was a comment about accountability. I found a puzzling contradiction in some of the comments that were made that this was centralizing all of the power with the minister, but they wanted the minister to have more power over certain things. These are self-regulating bodies, and we have to remember that that's the whole purpose of them. If we want to question self-regulation for health professions, we may want to have that debate at some point. But right now, we have accepted the principle that these bodies are regulating themselves in the public interest. We have to give them the authority to act, not to have everything checked by the Minister of Health before they can go ahead and exercise their powers.
As members know, the ombudsman will have responsibility for professional bodies in the fall, which will probably be about the time that these amendments come fully into place, and members of the public who are not satisfied with the operation of the college -- despite the fact that they will have greater public representation -- will also have the ability to deal directly with the ombudsman.
Hon. Speaker, I know that there is going to be a lot more discussion during committee stage, and I assume that by that point the opposition will have had time to do its homework. I would like to now move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 71, Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6 p.m. and that it sit later tonight.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:09 p.m
The House resumed at 6:05 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee stage on Bill 65, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1993.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 65; F. Garden in the chair.
On section 3 as amended (continued).
L. Hanson: I just know that after the minister has had the opportunity of a two-hour break and a chance to have a little dinner, he will accept the amendment that was put forward just before recess. More seriously, I know that in a moment the minister will give us his opinion as to the amendment that is before us.
I guess the largest difficulty that we have with this section of the act is the fact of a government -- which supports the principle of collective bargaining to the point where they are adamant that that process should be honoured and respected -- bringing in an act that arbitrarily would change the duly negotiated agreement under our rules as they are today, without giving the partners to that agreement either the opportunity to express themselves through renegotiation or at least the opportunity for that agreement to play out until termination.
It seems to me that I have heard this government, and this minister in particular, argue quite vehemently and vocally about retroactivity under any circumstances that we bring forward. When our positions were changed and they were in opposition, it was a major concern of the NDP. If there was any suggestion of retroactivity in the legislation, it was considered unfair foul play that should not happen. I submit that that's what this section would do if it were not amended. The sanctity of agreements that were reached during due process is with this act being challenged -- in fact, legally being changed -- not at the request of either party or of the two parties but at the request of the government, for a reason that has some lack of credibility, I believe, in the public's eye.
The minister has suggested that the whole intent of the bill -- I don't want to go into second reading, although I sometimes think I wouldn't mind going back to second reading -- is to infringe on the bargaining process that the minister and his government feel has been unfair in isolated instances. The process has worked quite well in just about every instance, but in the opinion of the government, because of a couple of what they call rat unions, they have to bring this in.
I submitted the amendment on the basis that, if nothing else, it would at least let those agreements that were in place prior to this bill coming forward play out for the length of the contracts. As well, it would give the parties the opportunity for continuation of those if they should mutually agree, and either party would have the opportunity of not reaching a new agreement before the expiration of the other one, which would automatically bring this into play.
[ Page 8425 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I welcome you to the chair first. It's a pleasure to see you here.
Secondly, I would be quite happy to accept the amendment if I agreed with it and if it was in order. I don't agree with it, for the reasons I think I've already outlined. Nor do I consider it to be in order, hon. Chair. I was speaking prior to you occupying the chair. The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove had introduced an amendment which partially sought to do what this amendment does. It was deemed to be out of order as being wholly inconsistent with the act; I appealed to the Chair to rule that amendment out of order. And I'm making the same appeal to you, in the sense that this amendment is inconsistent entirely and would undermine the intent of the section, which goes to the very heart of the legislation.
The Chair: I tend to agree with the minister on his points raised on the question of order. In so doing, I rule the amendment out of order.
The discussion now will be on section 3 as amended.
G. Farrell-Collins: Through listening to the debate between the minister and the member for Okanagan-Vernon, and from some of the comments between the minister and myself earlier in the day, I have to ask the question about the way this section of the bill is drafted, and I guess the intent of what the minister is trying to achieve in this section.
[6:15]
It would seem to me, given the discussions we've had on the hope and need for flexibility -- certainly from second reading and the minister's comments earlier -- that he wanted to keep somewhat with the labour relations culture of this province that allowed for variances, but not deal with ones that, as the words say here, "when considered together" lower the collective agreement below the employment standards. The minister is allowing the two parties to use this as guidance to come back and renegotiate those collective agreements to bring them up to these standards. It also allows the director to intercede in certain cases to correct those deficiencies that the minister highlights. If these two parties are able to fix up their collective agreements within the requirements of column 1 and column 2 within the various parts, and if the director is able to do the same, and we're putting the trust in those three different parties to interpret the three words "when considered together," I wonder why it is necessary to split it into parts. Couldn't those same people come to those same conclusions with the guidance of the director and do that negotiation and work through the process, or have the director intervene in the process to make those determinations on a wider basis? Why is it, if we consider those groups capable to work within the part, that we don't consider them capable to work within the act as a whole?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think that's easily done. That's the simple answer. I don't mean to be flippant about it, but I just don't think that's easily done. Within a part, it's a lot easier to assess whether or not it has occurred. But to eliminate the parts and do the act as an entirety is asking too much, and it brings into the equation a higher degree of subjectivity than is warranted.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to belabour the point. I just think it's worth highlighting and noting that I disagree with the minister. If we're assuming, if we're making the decision, that these parties are capable of doing this and that the collective bargaining dispute-resolution mechanism is able to implement changes within each part or that the director is able to do that, I don't think we're increasing the subjectivity that much. We have taken a great leap to give the director that ability, and the next little step isn't that big a step, but it certainly allows for greater flexibility and still achieves the things that the minister is trying to achieve with the bill.
As I said earlier, I think the drawing of the lines that separate these parts is very arbitrary. It's sort of a halfway attempt to hit some middle ground, and I think it's been done in a very arbitrary manner. I think it would be best to leave it up to the parties to make those determinations and to set those standards with the guidance of the director that the minister is establishing with the act. I think most people would probably agree with that also. If we're going to allow them to do it to one extent, why can't we let them do it on a broader level? I would encourage the minister to consider that and to make those changes if necessary.
H. De Jong: In dealing with this particular section, I'm sure everyone in this House, and in particular members on the government side, has in the past stood up to talk at length about individual rights. At the conclusion of a collective agreement, the individual's right is to vote to accept what a collective agreement means and what it does. So we have a collective decision made by individuals who were given a right to vote for or against that contract. It is rather difficult for me to understand how a government and a minister can speak about those individual rights as being so important and then with this bill and this particular section overrule the decisions made collectively by individuals.
The question is really not whether the matters are of a substantive nature in terms of the conditions of the Labour Code. The issue here is the government's involvement and the government's initiative to overturn decisions made collectively by individuals. This is a situation where the minister is even prepared to do that. It's very difficult to understand. It makes me think back to the days of World War II, when people in occupied countries said collectively to whoever was ruling over them: "We are not accepting this." Surely we haven't got a situation here as high-handed as we experienced during 1944 and '45. If we have, then this will not create labour peace, as the minister talked about; it will create labour unrest. Conditions may be agreed to that are less than is accepted under the Labour Code, but obviously in some cases there are offsetting things, such as were mentioned earlier this afternoon. Yet this minister is prepared to proceed with a bill that is, to say the least, very undemocratic, particularly this
[ Page 8426 ]
section. The democratic process worked at the time of the collective agreement.
If the minister wishes to change this act and says that they will inform the parties as to the next agreement to be negotiated, then of course both parties could work towards that end. But to high-handedly use this approach goes far beyond democracy, I believe, and surely is against the individual right of every Canadian to vote for or against a collective agreement.
Hon. M. Sihota: We have a society in which we pass laws and in which we state what the law is. We don't expect people in our society to sign contracts that are different than the law and, in the case of this legislation, to sign contracts that provide people with less than the minimum working conditions established by law. We don't say it's acceptable in our society -- albeit we establish a minimum wage -- that people can sign a contract for something less than the minimum wage. If people sign contracts that are less than the provisions of the Employment Standards Act for overtime, vacation or severance, I don't think we should tolerate that. Either this Legislature, democratically elected, establishes the law and says what it is and we don't allow people to contract out of it, or we are not fulfilling our requirement as legislators to ensure that there is balance in society; that everybody works in the same playing field; that all employers provide the same level of overtime; and that we don't get into this kind of perverted race to the bottom where we try to reduce the wages and working conditions of men and women, so that we pay them as little as we possibly can while we engage their services.
So there are minimum standards we establish in law. We are simply saying that if there are agreements, freely negotiated or not, parties have six months to clean them up and then comply with the law. Actually, they can have up to nine months to clean them up, if they agree to extend that time period. But that's it. That's a lot of time.
H. De Jong: I am appalled at how the minister approaches this situation. He says to comply with the law. Well, those laws were also created by the Legislature. Surely the minister isn't saying that once a law is written it has to be maintained and it cannot be changed. It would be one way to change the law so that these changes within collective agreements -- the inadequacies, as the minister calls them -- could be accommodated. What the minister is really saying in answer to my first statement is that it is more important to adhere to the law than to allow individuals to vote for something that may not adhere exactly to the law. At the same time, it's not doing any damage to anything other than the law, which was written by bureaucrats and subsequently accepted in the Legislature. Surely these laws would be much more compatible with society today and easier to change than to have this high-handed approach that basically destroys the democratic rights of individuals who voted for a collective agreement. That's the point I want to make and leave with the minister, because this very point is going to follow this government right through.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think we've pretty well canvassed the issues in that section, unless the minister is more contrite and willing to make some of the changes that have been offered. I hope that he will consider some of them. I know that they were offered by both parties in the opposition in an attempt to clarify and aid in the understanding of the act.
I would hazard a guess that, much like Bill 84, we're going to find ourselves back here next session with problems that have developed from the changes in this bill. I would think....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Bill 31 was a direct result of changes made in Bill 84. I hope we're not here on a Sunday dealing with this in the next session, but that's certainly feasible. There are sufficient problems with the new section 2 to warrant some changes. I'm sure that we will be back addressing these concerns at some time in the near future.
Section 3 as amended approved.
On section 4.
G. Farrell-Collins: A quick question to the minister: in reading this section, I'm assuming that's a consequential amendment to what we're doing to the act as a whole and certainly with Bill 84 -- the change of names.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, this is a housekeeping change.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
[6:30]
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to ask a simple question that doesn't have a simple answer. Can the minister explain this section not only to myself and other members of the opposition but, I think, to the general public and those who are going to be impacted by it?
Hon. M. Sihota: This section allows parties to a collective agreement to negotiate their own variances to section 30, the overtime provisions of the act. They must follow the criteria outlined in section 31. It eliminates the need for parties to collective agreements to make application to the director to approve work schedules which do not conform to the overtime provisions outlined in the act.
For example, many collective agreements have negotiated the compressed work week, whereby employees work four ten-hour shifts and then have four days off, without the payment of daily overtime after eight hours in a day. This allows for that kind of flexibility within the legislation; that's the purpose of the section.
[ Page 8427 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister can advise us: under this section, in the event there's a disagreement between the two parties or the director finds, in his or her mind, a deficiency in a collective agreement, do the same criteria we discussed earlier apply for the dispute resolution mechanism and the appeal process through the director?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.
L. Hanson: I guess the question I have for the minister is: if the two parties negotiate a variance to the workdays under this section and there is a disagreement later that is submitted to the arbitration process in the agreement, but the decision that comes out of the arbitration process is contrary to the minimum standards in the Employment Standards Act, where does the appeal go then? What does the director do?
Hon. M. Sihota: The Labour Relations Board would take an appeal from an arbitration and deal with it. Through a dispute resolution mechanism in the collective agreement, it would go then to the Labour Relations Board.
L. Hanson: Yes, I respect that. But say that there is a variance under this section that is accepted in the original agreement by the director of employment standards. If there is then a disagreement between the two parties as to what that says, it's submitted to the grievance procedure. Finally, the grievance procedure comes out with a resolution as to what is meant there. What happens if that contravenes the minimum standards in the Employment Standards Act? It wouldn't go to the Labour Relations Board then; it would go back to the director, I suspect.
Hon. M. Sihota: The reason we hesitate is that we're all trying to think how it would be that an arbitrator could override a statute. If the statute defines the minimum, it seems to me that an arbitrator, sitting as an arbitrator, would be unable to override a statute. That's why I don't see how that situation could arise. I'm not sure if the hon. member has an example in mind, but we paused to see if we could think of one. We can't think of that scenario arising.
L. Hanson: There could be a number of different grievance procedures. Usually a grievance would come about because there's a difference of opinion as to the meaning or application of what is in the agreement. Is that not...? That's my understanding of the procedure, anyway. Then the way this act reads, and the way the agreement would likely read, the parties would submit it to the grievance procedure, whatever that procedure might be. If the grievance procedure came out with a determination that what the agreement said is this, but when you look at what "this" is, it's in contravention of the Employment Standards Act, would the director then order the agreement to be changed to fit within the Employment Standards Act?
Hon. M. Sihota: I listened carefully to the example, and I just want to make sure that I understood it, because you didn't preface it by the assumption that the director of employment standards had made a decision, which is different than what you said the previous time. As I heard you, this time you were sort of saying: "What if the parties agreed to something, an arbitrator ruled on it and then arrived at a determination that was less than a statute?" Whereas the previous time you said: "What if the director made a determination, varied it for the parties that grieved it and arrived at a determination with an arbitrator?" So they are two different examples. I'm not too sure which one you were getting at. In my mind, something turns on which example you are using.
L. Hanson: I guess I'm assuming a process has been followed. I'm assuming that two parties sat down and negotiated a collective agreement, that the collective agreement had been submitted to the director of employment standards and that the director said the various clauses in the agreement did not contravene the fact of this act. During the life of the contract there arises a disagreement, the disagreement is submitted to the grievance procedure, and the determination of the grievance procedure proves that there is a contravention of the Employment Standards Act -- the interpretation of the clause. I am asking what the director would do then. Would it go to the Labour Relations Board? I suspect the director would order the contract to be changed. I am trying to understand that through the process.
Hon. M. Sihota: Here's where my difficulty is with the example that you cite, but I still think the outcome is the same. I don't see how an arbitrator can overrule a statute or an opinion rendered under the statute by the person who has the power under the statute to render that opinion. The arbitrator must work within the four corners of the act. An arbitrator can't go beyond the act. If the director has approved something that meets or exceeds the legislation and it is grieved and the arbitrator is of a view that the schedule is less than the meets-or-exceeds provision, then it would seem to me that because the act itself is incorporated in the collective agreement the arbitrator would, as his or her remedy, direct the matter back to the director of employment standards. Therefore, under that scenario, it would go to the director of employment standards.
If either party did not agree that sending it back to the director of employment standards was the appropriate remedy, then the correctness of that issue would go to the Labour Relations Board on appeal.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a couple further questions on this section. We certainly had representations from a wide number of people regarding the impact of this section on flexible work schedules. I guess at the time of the briefing, it was made clear that virtually every collective agreement in the province should be able to work within this. Is that the understanding? Is there still some uncertainty? I'm sure people have been discussing the various collective
[ Page 8428 ]
agreements and the people involved. Are there still any outstanding legitimate collective agreements that could be impacted by this?
[6:45]
Hon. M. Sihota: We have looked at the matter, and it's our belief that the vast majority of collective agreements will comply.
G. Farrell-Collins: One of the collective agreements that was mentioned to me is that of the B.C. Ferry workers. Does that fit within this cycle? I know they have some odd schedules there also.
Hon. M. Sihota: We're functioning from memory here, but we understand that it's a four on, four off schedule. If that's the case, it would comply.
G. Farrell-Collins: Are those 12-hour shifts?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have some other questions from a variety of sources. How is this going to impact on other types of contracts such as the police force and firefighters, for example, that are very similar to the four on, four off system?
Hon. M. Sihota: ...satisfy that they meet the intent of the legislation.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.
Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.
On section 9.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to spend a little time on this section. It's sort of the other half of the bill -- the group notice and termination provisions.
The way that section 44.1(2) is worded, it appears to me that a scenario could arise whereby an employee, having worked with a firm for some years -- eight years, for example -- decides to leave the employ of that company and move on in the type of industry where there are frequent temporary layoffs for short periods of time. You're in and you're out; you're on and you're off. That employee could plan to try to leave the company at a certain time or in the next few months, get laid off for a short period of time in a layoff that would have happened through the normal process, then refuse the right of recall and take their severance, which they would have accumulated with eight years' work. Instead of giving notice to the employer and leaving, which is how you would normally leave your place of employment, they would wait until they were laid off and take the severance package, because they could say it's their right here under this act. They would take the cash and run. Is that feasible under this? According to my reading, it's possible.
Hon. M. Sihota: They could, but the employer could easily handle that by giving them eight weeks' notice.
G. Farrell-Collins: But if it's a cyclical type of employment where you're in and you're out, and the layoff periods are short and typical of the type of work, an employee could be laid off, as you would normally lay people off for that short period of time -- it could be a day or a week or a couple of weeks -- then over a period of years the pattern is that they would normally be recalled as soon as work comes in. That employee could say: "Under section 44.1(2), I want my severance." It seems to me that an employee would be entitled to do that. The employer can't turn around at that point and say: "Okay, I'm giving you eight weeks' notice." It seems to me that it's up to the employee to take either the recall or the severance, and in this case quite clearly they could take the severance.
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, it kind of depends on where you're coming from and who represents who. It seems to me that an employee is entitled to their eight weeks' notice. If they don't get that they're entitled to their severance pay, and that's the way it should be. To use an example, the employee's family is certainly entitled to have that income. I can see your hypothetical case. But realistically and practically speaking, given the economy, I don't know how many situations exist where an employee can just walk in and say: "Okay, I'm gone tomorrow." You know, we've done a great job in this province generating jobs and employment....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: You heard that speech one night, and it was a good one.
But I just don't think that's possible.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know where the minister is coming from; I don't know which province he's living in. But I know that employees do it all the time. They come in and say: "I'm gone. I'll see you. I'm out of here." They don't even give the two weeks' notice.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, sure, it happens with full-year employees. If they've been there for more than six months, they're entitled to severance. There are certainly a lot of employees who have been in places for more than six months and leave. Many people move around a lot. It's certainly within the realm of reason. Let's be serious here. Despite the glowing things the minister may tell us that he's done with the economy, in fact there are still not a lot of jobs out there. People do move. They do leave one job and move to another job.
I would like to clean that up a little bit, if I may, and move an amendment to section 9 which would amend section 44.1(2) to read: "An employee who was covered by a collective agreement and who is laid off for a
[ Page 8429 ]
period exceeding a temporary layoff may choose..." and then (a) and (b) follow. I so move that, hon. Chair.
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: I was just connecting with him in a telepathic way to get his answer, hon. member. Instead, I hit you, and you told me that I should oppose this.
The Chair: Address the Chair, please, minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, hon. Chair. I was transmitting messages across the floor.
I just want to make sure I understand this amendment. As I understand it, the hon. member is suggesting that one must be laid off for 13 weeks -- because that's how temporary layoff is defined -- before one can collect severance. Is that the intention? I hate to ask this, but I'm just trying to get a read on what the amendment is seeking to do.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the terms can be worked with. I'm certainly willing to work with the terms in the amendment. I think I stated relatively clearly that the intent is that in cases where you're in a cyclical industry, where temporary layoffs are common throughout the year and where one assumes that you're going to continue with that company during your career -- ten, 20 or five years; whatever it may be.... You're assumed to be a permanent employee, and work comes and goes. The railway does it. I'm sure B.C. Rail lays people off -- brakemen, etc. -- for short periods, and they come back up on the list and start up....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Especially when they have a strike.
The forest sector, the construction sector -- all of those. Certainly in this province it's quite common to have temporary layoffs because work isn't available, or you're between jobs, or something to that effect.
An Hon. Member: Spring breakup in the logging industry.
G. Farrell-Collins: Those are common things. Should somebody be getting severance when it's quite clear that they're going to be recalled? The intent is to recall. They're there for a number of years; they are a permanent employee and work will come. It's just a temporary process. Should that employee be entitled to walk in one day and decide that they're moving from Quesnel to Vernon, and say: "Gee, I sold my house yesterday. It's been on the market for two months. Thanks for the layoff notice. I'd like my severance, and I'm gone"? That's very feasible the way the act is worded right now.
I'm willing to change the wording in the amendment; I just want to see the loophole closed. I've offered a suggestion, but I'd be willing to hear some different ideas from the minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let's deal with what the hon. member has to say. From an employer's perspective, you would think that someone would give people layoff notice in order to avoid having to pay severance. If it's a spring situation, generally, as far as I'm aware, there'd be some degree of notice provided. It may not be the full measure of notice, but there would be some notice provided. So I think that would cover that off.
[7:00]
Secondly, construction is not covered here, so I can't see it applying in that situation. In other words, the range of potential harm is narrow and because it's temporary.... That 13 weeks ties into the legislation. If you say you want to change that, what are we to do? Are we to arbitrarily pick six weeks? I can't bring myself to being persuaded. In part, it is a philosophical concern, but it says to the employer very simply: "If you're going to have a layoff, give people notice so they can make arrangements. If you don't, they're entitled to severance."
L. Fox: I want to get into this, because in my constituency temporary layoffs are an annual fact and concern. Look at the logging industry, for instance. The spring layoff ties into weather patterns. Weather patterns can vary up to a month when spring layoff really happens. Historically, when they are brought back to work it is also conditional on weather patterns. You could have a spring layoff that goes for eight weeks or for 12 weeks. For a lot of people, that layoff facilitates other opportunities. Many of them have small farms or work elsewhere.
Under this legislation, when an individual hasn't been recalled after so many weeks, he can demand severance pay -- yet he's working in another field. This is a consistent situation every year. My understanding is that if an individual is not called back when that employer goes back to work, severance pay should be awarded at that point. I see that as being fair. I think that's what the amendment tries to address. If it's anything different from that, I believe we're going to have a horrendous mess in the logging industry.
Hon. M. Sihota: Okay, we've looked at this. First of all, let me say that B.C. Rail is exempt under the regulations. So once again your example didn't fly, but neither did the construction example. Be that as it may, there might be a point here on the seasonal logging operations. There might be a problem there, and I appreciate the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca raising that as an example. Let me just say a few things.
We certainly have come to the view that employers must give notice, and that's really what the tenor of the legislation is. The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca makes a good point in terms of forestry. Within regulation, we have the ability to make some exemptions; I will consider that in that context. I am not going to agree to a change to the legislation, but we do have the ability under regulation to consider a situation which would bring about unwarranted exposure to an employer. So I will undertake to do that, hon. member.
[ Page 8430 ]
We could correct that problem through a regulatory change.
G. Farrell-Collins: As we look through, I think there is going to be more of these instances that will probably fall within this category. I would prefer to see some sort of wording in the legislation to some effect.... I am willing to stand down subsection (2) until we've had a chance to look at it. I would think it's worth doing that in order to grasp this within the legislation. The problem arises when it gets shuffled off to regulation. I know the minister's time and priorities and I know the workload in other areas. I'm concerned that they will not be addressed -- indeed, that this may just be pushed aside and not come back. And as we find other instances of it, we will have to keep going back and make those regulation changes on an ongoing basis. I think we are then being reactive to various situations, which is going to cause problems, as opposed to being proactive, which is what our job is here.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, I'm not going to agree. Obviously we thought about it. It's not common for debate to be suspended for as long as it was, as we discussed the issue raised by the member for Prince George-Omineca. Other jurisdictions, such as the province of Ontario, have similar provisions brought in by the former Liberal government. Their economy -- in terms of the resource sector -- in many ways being very similar to ours, has not experienced the galaxy of problems that the hon. member suggests could arise under this section. So I'm not sold on the fact that the problem is as acute, or potentially as acute, as the hon. member has suggested. That's why I'm prepared to say what I said on the record with regard to the member for Prince George-Omineca. People can work from the assumption that it's easy to say, "We'll deal with the regulation," and never have it done. Believe you me, when that is said.... That's why we have staff here -- and I'm sure they're most enthralled now that I've told them that.
I'm not prepared to entertain an amendment to the act. We will look at a regulation. I wish to remind the hon. member, as I say, that the Ontario experience is like this. It parallels our legislation and we parallel theirs, and there just hasn't been that level of problem.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
G. Farrell-Collins: We don't know to what level this is a problem in Ontario, and I'm not sure that the minister really knows to what level it's a problem in Ontario. Maybe his staff is very aware; I'm not sure. As I said, I would prefer to see it in legislation in some form. I will spend more time looking at it myself and contacting those potential sectors. I would like to be able to bring them to the attention of the minister with some assurance here in the House today that they'll be dealt with very quickly when they do arise. I can state that if they're not dealt with, and if we find others, we will be bringing in.... I'll certainly be bringing in a private member's bill. I don't know that that's going to see the light of day until the government changes -- which could be sooner than later, we don't know.
As I said, I would rather see this in legislation, but I'd at least accept a commitment from the minister that those issues will be dealt with quickly. Perhaps we can put some feelers out to those industries to get submissions on it as it relates to their particular areas.
We all know that this portion was fast-tracked, in the minister's own words. It was done quickly, trying to get it into place. When one does things quickly, sometimes one misses stuff like that, and that's what we're doing here. I would hope that Mr. Thompson could be instructed to seek some of that information as he does the overall review, so that we can perhaps deal with it when we come back next spring to clean up the whole act -- or even earlier.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll agree to all those things, with the exception of a change in government.
An Hon. Member: That's not up to you.
C. Serwa: Just for clarification of 44.1(4), in relationship to what the hon. opposition critic was referring to, subsection (4) says: "Where an employee chooses to maintain the right of recall under subsection (2)(b), the employer shall forthwith pay to the director, in trust, the severance pay referred to in subsection (2)(a)." I know that we were discussing the earlier part of the section, but does it mean that in every situation where there was a temporary layoff the employer now has to pay the severance pay in trust to the director?
Hon. M. Sihota: The intent of subsection (4) is to ensure that the severance pay is available in cases of business insolvency, especially if a collective agreement has a lengthy recall period. Employers therefore are put on notice that that's what the section requires.
[7:15]
If the employee has not made the choice under subsection (5) to be paid severance pay, or has not been recalled to employment, employers must submit the severance pay to the director to be held in trust 13 weeks after the layoff has begun.
L. Fox: I just want to clarify the issue I raised earlier. The minister has made a commitment to review that circumstance in regulation. Perhaps I could ask for a little further commitment from the minister -- and I'd take him at his word -- that in that review process he will consult with the stakeholders who would be affected on what an appropriate regulation might be for that type of industry. I think that through this process of examination there may be one or two others -- and I think very quickly of the commercial fishing industry -- that may also be affected accordingly. If the minister could just confirm that the stakeholders would be involved in a consultative way in the drafting of that regulation, I'd be satisfied.
Hon. M. Sihota: The last thing I'd like to do is have the member for Prince George-Omineca be
[ Page 8431 ]
unsatisfied. That would trouble me greatly, and I'm sure it would trouble him.
As I said in response to the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, I will have Professor Thompson, who's doing the broader review of employment standards and who will be meeting with the stakeholders and going across the province -- one community to the other, with the exception of Vanderhoof, of course.... He will have meetings in the Prince George area, I'm sure, and in northern British Columbia, so that will provide ample opportunity for the issue to be raised and for stakeholders to be quizzed about it. So we will do it through that process.
L. Hanson: I hope the minister will include the two members from the Okanagan and the one from Abbotsford in those who he wouldn't like to see leave here unhappy.
Interjection.
L. Hanson: And the Liberal critic.
My colleague from Okanagan West asked a question dealing with subsection (4) of section 9, section 44.1. As I understand this process, if the employer gives ample notice of layoff, even though it may be a seasonal layoff, the requirement is still there for notice. One of the difficulties in the logging industry is that the time of layoff is sometimes predicated on the ruling of the Ministry of Highways as to when roads are.... It's not always possible to determine exactly when a layoff might come.
The fact is that it would likely, with these new rules coming into place, cause the employer to lay off earlier than he possibly should, in anticipation of an order from the Ministry of Highways to close highways. He may in fact close down sooner than he should. As I understand this act, if notice of the start of layoff comes about and passes, and layoff hasn't actually happened, then the notice is completely gone. I don't know if the minister would consider clarifying that under the regulations. I think he really should take that into consideration, because it's a serious one.
But the question that my colleague asked is.... The employer has done everything required by the act. He has given notice of layoff at the appropriate time. The layoff is going to be 90 days. The employee then -- and I think this is where the confusion comes in -- has to make a decision as to whether he wants to accept severance pay or continue with his rate of recall when work resumes. The minister said that under those circumstances, the employer would have to pay to the director of employment standards the amount of severance pay that the employee was entitled to. Now the process follows its merry course, and at the end of 90 days the employee is called back and goes to work. How does the employer get his money back? What happens to it?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me say that my desire to keep people happy applies only to rookies in the House. That's why the three of you don't meet my criterion.
With regard to your question, section 44.1(6) would cover that situation. But you have to remember that if the employer has done everything right, then there won't be any severance pay outstanding or that wouldn't be paid under section 44.1(4).
The Chair: After consultation, the Chair is advised that subsection (1) applies to all employees laid off and subsection (2) provides for severance and a right of recall. The amendment would produce a contradictory result between the two subsections, so the Chair rules that the amendment is out of order.
Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, hon. Chair, in all fairness, I think that's the amendment introduced by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who isn't here, so perhaps that can be dealt with when he returns. We've kind of moved beyond that, in any event. I don't think he withdrew it, so perhaps he can be advised when he arrives.
On section 9.
L. Hanson: Does the minister understand what he's doing to small business here? If a small logger has 20 employees who have been with the company for a number of years, and during spring breakup the whole crew is laid off, the employer must go and finance a month and a half's salary. Even though all the employees have agreed to recall and to accept work when it comes, that employer is obligated, in the interim until the employees are back at work, to go out and arrange financing to pay the director of employment standards the amount of money that would be equal to the severance pay. Then he'll get the money back. That's a burden on small business that I wonder if the minister has considered.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to make a number of points. I appreciate the point that the hon. member made, and I know that others have made the same point.
I want to preface my comments by saying that I haven't used this argument too much tonight, but I'm going to use it now. This provision that's before this House is here because we had a process -- some may not like the process; some may not like the outcome of the process -- where the government, having decided that it wanted to make changes with regard to section 2(2), asked both business and labour to meet with Mr. Thompson and develop the best way in which we could deal with the problems that the government saw with section 2(2).
We are beyond the philosophical debate here, in terms of whether or not it was correct for government to take the view that it did with regard to section 2(2). We are now more into the question of what arose as a consequence of that process.
The parties to that process included representatives of the small business community and the large business community. If I may say, without violating any confidences, those communities came to me and said: "Look, we accept the fact that you're going to make
[ Page 8432 ]
changes to section 2(2), but we would like a process to talk about how that should occur." We, as an administration, asked Prof. Mark Thompson to be the panellist to work with those parties.
We didn't give any direction, as a government, to Professor Thompson. I want to put that on the record. We asked him to work through solutions with the parties with regard to how section 2(2) should be changed. The parties to that consultation process, absent of any direction from government, discussed these issues. These issues are here because they were canvassed with the parties. I must confess that I have some surprise that some who had remained relatively quiet with regard to discussions under section 44.1 have publicly expressed their displeasure with this section. I guess there is always a time and a place to put that on the record, and I have chosen to do that now.
Secondly, there is a philosophical consideration here: that is, what is the right of an employee, and his or her family, with regard to severance payments, and whether or not, in the absence of notice, he or she ought to be entitled to collect severance pay when there is an extended recall that ultimately and often -- not often, but from time to time, as experience has shown -- results in insolvency. None of us wants to see a company arrive at that situation. But I would argue that at some point the state has an obligation to protect the rights of that employee and their family. If the employer has not exercised their obligation to provide notice, then it seems to me appropriate that the employer must face the consequence of not exercising that obligation. The consequence in this case is that they have to put forward funds in trust that are reflective of the severance pay owed to the employee.
[7:30]
Having said all that, a case may be made with regard to certain types of seasonal activity. I'm not sure whether or not that case is made by the comments made by the hon. member, and I'm sure he'll try again. But it occurs to me that if it's a seasonal operation -- let's say a logging operation outside of Kelowna, which is not an unusual situation -- I don't think the time frame there is going to be all that extensive, maybe two or three months on the outside. I think that is manageable.
In cases where it goes beyond that, it occurs to me that we might be looking at the very situation we're trying to capture. I will say this, however: inasmuch as I don't believe that the case is made, this is another area where we will take a look at regulatory exemption, in cases where this proves to be a problem for the seasonal industries. I say that with some frustration, because I do not believe the argument was adequately made in the consultation process, and that's why it's here in legislation. We've sort of heard what some elements of the business community have had to say since this legislation was tabled. Out of respect for that and, of course, for what the hon. members have raised in the House, we will take a look at this to see if we can deal with it in a regulatory way.
L. Hanson: I thank the minister for that observation. It seems to me that the minister is trying to ensure, first, that the employee at least has some advance notice of a time when they might be without work, whatever the reason may be.
In my country, most of that comes about because of spring breakup, usually dictated by an order by the Minister of Highways that you can't haul anymore, so everything comes to a halt. The issue of the timing of that is very difficult for the small operators, simply because they know within a parameter of maybe two to three weeks when it might happen, but don't have an exact date. They will probably take the cautious end of it and make sure they give it lots of advance notice, and will lose a few days' or weeks' work that might have been there if there had been some recognition of that difficulty.
I'm not suggesting -- and I wasn't suggesting in my scenario -- that the employer didn't give the proper notice. The employer did give the proper notice and lived by everything. With the proper notice, at some point there's a recall situation and the employee is called back to work after spring breakup -- the Highways minister has taken his ban off and now we can all go back to work. At this point, though -- because the employee is not obligated to make up his mind that he wants to go back to work, as opposed to having severance pay -- the employer still has to finance that severance pay that would be payable. If that's not the case then I'd like to hear what the scenario is, because that's the crux of our whole argument.
Hon. M. Sihota: If notice is given, hon. member, then there would not be a requirement for severance pay.
C. Serwa: But in section 9, section 44.1(4), it doesn't make any indication. It clearly states: "Where an employee chooses to maintain the right of recall under subsection (2)(b), the employer shall forthwith pay to the director, in trust, the severance pay referred to in subsection (2)(a)." I know when I first asked the question, the minister referred to section 44.1(5), which describes a different scenario entirely. The reality is that the employer has to make these payments. One of the problems that we have is understanding the reality of the real world. We haven't got anyone in the government side who has ever created a job or faced the overhead and payments necessary to keep an operation going.
Interjections.
C. Serwa: Yes, right on. That's precisely the fact.
The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Cariboo North.
F. Garden: I appreciate the sentiments raised by the previous speaker, but there are people on the government side who have been in small business and have employed people, and he should withdraw that remark.
[ Page 8433 ]
The Chair: With respect, hon. member, that's not a point of order. Differences of opinion are usually the subject of debate.
Interjections.
C. Serwa: No, I'm not going to withdraw. There has been no experience. I'd like to see how many individuals here have created ten or 20 jobs.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: As a professional, on a continued basis?
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
C. Serwa: Let's carry on.
The Chair: Please carry on, hon. member, but we're dealing with section 9.
C. Serwa: On section 9, with similar latitude to what the minister was given in his particular debate. We didn't constrain the minister, because it's very important to explore this in a comprehensive way.
There are a variety of concerns that exist in the interior of the province that don't exist in this evergreen playground on Vancouver Island, for example. The minister was referring to logging in the Okanagan. We're logging at elevations varying from, say, 800 feet to 6,000-plus feet above sea level, on roads which are subject to restrictions on breakup. Spring breakup is a long, extended process in the interior, as it is in the far north. You can get weather changes. The minister has to know and understand that, and that with respect to section 44.1(4), an operator, a logger, is faced with a considerable amount of overhead. He's going through a breakup period with no income; he has equipment payments; he has maintenance and fixed and variable overhead that has to go at the same time. And here the minister, through this particular regulation, demands that the severance pay be paid into a trust account for that period, and at the end of the time I presume that it will not be forfeit, although there's certainly no guarantee with this government that it will be. Nevertheless, over and above all of that fixed overhead, he has to obtain more capital simply to put into a trust account.
This section clearly is not applicable on a widespread basis to that particular industry, certainly in the forest industry, with breakup. The hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon pointed out quite clearly that when breakup comes, it comes up in a hurry. The decision is made by the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the breakup signs are put up and it's virtually impossible to give adequate notice. When the bans go on you're finished; that's all there is.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me make it abundantly clear that every member seated in this chamber right now, in this caucus, every day makes sure there are tens, twenties, hundreds and thousands of jobs created in their ridings because of the good, hard work that they do on the back benches.
The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm going to try to do the whole House a favour here and end second reading debate. The Minister of Labour started it. The member for Okanagan West replied. Let's finish second reading debate, and let's get back to the bill so we can work through it here.
Hon. M. Sihota: That was a wonderful point of order.
An Hon. Member: And absolutely correct.
Hon. M. Sihota: What I had to say was right, too.
Let's just go back to the first thing the hon. member said in his comments and to what I pointed out the to the member for Okanagan-Vernon. If you give notice then these sections don't apply. The hon. member said: "Well, it doesn't say that, if you read section 44.1(4)." Then he quoted it. He's right; it doesn't say that. The reason why it doesn't say that is because this is an amendment to the statute. If you look at section 42 in the statute, the notice provisions are incorporated in there. When this new section is read in light of the existing sections, then the notice provisions are incorporated into this provision.
L. Hanson: If the minister were to answer this question it would probably resolve the issue. Take the instance of a small logging contractor who has decided, with consultation with Highways and others, that March 1 is going to be breakup day. He has given everyone correct and proper notice that layoff will happen on March 1. Under those circumstances, if there's absolutely no question at all in the minister's mind that he has done everything correct, he would have no obligation to pay the severance pay into the director unless there were employees who came forward and indicated that they wanted their severance pay and not the recall privilege.
Hon. M. Sihota: If the employees have been given proper notice, then they don't have a right under 44.1(2).
L. Hanson: If I understand the minister correctly, there's no obligation for severance pay if notice has been properly given. There's no obligation to pay an amount equivalent to severance pay to the director of employment standards while the employees make up their minds on which option to take.
Hon. M. Sihota: If they're given notice they don't even have that option. That means that they don't get
[ Page 8434 ]
paid. Hopefully that attends to that concern on the part of both the member for Okanagan-Vernon and the member for Okanagan West.
L. Fox: Just one further point of clarification. If the layoff notices are for a period of time which goes beyond the normal time frame for recall, let's say particularly with respect to the logging industry.... To make my point I'll refer to a situation that happened only this week in Mackenzie. A great corporate citizen, Fletcher Challenge, decided that on the last day they weren't going to allow the loggers to go back to work. Now this is outside of the logger's control because, obviously, he's contracting to that particular corporation. So the fact is that the day that was targeted to go back to work could no longer be lived up to by the logger. Now the loggers are being told that they won't be allowed back in the bush until October 1. What obligation is there to pay the severance pay because they're not able to recall them within the time frame suggested in the act?
Hon. M. Sihota: So long as adequate notice was given at the front end with regard to the layoff, there is no problem. The employer can extend the recall notice. I think that should answer your question. In that case, I would hope that the problem isn't caused by the reservoir levels at Williston.
C. Serwa: Just for my clarification with respect to the adequate notice.... First of all, I am well aware of the difficulty of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways forecasting when road closures will take place. They may forecast them at a certain date but because of a slow, cold spring it may be two or three weeks later, or because of an early spring it could be two or three weeks earlier. I know what really happens in the bush. Prior to the bans coming on -- whether it's the loggers or the truck operators -- everybody is working right until midnight in getting the last load of logs out, because there is going to be a drought in income for a substantial period of time. They are all interested in making as much money as they can, because their payments continue to go on. So how is this notice, which is so critical, going to be obtained in advance when in fact no one has a handle on it? The good Lord in the spring -- nature, I guess -- controls the bans on the highways.
[7:45]
Hon. M. Sihota: A few minutes ago during my response, when I talked about those involved in advising government on this issue -- in particular the representatives of the business community -- I indicated that the one comment I would make is that I will look at that kind of issue in the regulatory framework. We may be able to deal with that issue on a regulatory basis. I said that earlier in response to the opening comments of the member for Okanagan-Vernon on this case. So let's just make this clear. In the case of notice, you don't have anything to worry about in terms of the provision. Only where section 44.1(2) applies do you have the application of section 44.1(4), which is the money that you have to pay in. I appreciate it is of concern to the hon. member; I appreciate it's a concern to businesses operating very close to margin at all times; and I appreciate it's also a concern for the employee, who is entitled to those moneys. In any event, we can balance all of that.
The third situation is analogous to the one that you raised, to which I said we will take a look at the regulatory process to see if we can handle that kind of situation.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Mission-Kent, myself and others have been trying in the background here to sort out some of this and what the implications are. Perhaps the minister can indicate. Section 43(f) in the current act states that section 42 -- that's the section on notice required, etc. -- does not apply to an employee employed under a contract of employment that is impossible to perform due to an unforeseeable event or circumstance. Would that apply in this case? Breakup isn't unforeseeable. We know it's coming; it's just a matter of the time frame on it. I'm just wondering if that would apply in this case.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, it would not be covered by that kind of situation. That's like a fire in a plant or an act of God.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's related to the section, and I think it's important that we know the answers to these before we pass off it. Does that only apply to an act of God? It doesn't say act of God. It just says cases.... I think the member for PrinceGeorge-Omineca brought up the fact of a change in stumpage fees. That might just happen, and all of a sudden everything shuts down -- or, as the minister said, a drop in the level of Williston Lake or other lakes, which you can't really deal with. Is that the type of thing we're looking at also?
Hon. M. Sihota: Under 43(f), an employer could make the argument that an unforeseeable event or circumstance may have been something short of an act of God -- like a remarkably quick drop in mining prices or forestry prices. But it would be a tough test for them to meet. I don't want you to think that they could simply show up and say that this section applies because of the situation. It would be a difficult test for them to meet, but they could make that kind of argument in that kind of case. To use the Williston example -- it's something I know about in terms of Hydro -- as we bring down those levels to make sure that water goes through and that the lights are kept on in Kamloops or...
An Hon. Member: In Vancouver.
Hon. M. Sihota: ...in Vancouver...
An Hon. Member: Esquimalt.
Hon. M. Sihota: ...and in Esquimalt, and that the fish can flow up the Nechako....
[ Page 8435 ]
L. Fox: You're in the wrong neck of the woods.
Hon. M. Sihota: I thought I'd just throw a curve ball in there. It was a hanging curve, and it went over the fence.
One could make those kinds of arguments, but usually when you're dropping a reservoir you try to give notice. I was just dealing with a case up in Valemount, which is not in the Prince George North riding. There are some changes there because of Kinbasket, and you try to give marina operators or logging operators some notice of your decision to bring down the reservoir levels. There's usually a lot of sensitivity in doing that, so that people can deal with employees.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have one last question on the case where a countervail was slapped on a product -- and we've had it happen in the past. That certainly has happened in the forest industry, and it's a substantial impact. Would that be a case where you've got a sudden change -- you said a change in prices...? A sudden shock of that sort -- a 15 percent shock in the value of your product -- would have downstream effects instantaneously.
Hon. M. Sihota: It would seem to me that in that kind of situation, business being business and being able to forecast events, business should be able to anticipate what may happen. I'm not going to commit myself to suggesting that that would apply in this case. I will simply reiterate what I said earlier. It's a fairly tough test to meet, and generally it seems to me that business ought to be able to forecast a lot of these kinds of events, such as a duty.
G. Farrell-Collins: I can tell you that if businesses could forecast the court decisions on countervails, there would be an awful lot of wealthy people around. If I could do it, I wouldn't be here. I'd be a multimillionaire.
If there's anybody here who can predict the decisions of trade tribunals and decisions under NAFTA, they could make a killing on the commodities market. So I would say that businesses are not able to forecast quite as accurately as that -- and the impact would be substantial and immediate.
Hon. M. Sihota: The best way to protect against that is for you and other members to oppose NAFTA.
L. Fox: I want to explain the real world of the sawmill industry. In fact, the logger who would be affected is not involved in those negotiations; it's the sawmill or the corporation that the logger delivers to that is. Secondly, most likely the sawmill would be able to give appropriate notice of shutdown, because they have an inventory which they can utilize to keep the mill going for that period of time. The logging company, however, because of the mill perceiving a shutdown, wouldn't want to build up its inventory and would cut the logger off immediately. Therefore it's the logger who would have difficulty complying with it. I just want the minister to understand the mechanics of it.
Hon. M. Sihota: That is possible. That's why I said earlier that I think we might be able to remedy some things through regulation.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think that portion of the debate has probably come to an end.
I would like to look briefly, if we may -- I don't think it should take too long -- at 44.1(6)(a), which is on page 4 in the bill. It states here: "The director shall pay the severance pay received under subsection (4) or (5) (a) to the employer if the employee accepts employment made available under the right of recall, or (b) to the employee if the employee renounces the right of recall or if the recall period expires."
As we've gone through other legislation, from time to time we see provisions for someone to pay the government for something to be held in trust. The normal procedure in those cases is that interest is paid also. Under this, there is no provision for interest to be paid. I have drafted an amendment that would do this, which I would be willing to move. But first of all, I'd like to ask the minister if he or his staff -- who are certainly more familiar with this than either of us -- are aware of any other provision in the act that would take care of that. Where is the provision for interest?
Hon. M. Sihota: The current practice is that when moneys are held by the director of employment standards, interest is not paid. This has been a source of contention, perhaps even irritation, on the part of both employers and employees who have laid claim to those funds.
In looking at this issue, Professor Thompson chose not to make that recommendation at this time because the broader questions with regard to interest have not been determined. Although I'm not going to pre-guess what Professor Thompson says, one could certainly anticipate that this issue will be concluded as a result of the broader review. That's why there is no provision here. We'll allow them to work it out in their broader review. It is, however, possible and indeed acceptable within the ministry to make arrangements with the director to have the funds placed in a lawyer's trust account, which is interest-bearing. The interest can be redeemed through that mechanism.
L. Fox: They're not safe.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's why the Attorney General is listening to this debate with great interest.
You can bring your amendment forward but we're not going to accept it, given the agreement that Professor Thompson will look at this as part of his broader review.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll accept that. I do have a quick question with regard to the proposal to put it into a lawyer's trust account. Paying it in is certainly the prerogative of the employer. Seeing as they do have some interest in that fund -- or may have a potential
[ Page 8436 ]
interest in those funds -- would the employee also be able to make a request to the director at the time payment is made to have it moved into an interest-bearing account?
[8:00]
Hon. M. Sihota: That's not the practice right now. Of course, we're having the review. We're just trying to think of whether or not any problems would arise, so I'm going to duck that question for the time being.
G. Farrell-Collins: I appreciate the effort to duck, but I would like to come back to it for a minute, if I can. The minister says that it's the current practice. It's obviously the right of the employer to make that request. Is that in legislation, or is it just a policy that the director has been following?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's policy right now. Obviously, policy can be changed, no two ways about that.
G. Farrell-Collins: Then I would make a request to the minister to change the policy so that both employees and employers can make a request, using the same equal and balanced method, to have it put into a lawyer's trust account, however unsafe they may be.
Hon. M. Sihota: Maybe I should just say what I was going to say originally, instead of deciding to duck it for the time being. I was originally going to say that on the face of it I can't see a problem, and on that basis, sure, we'll take it forward. I'm just not going to guarantee that it will happen, because something may come up. You often realize in this business that things pop up that you never even thought, so we'll just leave it at that.
G. Farrell-Collins: I accept the intent. I would ask then that if not the minister himself then perhaps the ministry could forward that information to me as it arises and also the ultimate decision -- perhaps even a time frame in the short term on when that decision might be made.
I didn't get an answer to the question, other than that I wouldn't get it any faster than if I got it from the ministry. I might tell the minister that I found his ministry much faster with returning its mail than the minister himself, but we'll get into that another day.
Hon. M. Sihota: I have staff noting that, so it's noted.
G. Farrell-Collins: I will accept that, and I will look forward to receiving that information when the time comes.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
The Chair: With section 10, we'll deal with the subsections seriatim.
G. Farrell-Collins: Before we move into section 10, which is on group termination notice, I raised a question earlier today informally, not on the floor, with regard to the compatibility of the individual termination and the group termination in that they work in a consecutive manner as opposed to a concurrent manner. Before we move too far, I have drafted an amendment to the act that would come in before we get to section 10 here, so I want to find out where we are on that first.
Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to the issue that you raise, we've talked to our drafters about it, and they say that the section is quite fine and that there is a whole continuum of notice here that can't be broken by the individual notice -- if that helps address your concern.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's certainly what the question is. Perhaps for the record I should work it through, because these discussions have gone on behind closed doors or in the hallway.
The problem exists that individual termination as given under section 42 has a termination period, where the notice becomes void under section 46. If an individual continues to work past the expiration of the notice period, the notice itself becomes void and notice has to be given again. In addition, group termination works in a similar manner: if the provisions for termination exist as given under 49.5 and the employee continues to work past the end of that notice period, then the group termination notice expires or becomes void and has to be given again. The question that I asked was: given that these have to be done in tandem as opposed to in parallel, once an employee worked through the initial individual notice period and started to work on the extra weeks that were for the group termination, would the employee be working in violation of section 46, which would then cause it to go through, and you would get an overlap or this endless loop of individual, group, individual, group?
The minister is saying that that's not the case because they're taken as a whole. I don't see how that's reflected in the legislation. Perhaps the minister could walk me and all of us through it so that it's on the record.
Hon. M. Sihota: You're entitled to individual notice plus group notice as defined under the collective agreement, or individual notice plus group notice under the act, whichever of those two is greater. It's the continuum of that notice -- in other words, 49.1 plus 49.5, which is the full-time frame. That's what allows one to continue to work even though one's individual notice is up. Hopefully that makes it clear.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not arguing with the minister's saying that that's the fact. I'm saying: if it is the fact, show me how that works in the act. I want him to walk me through how it works and where the clauses are that make that happen, because I'm not convinced of it. I'm not saying it's not happening. I just think that we need to get into the record what we're actually dealing with here.
[ Page 8437 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: As I said earlier on, if you add 49.1 and 49.5, you get that one continuum block of the notice period. How is that created in law? The addition of 49.1 and 49.5 is created by the reference in 49.5(1) to 49.1. Then if you look back to 49.1, it lays out in detail the notice provisions. To get to whichever is greater -- i.e., the collective agreement or the notice provisions under the statute -- the language in 49.5(1)(a) deals with "if the employee is covered by a collective agreement," and the last four words at the end of 49.5(1)(a) are "whichever is greater, or." That ties you back to section 42. That's the linkage between whether you get it under the collective agreement or under the statute, and the pivotal point is that you get whichever is the greater of those two.
[8:15]
So let me just do that again here: 49.5 makes reference to 49.1; it then covers in subsection (a) the collective agreement and in subsection (b) the normal termination provision absent the collective agreement; then the connecting words "whichever is greater, or" create that scenario.
G. Farrell-Collins: This is a complex section. I'm finding it difficult to hear what the minister is saying. I'm not trying to cause a problem. I'm just saying that I'm finding it hard to hear the minister's voice. Could he do it one more time for me -- and could there be quiet, so we can work it through?
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Hon. M. Sihota: I think we should do it again, and then we'll call up the videotape from Hansard and go back and watch it to make sure it's said the same way both times. The member for Prince George-Omineca can pretend he's Don Cherry and do the play-by-play.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: The member for Vancouver-Hastings professes total ignorance when it comes to sports, but I'm impressed that she knows who Blue is.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, if you could please bring all these hon. members to order, we might be able to conclude this.
Section 49.5 makes reference directly in subsection (1) to 49.1(1)(b), which lays out the advance notice of group termination components. Then subsection 49.5(1)(a) makes the linkage between the collective agreement and the notice provisions that are in sections 42 to 49.5(1)(b), and says that what applies is whichever is the greater of the two.
So as I said earlier, if the time period is defined by 49.1 plus 49.5 -- whichever is greater -- then 49.5(1) to 49.1(1)(b) establishes the linkage which defines the time period; and then the time period is covered by 49.1(1)(b) with regard to section 42 situations. And the whichever-is-greater provision says it's either the collective agreement or the language in the statute which applies.
G. Farrell-Collins: I believe that after all of that it's finally sunk in. I'm sure we now all understand it better, including the members with the minister.
Section 49.6, then, of course, refers to that contained in section 49.1 (1)(b), which we just went through. Section 49.1(1)(b) is covered under section 49.6, which of course links the whole thing back together. That's fine. I'm glad we've worked that through, and I'm glad I don't have to try and move my amendment and explain it to the minister.
Section 10, sections 49.5 to 49.7 inclusive approved.
On section 10, section 49.8.
G. Farrell-Collins: In looking through this, I see.... I'm looking through the amendments that I put together yesterday and today, and over the last little while. Concerning section 49.8(1), I assume that the same discussion we had earlier on temporary layoffs -- or the need or lack of need for them -- and the minister's commitment to look at the regulations would apply in this case also. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, for a group in a seasonal situation.
G. Farrell-Collins: I hope to receive some of that information as well, along with the others, when those decisions are made and when that process is entered into to try to make those determinations as per regulations.
Section 10, sections 49.8 and 49.9 approved.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
Hon. M. Sihota: I believe I have a file. If not, I have an amendment here with regard to section 12. I move the amendment as follows: the amendment seeks to delete the words "or whose employment was terminated," and substitutes the words "whose employment was terminated or to whom notice of layoff or termination was given." There is also a comma before the word "whose," which helps make it read better.
Amendment approved.
Section 12 as amended approved.
On section 13.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 13 is one I think we are probably going to argue a bit about. It is not even the philosophical -- it's the very practical impact of this. This, of course, is the transitional section which
[ Page 8438 ]
says when all of this kicks in. I would like to get the minister's comments on the need to bring this into play on the arbitrary date of January 1, 1994. I know we brought it up on our side in second reading, but I don't recall getting a response from the minister or from others who participated in the debate.
Hon. M. Sihota: We wanted to give the parties that were going to be impacted by this legislation the opportunity to bring their collective agreements into compliance with the statute. Once you cross that threshold, which we quickly did, the next question arises as to when or how soon one feels that that can be accomplished. I would be misleading the hon. member if I said that there wasn't a lot of to-and-fro on that issue with regard to time frame; there was. It was our view that the parties, having notice of this legislation, could work this thing out by January 1. There were some concerns that that might be too quick, therefore the provision with regard to agreement in mature environments was established -- or in any environment, for that matter -- to extend it to April 1, 1994. That's a little shorter than the time period that Mr. Thompson recommended. He recommended a slightly longer time period of about a year, so it would be three months longer than that in 13(b) and I guess about six months longer than in 13(a). We felt that this could be accomplished within that tighter time frame, and that's why the decision was arrived at.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess I have to disagree with the minister. I think that the impact is going to be profound and that it's going to be disruptive. Sometimes the minister has made decisions in trying to effect change quickly, and out of his haste he has perhaps made some errors that have come back to haunt him -- particularly as related to the fair wage policy which, as he has said, has not worked out. Certainly the provisions within that policy for the apprenticeship and the registration of those was a problem and continues to be. I think what we're headed for here is another instance of that, where we're perhaps being overly ambitious in trying to bring in a policy directive and policy change that require patience. It is a substantial change to some collective agreements, which will require a long process of back-and-forth negotiation. Some of these collective agreements may be opened up for renewal in that time period, and that will be fine. Others have just been signed, and now they have to go back and go through that whole process again.
As the minister is aware, as anyone who has ever been involved in the process is aware, the collective bargaining process is not cheap. It costs a lot of money, and it takes a lot of time. Legal fees can be substantial, and heaven forbid if you have to go to mediation or arbitration with some of the big shots, because you're paying tens of thousands of dollars.
I really believe that if the minister's going to bring in the bill.... We've made our case known in second reading that we have substantial problems with certain aspects of it. We have problems with a number of sections. We've worked through some of those here today, and some of them we still disagree on. But when we come down to the point of the transition or the actual implementation, I think the minister has to agree that he's really pushing the time limit here. He's really being optimistic and being hopeful that it's going to work out and not be disruptive. I think it's a general understanding out there in the field that this is pretty optimistic -- not just the January 1 deadline, but even the April one. I would suggest that a more realistic time frame should be entered into.
Hon. Chair, I have an amendment to section 13(b), which I would like to move now. It states: "the date of expiry stated in the collective agreement or such earlier date as may be set out in an order made by the director or the director's representatives on an application jointly made by the parties to the collective agreement."
On the amendment.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to address the amendment a bit, because it's perhaps a little unusual and may at first glance seem a bit contradictory. The intent here is to set the expiry date of the collective agreement as a limit or -- if the parties agree -- to set an earlier deadline and say: "Let's deal with this quicker. January 1 is not appropriate and perhaps too quick for us, but let's set ourselves an arbitrary date."
[8:30]
Sure, we've got a two- or three-year collective agreement, some of which have just been signed. This would allow for the two parties to say: "Let's agree to a realistic time frame for ourselves. It doesn't have to be the whole expiry date of the collective agreement or January 1, but let's get together and apply for one year or nine months from now, let's say -- whatever suits our timetable as the two parties -- and sit down and come up with a time frame that we can live with." That then allows those two groups to work through this in a more realistic time frame and certainly gives them time to settle those agreements and make the changes that are required without disrupting the whole process and without some arbitrary time frame being set by the ministry or the minister.
So there can be a more flexible process here; you can fine-tune. Essentially, this section fine-tunes the transition and allows the various parties to choose a transition time that works well for them, as opposed to an arbitrary time frame that maybe works well for the minister or the ministry but may not suit the two parties to their best benefit.
Hon. M. Sihota: I listened with interest to what the hon. member had to say. I'm not going to dwell on this, obviously, but he talked about the fair wage policy. It's true, I've been rather candid about some of my frustrations with the fair wage policy. The frustrations really have occurred because some people have been very creative in the ways in which they wish to avoid the provisions of the policy. Others have been very creative in the way in which they can secure headlines with regard to that policy. But I guess....
Interjection.
[ Page 8439 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: I was thinking of many. I must confess, the hon. Labour critic from the Liberal Party has learned the art a little more quickly than most do -- but not has quickly as my buddy the Minister of Finance and I did when we were over there.
An Hon. Member: You had more to work with.
Hon. M. Sihota: We sure had a lot more to work with in fact, if I may say. We usually discarded the kinds of issues that the opposition raises. And then I begin to wonder....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: No. We discarded a lot more than we probably should have, if I look at what happens today. I'm sorry. I know that I've gotten the member from Tatshenshini all riled up, and I really shouldn't be doing that.
D. Jarvis: Somebody's representing the Tatshenshini.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'd love to get into that debate.
The problem is this: as there inevitably are in society, a number of people simply do not agree with this government -- I noticed only one hand go up across the floor, so not that many British Columbians. They seek ways to subvert the intent of legislation.
I've noted that there have been quite a few agreements in the last little while that have been executed, interestingly enough, where there have been provisions like the agreement I'm about to quote from. It says: "The company and the union may agree that each employee covered by the collective agreement may work an additional eight hours per week at straight-time rates. All such catch-up hours in addition to the regular 40-hour week, shall be done on a voluntary basis." It goes on to say: "A day shall commence at the start of an employee's shift and shall end 24 hours later. A standard work week will commence at 12:01 Sunday and end at 12 o'clock midnight on Saturday. All Saturday and Sunday work shall be paid at time and a half, provided the employee has worked all available hours during the standard work week of 40 hours." So you have a provision with regard to overtime which is in violation of this statute, should it pass.
In anticipation of this legislation, people have extended the time period for the expiry of those types of agreements to 1997. Unless both parties agreed otherwise, the amendment would allow that kind of extension to occur. In fact, a whole array of agreements have been executed that have done precisely that, in anticipation of this legislation. I guess at some point you have to say to people -- as in fair wages -- that that's not cricket; you can't play those kinds of games. Clearly, the intent of signing into 1997 is to extend the agreement past the constitutional maximum mandate of this administration -- for reasons that I think are fairly clear to all.
The amendment will seek to give comfort to those who have entered into lengthy agreements in an effort to avoid this legislation. We're not prepared to give them comfort. For that reason, and others, we will not agree to the amendment that the hon. member has put forward.
G. Farrell-Collins: I can assure the minister that that wasn't my intention. The intention of the amendment, as I have stated, is to facilitate those employers and employees who have collective agreements they may have just ratified through a bargaining process -- and in many cases it is an expensive one -- to not have to go through that whole process again in a time frame that's not conducive to either party.
I think there is room for creativity here; I think there is room for constructive suggestions and changes to this transitional period. If the minister has a better suggestion or has some way of doing it, I'd be glad to hear it. I think we need to be careful, as I said in second reading, that you're not trying to deal with a problem, like the minister mentioned in that collective agreement, by going out there with a big fist and stomping all collective agreements, all employers and all employees -- and all the trade unions, for that matter, because they certainly incur costs in renegotiating collective agreements. I think it's important that the minister, and we as legislators, use our heads to deal with problems like this and not come out with a big club in trying to sort out the problems, because there may be a few collective agreements that are problems.
That's certainly the intent of the amendment. I would be willing to accept friendly amendments to it, if the minister has any other ideas. But I think that the provision he's put in, with the January 1 and the extension to April 1.... I think this is a case where the minister should have taken Professor Thompson's advice and taken a longer period to address this. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the demands on the mediation and arbitration professionals in this province are going to be great in sorting this out also. If there are over 1,000 collective agreements, as the minister said, I'm sure a lot of them are going to end up going to mediation and probably ultimately arbitration. I would think that a more realistic time frame would be a longer and more flexible one. I would hope that we could come to some sort of agreement among ourselves to make some changes to this transitional section that would work. I hate to say I told you so -- sometimes I don't mind saying it -- but when we come back to this House next spring we're going to find that this has been a problem. The Labour minister may not be the Labour minister at that time; he may be doing other things. I may not be the Labour critic. But we'll be in this House, I'm sure, either participating in or watching some debate in estimates or in question period dealing with this very problem. So I think it's important that we take a serious look at it now and try to be pragmatic, not political, about it, and bring in a transitional period that's far more realistic than the one the minister has put in this legislation.
Hon. M. Sihota: There are many who have encouraged me and the government and cabinet not to have this provision at all. They argue that if you have a
[ Page 8440 ]
statute that says that certain things shouldn't occur, you should make it the law and impose it upon the parties without giving them any time frames to figure out how they can deal with the legislation. I think that is the countervailing argument here. There are some in society who feel very strongly that when we pass a law, we ought not to allow anybody to have the benefits of conditions which create an unfair or imbalanced competitive environment out there for as long as we're suggesting here. Once it's the law, it should be corrected. There are many who argue that no time was given with regard to other changes that previous administrations had brought forward which impacted on collective agreements. So they are astonished that the government is giving people some time to correct deficient collective agreements that are in violation of the statute.
I guess at the end of the day it's a judgment call, and I know that all judgments are open to question. One does not openly invite I-told-you-sos from the opposition, and one does not wish to expose oneself to those arguments in political life. Therefore one tends to safeguard against those kinds of arguments and receives some high degree of comfort, particularly from staff and others who are involved in the field, that certain objectives can be met. It's better in politics to avoid an I-told-you-so than it is to have an I-told-you-so. I can only tell the hon. member that that was part of the consideration in drafting this provision, and that the judgment, of course, will be tested by time. I hope that he's wrong and I'm right. If I'm right, I probably won't get the chance to tell him that he was wrong. But if I'm wrong, I'm sure he'll have the opportunity to tell me that he was right.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess the difference between the two scenarios that the minister mentioned -- stepping in, passing the legislation and having all those deficiencies brought up to standard with a stroke of a pen -- and the process we're trying to do is that one doesn't allow the parties to sort it out themselves, and the second tries to let them sort it out on their own. My point is that if we're going to let the parties sort it out on their own, we should have a realistic time frame in which to do that, so that we don't set them up for failure -- rather, set them up for success. I feel that we're doing that in a number of cases, and I think that we're setting them up for large costs and expenses on behalf of the trade unions and the employers, and probably for an increased burden on the mediation and arbitration process, which we know is at times overtaxed, despite the fact that the ministry has tried to build it up. Given the increased load on the mediation and arbitration professionals in this province because of Bill 84, putting the reopening of 1,000 collective agreements on top of them is perhaps beyond their ability to cope. We are being risky here. We are setting up many parties who may want to sort out an agreement for failure, pressured time frames and some difficulties that could be avoided.
[8:45]
The minister said he went to great lengths in Bill 84 to improve the collective bargaining and labour-management relations environment in this province by first-contract arbitration and mediation arbitration, and he did that by a number of provisions within the code. I would hate to see us now go back and deal with souring that relationship not only in cases where it may already be somewhat sour because of poor agreements but also in cases where they have had substantive variances in the past that have worked well over a long period of time, and they now have to go back and grapple with those things. I would hate to see us sour the labour relations environments within those companies and trade unions because of an unrealistic time frame. I hope the minister is right on this one. I'm not convinced that he is; in fact, I'm convinced that he's wrong. But I'll cross my fingers and hope that he's right and I'm wrong, so that we don't cause those problems in the long term.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 13 approved on the following division:
| Yeas -- 28 | ||
|
Petter |
Marzari |
Priddy |
|
Edwards |
Charbonneau |
Pement |
|
Beattie |
Schreck |
Lortie |
|
Lali |
Evans |
Lovick |
|
MacPhail |
Barnes |
Clark |
|
Sihota |
Gabelmann |
Hagen |
|
Smallwood |
O'Neill |
Hartley |
|
Streifel |
Lord |
Randall |
|
Garden |
Kasper |
Simpson |
| Brewin | ||
| Nays -- 15 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Cowie |
Gingell |
|
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
Hanson |
|
Serwa |
Neufeld |
Fox |
|
Symons |
Tanner |
Warnke |
|
Anderson |
Jarvis |
Tyabji |
On section 14.
C. Tanner: Section 14 is the first mention of the regulation in this act. I have a question for the minister, if he would like to answer. Section 105(2)(b) of the act says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations "exempting a person or class of persons from all or part of this Act or the regulations." Will that be reversed, or will it stay in the new amended act?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's not deleted by an amendment in this amendment.
C. Tanner: I appreciate that it isn't. It's in the regulations, and I'm asking whether that regulation will be taken out.
[ Page 8441 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Statutory provision always takes precedent over regulation. If there's a conflict, the statute applies, and usually the regulation is revoked.
C. Tanner: In that case, can we assume that all of the work we've done today -- all of these amendments -- can be exempted by an order-in-council for the government?
An Hon. Member: It's the other way around.
Hon. M. Sihota: I thought I said the opposite.
Section 14 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Bill 65, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading of Bill 67.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll take a few minutes to speak to this bill. I realize it is late, but for reasons that I think will become evident in a few minutes, I wish to take the opportunity to speak to the legislation.
When I was first nominated to be a candidate for my political party in 1986, I had the privilege of working with my predecessor, Frank Mitchell, who represented the riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew as it was then known, and he represented it well between 1979 and 1986. I don't intend to go on with this for too long, but Mr. Mitchell enjoyed a high level of support and also the confidence of his constituents. One of the reasons this was the case is that he spent a lot of time working on things that mattered to the people he represented. He spent a lot of time dealing with constituency issues. As someone who was involved in the political process, I learned a lot from Mr. Mitchell with regard to political success, and I owe a lot to him. Quite frankly, if it hadn't been for Mr. Mitchell's mentoring, I probably wouldn't be here today.
[9:00]
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I see that hon. members opposite are grateful that Mr. Mitchell played that role and was a very influential person.
An Hon. Member: Is he grateful? That's the question.
Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, he's grateful.
During that election campaign in 1986, which was a difficult one for my party, he encouraged me to be involved in looking after the interests of those who lived in manufactured-home parks in our constituency. At that time in our constituency we had, and still have, a lot of residents in manufactured-home parks, as many members in this House have in their constituencies. Mr. Mitchell, while he was a member of this Legislature, spoke in this House on many occasions about the need to have a bill of rights regarding manufactured-home parks. It's something that he campaigned on and promised, and it became evident to me that it was a need in society that needed to be filled.
The interests of manufactured-home owners are quite a bit different from the interests and concerns of people who live in apartments. Quite frankly, manufactured-home parks are a lifestyle choice that people make. They reside in them for a lot of reasons and develop a fair bit of equity in the homes that they buy. Manufactured-home owners face some difficulty if faced with unconscionable increases in their rent and have to move. The difficulty is not simply in the payment of rent -- although that's an issue of concern which consumes much of our time as MLAs -- but they simply have no place to go because there's no land available for manufactured-home parks, particularly on southern Vancouver Island. It has been our belief for some time that a rent review process is needed for manufactured-home owners.
In 1988 -- I stand to be corrected -- the previous administration made a commitment to look into the needs and concerns of manufactured-home owners. At that time, I believe a report was prepared but never implemented. I guess it was somewhat controversial in the ranks of that party. There was a minority report and a majority report, and a bill of rights was never developed.
Shortly after the 1991 provincial election and the opportunity to form government, a priority of our ministry was that rights be created and developed for manufactured-home owners. By that time, because of redistribution, my constituency had been split in half and the new constituency of Malahat-Juan de Fuca was created, which consumed half of my old seat and part of the old Cowichan seat. Frank Mitchell had moved to Sooke and was an active campaigner for my colleague the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca and, regrettably, not an active campaigner in my election campaign, although he was known to come over a few evenings and engage in discussion, if not other items. I know that he impressed upon the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca the need to make sure a bill of rights was developed for manufactured-home owners. Both of us campaigned on establishing such a bill of rights. I asked the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca some months ago to conduct a report on the needs of these homeowners, and he tabled a report in October 1992.
The provisions in the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1993, as they relate to a rent review process, are reflective of the work that my colleague the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca did last year. He ought to be congratulated for the hard work he did in
[ Page 8442 ]
that report. I know -- and he will have an opportunity to speak to this -- that he takes great satisfaction in the fact that the recommendations in the report have found their way into legislation. I also know that if he's watching tonight -- I don't know if he is or not -- Frank Mitchell is probably smiling a lot more than me or the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca. He's seeing that a lot of the time, effort, dedication and sweat that he put into trying to make something happen is actually happening with the commencement of this debate on second reading.
I've taken the time to make the obvious point that in many ways, on a personal note, this bill -- in my mind -- is dedicated to Frank Mitchell and to the many people in the manufactured-homes sector who I know will take considerable enjoyment in the fact that this bill is now before the House. I wish to thank those who have been involved in the long road that has led to this day.
Many of those who live in manufactured-home parks are on fixed incomes or are seniors. I know that they, in particular, will benefit from the provisions in this legislation to provide them with a degree of tenant protection as it relates to a rent review process. This legislation, like all provincial legislation, does not apply to native lands -- or may not apply, I should say, to native lands. I'm not going to concede that it doesn't. Because it may not, there's some work to be done with regard to its application for those residents of manufactured homes -- and there are many in British Columbia -- who live in manufactured-home parks that are situate on native lands.
There's still some work to be done. My colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has indicated his willingness to work on solving that legislation. The problem that is being solved in this legislatsion through the rent review process where residents of manufactured homes.... Of course, it's not something that's confined to southern Vancouver Island or to the constituencies that I've spoken of. I know that the members from all political parties, during the review conducted by the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, have subsequently approached me or that member to determine the status of a rent review program for manufactured-home owners. I guess that's in part because of the lobby that's going on in their constituencies and in part because of a desire, always legitimate on their part, to reflect the concerns of their constituents.
Therefore I'm sure that all members in this House will find it possible to support the provisions in this legislation which deal and impact on the lives of those who reside in manufactured-home parks. I know that in communities like Kelowna, Penticton, Vernon, Coquitlam -- where I know my colleague the Minister of Environment has spent a lot of time working on this issue -- Comox, Nanaimo -- because I get a lot of letters from those areas -- Surrey and the Maple Ridge-Mission area of the province, all of those MLAs have been very active in encouraging us to bring forward this legislation. I want to thank those MLAs for their persistence in bringing this bill before the House tonight.
The legislation before the House today will also make additional changes to the Residential Tenancy Act. These changes are designed to make the system far more fair and equitable. It contains a number of changes that extend beyond owners of manufactured homes and includes amendments to protect approximately 500,000 tenants in British Columbia who require protection and additional rights without undermining the rights of landlords.
One of the amendments concerns security deposits. I know that you, hon. Speaker, are concerned about these matters, particularly given the constituency that you come from. I know the member from North Vancouver and others are equally concerned about the problems related to security deposits. Our latest figures indicate that about 40 percent of the disputes at the residential tenancy branch relating to monetary items involve the return of security deposits. That is extremely high when you consider all other monetary-related items such as unpaid rent, compensation for damage and compensation for tenants' goods.
What this legislation endeavours to do is shift the responsibility from the tenant to the landlord for the return of the security deposit. The legislation explicitly recognizes that the deposit is the tenant's money and makes it possible for the tenant, in an expedited way, to receive receipt of those moneys as quickly as possible. With 40 percent of the cases involving security deposits, the vast majority of them have been cases where landlords simply force tenants to go through a process and a lot of hassle to get their money back. What we are trying to do in this legislation is reverse the onus -- and I admit the bias -- in favour of the tenants, so that the tenants can get their security deposits immediately. As a matter of law, they are entitled to it. It is up to the landlord, by making an application within 15 days of the expiry of the tenancy, to prove that the money is needed to provide for cleaning or to rectify damage in an apartment. I must say that in the vast majority of cases, tenants are reasonable, and apart from reasonable wear and tear, there aren't that many problems. There are problems, of course, where there are tenants that will damage a facility, and therefore there needs to be balance in this legislation to protect the interests of landlords. It does that through the 15-day provision.
The amendment also recognizes that security deposits are often an urgent part of a renter's cash flow when the renter decides to move. For a large number of renters, the amount spent on housing now is almost half of their income. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimated in 1991 that almost 120,000 renters in B.C. were in need of what CMHC identified as core need, and that is that these renters were unable to obtain rental premises in adequate condition which would be suitable in size and affordable for their income level. The situation for many of the working poor is that the return of a security deposit is an urgent family need, and reversing the onus for the return of the deposit and shortening the time span from 30 days to 15 days are changes in public policy that are long overdue.
Under the new structure, there is provision for the landlord to reach an agreement with the tenant on how
[ Page 8443 ]
much the tenant might owe for damage or unpaid debts, and it is in the interest of both parties to try to reach such an agreement. Under these circumstances, the landlord does not have to file for the security deposit if there is a written agreement for the deductions. But, as I said, if the parties cannot agree, the onus will be on the landlord to apply for arbitration to keep some or all of the deposit. If the landlord does not do this within 15 days, the tenant can get an order directly from the registrar for return of those moneys.
So the security deposit provisions will go a long way, I think, in reducing the kinds of arbitration cases we get and will allow us, administratively, to allocate resources elsewhere, to deal with landlord-tenant disputes and, hopefully, to resolve the situation where the tenant gets the money back and the landlord's rights are protected by the 15-day provision and the other provisions in legislation.
This is not to say that this government is not mindful of its election promise to develop a rent review program for those who reside in apartments. We are mindful of that, and I wish to confirm -- and I know many have lobbied me on this issue -- that the government is working on that issue as well. I note that the member for Okanagan-Penticton is, as he says, glaring at me. He has been one of the more effective lobbyists in terms of the need to do that in an area that he represents. I talked earlier about manufactured homes and how he has been active in lobbying us for the rent review program for manufactured homes. I know that his efforts won't cease until we are in a position to expand that to the area that he wants.
The legislation is not only a reflection of hard work by members such as the member for Okanagan-Penticton, but it's also legislation which provides for a standard-form tenancy agreement to replace the multitude of forms available from various landlords. This in itself has been a problem, because we've got so many forms, often imbalanced, particularly when a landlord is a corporation and they take advantage of legal resources to draft an agreement that is perhaps structured too strongly one way.
[9:15]
It would seem to me that it would give both landlords and tenants a better sense of trust if a standard tenancy agreement, developed in consultation with the industry and through the neutral auspices of this ministry, was developed to put forward in plain and simple language the rights and obligations of both landlords and tenants so that everyone knows where they stand and what their obligations are. An agreement like this put forward in simple language will clarify whether or not a tenant is required, on vacating, to paint the premises as a part of the reasonable-wear-and-tear obligations, or if they're required to simply clean the fridge, the stove and the washrooms, and leave the place in a generally presentable condition, not necessarily a pristine condition. Those kinds of rights and obligations are laid out in a standard tenancy agreement, and it will now be required that the parties execute those agreements in most cases to cover their tenancy arrangements and situations. Again, that provision is long overdue. It will help put aside a lot of the acrimony and arbitrations that result in this area, and it will, I think, go a long way toward addressing, and perhaps even neutralizing, relations between landlords and tenants.
There is much development occurring in British Columbia, and much of that development, of course, is a consequence of the growth in B.C. As I constantly remind members of the opposition, we have a buoyant economy in B.C. and the fastest-growing economy in all of Canada. To some degree, I will argue that that's a reflection of the kinds of economic policies the government has brought forward. I note there's very little clamouring from the opposition, so I trust that they agree with those comments.
But because there is development, people will often take it upon themselves to tear down an apartment and deny residents, who have resided in a place for half their lives, the dwelling that they've been in for that time period. Another of the major changes proposed in this bill is the amendment to prevent needless evictions -- I know, hon Speaker, that these events occur in your constituency -- when there is no bona fide development permit. In the absence of this legislation, a landlord can evict a tenant in such a situation. The landlord must have the required permit to demolish or renovate a residential premise, as a result of the legislation that is now being placed before the House.
In the manufactured-home sector, eviction for development has also been an issue. Therefore the minimum notice period for ending a tenancy of a manufactured-home pad will be increased from six months to 12 months if the landlord intends to convert the premises for other purposes. I believe, if memory serves me right, that was one of the recommendations contained in the report prepared by the hon. member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca.
Other progressive features of this legislation are the reforms to some of the significant sections of the act dealing with arbitrators. For example, an arbitrator can now order the return of tenants' property wrongfully taken by a landlord. Previously only monetary compensation could be ordered. What happened was that landlords would, without authority, retain a television set or other property of a tenant, and only monetary compensation could be ordered under the statute. Now, with this provision, we can order the actual return of the goods. An arbitrator's decision will now have to be made public and be written. This will help landlords and tenants by giving them easy access to information on other cases that may be similar to their own and guide them in the resolution of their matters on their own. An arbitrator will also have the power to correct or clarify a decision.
This legislation also establishes an arbitration review panel to review decisions and orders of arbitrators. This will make the system more fair and responsible. Review is not like an appeal process. A review will not be conducted simply because either party doesn't like an arbitration. Certain conditions are laid out in the legislation before an arbitration review can be held. These include the applicant's inability to attend the original hearing due to circumstances beyond their control. It's unfair right now. We have cases where
[ Page 8444 ]
people get caught in traffic and don't arrive at a residential tenancy branch in time. The arbitrator makes a decision, and there's no ability to reopen that. In the lower mainland, for example, this can be a problem. Someone gets stuck on the Lions Gate Bridge and can't get across to a hearing. Before this bill, they were unable to reopen that hearing.
Hearings will also occur if there is new evidence or if the arbitrator exceeded his or her powers. In such circumstances, the panel will set aside the decision and may refer the matter back to arbitration. The panel has 30 days to issue its decision, which is final and binding on all parties. This provision is found in the statute as a consequence of the ombudsman's recommendations some years ago that there had to be an appeal process. But if I may so, we receive about 200 cases a year -- in other words, one every working day -- where there is, on the face of it, a legitimate basis to warrant an appeal.
The legislative provisions that I've outlined here tonight are the most significant changes to the Residential Tenancy Act in a decade. That's because this government has committed itself to protecting and expanding affordable housing in British Columbia. Some of the initiatives in this area involve partnerships between governments, municipalities and the community to increase the supply of rental housing. Equally important is fairness in landlord-tenant legislation to protect the interests of both landlords and tenants. The provisions contained in this bill are a major step in achieving such fairness and balance.
I can assure all hon. members that this is the beginning of changes with regard to protecting the interests of tenants in British Columbia. As always in a complex public policy area, there is much more work to be done. But having said that, it would have been wrong for this administration not to proceed with these changes and, of course, not to recognize the hard work of the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca and of my predecessor, Mr. Mitchell. It's with great pleasure, therefore, that I move second reading of Bill 67, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act.
R. Kasper: It gives me great pleasure to rise here to speak on second reading of what I view as a very important bill. I took great pleasure in participating in the creation of this document. But I couldn't have participated and had the input that I did if I hadn't received assistance from members of this House on both sides -- members of the opposition and members of the third party -- during my review on laws pertaining to manufactured housing. I have to admit that I received great cooperation from members I approached for advice. I sought their input, and they freely gave it. I have to congratulate members from all sides on their involvement.
I think it's important that I remind the House, and those who perhaps aren't aware, of the process that took place in regard to the recommendations I brought forward that are the basis of this legislation. During 1992 I conducted a review and visited some nine locations throughout the province, seeking the views of people who both reside in and own manufactured-home parks. Some 1,300-plus community members in those nine areas attended the public hearings. We received some 600 written submissions, and during those nine hearings we had 185 oral presentations.
I'd also like to point out that during my review I conducted a survey, and we had a 33 percent response to that survey, which I have to admit is very high by any standards of public survey when seeking the views of the public in a written format.
Of the recommendations that I brought forward to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Affairs, some 30, were dealt with by constituents and people from stakeholder groups such as the Manufactured Home Park Owners' Association of B.C. and the United Manufactured Home Owners' Association in B.C. I have to say that if it weren't for the president of the Manufactured Home Park Owners' Association of B.C., Mr. Doug Hallat, and the president of United Manufactured Home Owners' Association, Mr. Joe Degagne, my job and the conduct of that review would have been a lot more difficult. Those individuals have to be congratulated on their efforts to bring their associations and their executives together to forge common ground and bring forward recommendations to me -- and ultimately to the government which I'm proud to say are the basis of this legislation.
I would just like to point out some of the recommendations in this document here today. Both groups recommended something that is a first for Canada and a first for British Columbia: the establishment of a mediation dispute resolution committee that will allow the stakeholders -- the park owners and the home owners -- and an independent third party to deal with issues of concern around rent, the establishment of standard park rental agreements, park rules and regulations, and other matters that come to the forefront throughout that industry. They also recommended some changes to the Residential Tenancy Act in regard to arbitrations. They felt it was long overdue that arbitrations were not normally published or gazetted. I'm pleased to say that with this legislation there's a provision for the publishing of that information to make sure that all people within parks or tenants within other types of rental accommodation shall have an opportunity to see what these arbitrations mean and what they're all about. That process alone affords an opportunity for both the landlord and the tenant to make sure there are clear lines of communication, regardless of what the arbitrations rules.
It's important to note that this joint submission by the park owners and the home owners clearly pointed out that rent is an area of concern. I didn't recommend that there be retroactivity to October 1, 1992, but those stakeholder groups recommended that. The park owners felt that there was unnecessary gouging in the marketplace, and due to a number of issues that have arisen in that housing sector, the landlords who have been fair to their tenants strongly advocated that this rent review process be retroactive to October 1, 1992. That coincided with the completion of my report and recommendations to the government.
[9:30]
Areas such as park improvement costs, development and entrance fees, and security of tenure will also be
[ Page 8445 ]
reviewed by the dispute resolution committee established in this legislation. But it's not just a process of provincial government establishing a level of authority or another agency that is going to make this process work. This bill also allows the opportunity for residents within the 500 to 600 manufactured-home parks throughout British Columbia, if they so choose, to form local park committees. In conjunction with the landlords, they can resolve any disputes or differences they may have in regard to rent, park rules and regulations, establishing the suitability of tenants, or terms and conditions of how a park shall operate.
It's important that this government has recognized that it's not just government that should establish the rules and guidelines, but to afford the opportunity to the stakeholders so that they can decide how they want to live within their own parks. If a local park committee is not established, or if a local park committee cannot come to an agreement, then either party can go to a provincial body. And there is an opportunity for both groups to have their views heard and go through a fair hearing. There is an assurance that when those groups attend those hearings there is a representative from their particular sector, an individual from the park owners, an individual from the homeowners and a third-party independent member.
In my deliberations and work in my constituency office, people complained to me time and time again that when they were about to sell their home, the landlord would arbitrarily decide that the tenant or the prospective purchaser of their home would not be allowed to purchase and refused the transfer tenancy agreement. This bill allows the provincial committee to make recommendations as to what guidelines and criteria shall be established for the transfer of tenancy agreements and the sale of homes within a park. Currently the legislation and regulations are vague and are the subject of many arbitrations and disputes.
The legislation also affords an opportunity for the stakeholders to make further recommendations to the government on matters that may not be addressed in this legislation. An open-door policy has been established, assuring that the industry will remain strong and viable by encouraging residents to participate in a process and guarantee the rights of those individuals for the free sale of their home to whom they chose without unfair interference from the landlord, but based on consultation.
I have to take my hat off to members of the Legislature who persistently phoned me and said: "When are we going to get legislation? Talk to the minister. Knock on his door. Talk to members of cabinet. Are our views going to be heard?" Members such as the member for Okanagan-Penticton, the member for Nanaimo, the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, the member for Mission-Kent, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and the member for Surrey approached me on numerous occasions. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock also approached me. Those members consistently supported this legislation. They consistently felt that the 100,000 residents of manufactured homes in this province had to have a bill of rights that would protect their interests. But there also needed to be a bill of rights that would protect the interests of landlords and assure them of a fair process without interference by government and without interference in the marketplace, and an opportunity for landlords and tenants to reach mutual agreements. Failing that approach, their stakeholder representative group could come forward with a fair decision.
Another suggestion in my report to the hon. Minister of Labour and Consumer Affairs last year was that we have an opportunity to make amendments to deal with the right of tenure. I know that parks have closed down within a number of constituencies, and the closure of a park makes a tenant feel like a sitting duck. This legislation allows them the opportunity to receive a minimum of 12 months' notice, up from the current six months. There's a provision for the payment of actual moving costs if a park is to shut down or close. There's also an opportunity with this legislation to ensure fairness for these people, which I feel is long overdue. I know that many members wonder why we haven't dealt with rent review or other matters for other housing sectors. Well, it's my hope, with the previous statements by the minister, that there will be future action. This is the first step. We've put forward an opportunity which I feel is creative and which brings in the stakeholders. It allows the people who are directly involved in that market to have an opportunity to determine what fair rent is. Both landlords and tenants can have a process with this legislation to arbitrate those decisions if they feel they have not been listened to. There's ample opportunity for fairness and balance with this legislation.
Hon. Speaker, noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.
The House adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
[ Page 8446 ]
The committee met at 2:35 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECRATION AND HOUSING
(continued)
On vote 51: minister's office, $370,891 (continued).
A. Cowie: The other day I got my monthly statistics from the GVRD. They give a very good outline of what the economic indicators are. Undoubtedly the minister has seen them from time to time. I've just begun to get these, because I feel that having a hand on the employment picture, the number of houses that are built in the province.... Essentially, what one sees is that retail sales are up, building permits are up, and housing starts are up. There is a very healthy situation going on in the lower mainland, and I believe the situation is similar in greater Victoria. These two parts of the province, along with the Kelowna area or, let's say, the whole of the Okanagan Valley, are very healthy situations. Of course, we all know the situation isn't the same throughout the province.
We have this growth of approximately 60,000 people a year -- net, I believe -- in the province, and those figures vary considerably. Some 35 percent of these people come here without jobs, so the big challenge is to make sure that they do have jobs. In fact, only 10 percent of the people in the lower mainland are unemployed -- I shouldn't say only; it's unfortunate to be unemployed. Certainly there are a lot more elsewhere in the province. Does the ministry keep a similar economic indicator for the whole province, so we can get a grasp of what's going on everywhere?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We don't keep detailed economic indicators or statistics like that. That is generally done by the Ministry of Finance and by the Ministry of Economic Development. We obviously utilize that information in our work when we are looking at grants, regional planning initiatives or at our housing allocations. We take a look at growth and where the needs are. But generally, we don't generate that kind of information.
A. Cowie: I think that there are enough indicators. Greater Vancouver has it, and greater Victoria probably has it, so I take it that we can get these indicators elsewhere, in any case. But it is very helpful.
With the growth going on in Kelowna, greater Vancouver and greater Victoria, there is obviously a need -- and the minister and I have talked about this from time to time -- for at least another look at the regional government structure. We have talked previously about perhaps even restructuring the number of municipalities within the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Presently there are 17 or so -- 18 if you include the unorganized areas. I know there is a great deal of resistance from mayors, particularly in some of the smaller municipalities, but when you talk to them they admit that there are definitely some efficiencies in at least some combinations. In the Matsqui area, for instance, they talk about amalgamations. But it is not just amalgamations; it is the need to plan regionally. It seems that municipalities simply can't plan for growth in an efficient way -- at least they can't plan for major developments -- without looking at the region. I wonder where the ministry is in reviewing the whole regional government structure.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This is fairly wide open and could receive a fairly detailed response. The hon. member is aware that the ministry and I are very active in reviewing the whole issue of growth management and regional planning. We made it quite clear that we want to introduce some form of legislation in the next session. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we haven't had provincial legislation on regional planning since 1983, when it was removed. So there has been a ten-year hiatus in terms of the provincial government having a role in or a perspective on these issues. Certainly there is no legislation making it mandatory for regions to plan in a comprehensive way. We have indicated that we think it's imperative that there be some kind of growth management strategy legislation, and that regions be given, perhaps, new tools for coordinating growth and managing the transportation, land use and environmental issues before them. In the GVRD already, for instance, there is a significant regional initiative in planning, in terms of air pollution -- for the whole valley -- and we have been involved in that. Four regional districts, my deputy tells me. We have checked back in; we have indicated that we are interested. We have been told there's a need. There is consensus that we need some kind of regional planning of growth management strategies, but there is really no consensus on what form -- whether it should be legislated, whether it should be universal or regionally derived. We have been told that because past regional planning legislation was universal, it was applied equally but didn't reflect the differences in the regions.
I know that in my travels, especially this year, when I went to all the regional meetings across this province, I sat down with numerous councils and regional districts, and invariably the theme running through them was growth issues or economic issues. They wanted more growth, but there were different characteristics in each of those regions, and there were regions, subregions and even groups of communities who had different perspectives on how to manage or generate growth. So what has come clear to us is that we are probably going to require regional strategies in our growth management, or legislation that recognizes the different regions.
We do know that certain regions are ahead of the game. The GVRD has done considerable work. The mayor of Vancouver has been heavily involved -- the livable region strategy -- and they are working ahead now to come up with what they hope will be a voluntary regional planning system. I have my
[ Page 8447 ]
reservations about whether they are going to be able to do it voluntarily, but they are moving ahead. Our work, so far, has been to check in, to show that the provincial government has provincial interests, and that the issues of today don't recognize the boundaries we have drawn -- politically or otherwise -- for municipalities and regional districts. The boundaries are broader than that, and it really needs coordinated effort, particularly in the urban areas.
So we have been doing research. We have held a number of seminars. One was managed by Dr. Walter Hardwick. We brought key players and interested parties together from across the province to give us a perspective initially on what is required and where we are going, and really to indicate -- through Walter and our work -- that the province was coming back into the system. There were no preconceived ideas and no set agenda. But it is clear to us, and to most people, that there has to be a regional perspective of growth management strategy. Walter reported back to us, subsequent to that meeting, and when I have all of the details, hon. member, I would be very pleased to submit some of the conclusions on that to you. I am very open about that; indeed, you are welcome to participate in some of those discussions if you so desire.
[2:45]
A few weeks ago we had a session at the UBC Centre for Human Settlements, where we basically pulled together key academics in the field. So we have gone to the practical side. We brought in the academics and the planners from not only Victoria and Vancouver, but key people in North America who have been working on these issues, who have examples of other jurisdictions, and who have learned by experience how to do it -- and, quite frankly, how to not do it. So we have pulled that together, and we have the results of that in terms of adding to our ammunition, adding to our research into this important area.
We are now in the process of putting together a consultation program that goes beyond ourselves and our internal looking at this with key stakeholders. People like Alan Artibise have been involved, along with people who are interested in these areas whom the hon. member probably knows very well. We are now putting together a consultation process so that we can go broader, and we will put out some variations on a theme in terms of what is possible. But I am very conscious that this stuff could get off the rails very quickly if there is a feeling that where we are going is etched in stone; that we have a preconceived idea of what regional planning is all about, or that or we know what is best for the regions. I am sure I will hear about that from my other colleagues. We are going to go out there and test some waters, though, with some concepts and some options -- and not only with the stakeholders directly. We are going to consult with regional and local governments and planners and whoever else is interested, but also with the general public.
So the issue then starts to become not only planning and growth, but also governance, of course. What kind of structures do we require for regional governance? Are the current structures adequate? Quite frankly, I think that regional government is a good tool; I think there are fine ones; and I think it does work. It's not understood by the public very well, and the public is sometimes very critical of it -- mostly, I believe, because they don't understand it or really know what it does and what it can do potentially in terms of coordinating factors for things like growth management.
So I'm moving out, and I have to say it's a little slower than I would like, but I am very conscious that local governments protect their autonomy and their individuality. There is a concern that regional planning or growth management will affect legislatively the independence of a municipality, because what could conceivably happen is that the overall direction and common good for the region on occasion may be superior to the desire of the small municipality. That is a tricky one to overcome, and we've got to talk about it, because there's a longstanding tradition in this province of autonomy of local government. So we're going out there to talk about it, and that's the next step. We've done a considerable amount of work, we've checked back in, we've let people know that we're interested and that the province has some provincial interests to protect.
I'd be very pleased, hon. member, to share with you the next part of the strategy, and the bottom line is that whatever form the legislation takes, or growth management.... One of the biggest things we're looking at is other jurisdictions around the world -- North America, Canada and other places -- who have had to grapple with these kinds of issues, because really we're not talking about anything new. It's new in terms of the British Columbia environment, but other jurisdictions have grappled with this. Some have done badly and some have done well. I'm particularly enamoured with some of the Oregon and Washington State approaches in terms of what they've done. But we say off the top, for those who suddenly react by saying, "Oh, you're just going to import another model," that we're looking at what others have done. I think that by our research, and our intelligent and rational approach to these issues, we can start to develop a made-in-B.C. model that is developed by British Columbians and that fits the unique characteristics of our regions.
A. Cowie: I appreciate the minister's review of what he's planning to do. I think it's terribly important, because quite often the ministry might think we know what is happening, and we don't necessarily know what's going on. Since I make a point of not contacting some of my friends in your ministry because I don't want to put them in an awkward situation, I don't have a way of finding out what's going on. So I really appreciate the minister telling us, at least once a year, in a review situation like this. In between, too, we do have good contact, and I appreciate that. It's an open process.
It's clear from the economic indicators that I've been looking at recently that there are really two situations in this province -- and probably more. There's the healthy situation in the lower mainland, the Victoria area and in the Okanagan. I don't want to keep repeating that, but it's a very healthy situation where the growth is happening, and perhaps the emphasis has
[ Page 8448 ]
to be put on the regional areas right now. It is where the tools are needed to help guide that growth. In the other areas maybe we need another mechanism. In some areas in the province I've talked with people who don't want to review the regional model at all. They have some concerns about it, but they think it's great. So I don't think there is any one model for this province; there are individual solutions for individual areas according to what the situation is.
At the planning conference that I referred to, I heard the idea that the real action is going to take place in city-states, urbanized areas -- whatever you want to call them. That's where the action's going to be, and in these other areas up north -- Fort St. John, and all these delightful places where people have worked in the resource economy over the years -- they're going to have difficulty. It doesn't make any difference how much manufacturing we try to put in those areas, you find that manufacturing itself is in trouble as an industry. It doesn't have the growth that it had even three or four years ago. So I think we have to look at new models. It's important to go out to the people and get them involved. I appreciate the minister telling us that he's going to do that.
The minister made a pretty good stab the way he went out and asked for input with his Provincial Commission on Housing Options. I also appreciated the fact that he extended that by some four months so that people could in fact.... He did listen so that there could be more input. As he knows, while the Liberal opposition didn't appear before the commission, we did submit a paper that dealt with the subject. I understand it was at least read, and I hope it was helpful. So I appreciate that he is going to go out, and I guess there's no need to continue along this line anymore -- unless the minister wants to add....
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member's interest is encouraging, and if there has been not been enough involvement or contact from my ministry in terms of this issue.... We need everybody involved in this to be able to move ahead in this area in terms of growth management strategies, because 90 percent of regional planning, quite frankly, is political strategy. We are going to need the allies, and we are going to need us to be all together if we are going to accomplish it, because, as I said, it can go off the rails. So I do make the overture today to you, hon. member, that if you wish briefings from my staff on where we are at and where we're going, that's available to you.
Let me also indicate to you that we have made some real and very encouraging incremental moves in terms of building toward a better system. In the lower mainland right now, for instance, three regional districts are talking -- very delicately -- to one another. There's the Fraser-Cheam, the Dewdney-Alouette, and the Central Fraser Valley -- you know about it, but to put in on the record -- about whether there is some collapsing of amalgamations that could on. My colleague here is also from that area. Instead of having a multitude of regional districts in the lower mainland, can we get down to, maybe, two? They are very encouraging discussions, but as you can imagine, highly political. What's very encouraging is that whereas, a few years ago, it would never have been possible to have these discussions, lights are turning on, people are realizing there are efficiencies to be developed and, indeed, our citizens in some areas are way ahead of us in terms of demanding change. The status quo is no longer an option in many of these areas.
I have to say, though, contrary sometimes to the suggestions that I get from my colleague the Liberal critic, I don't believe in forced amalgamations 99 percent of the time. The only time I would suggest that there be an amalgamation that the provincial government would ensure, or would be part of enforcing, would be where there is outright war, the government has collapsed and there is no local government to run the shop -- it sometimes comes close to that. But my philosophy is that if it is going to work, if people are going to understand it and it's going to have an impact in the long term, the local citizenry and politicians have to be the ones, in the end, who have to believe it and pull it together. We are there for assistance and encouragement, and we can actually act sometimes as dispute-resolvers. And we have, although sometimes the ministry's staff get a little nervous when they are asked to do that. We also have dollars for restructuring and encouraging amalgamation, and per capita grants. For instance, we have just pulled off a significant amalgamation of Vernon to Okanagan Landing. It was highly controversial -- quite frankly, I wasn't sure if it was going to happen. But it did happen, and one of the reasons why it happened is that we have dollars. We have $3 million to $4 million set aside in my budget to encourage local governments, through grants, to join up.
A. Cowie: My colleague for Saanich and the Islands is here, and in an attempt to follow your guidance that we try and keep our questions structured, we'll attempt to talk about regional districts now, and not come back to that later. I'm not making any promises for any of the Socred members -- it would be impossible. But I'm trying to do that for my own colleagues in the Liberal Party, so perhaps my colleague could ask some questions along this line.
C. Tanner: The minister made one statement that I was very pleased to hear -- although I can't honestly say that was true last year when I asked your ministry, not once but twice, whether I could talk to your expert in amalgamation. There was a promise made but it never happened. Like you, I agree that this is a non-partisan issue and that we need to get together to help the local municipalities work together, if they want to. I too need some help, because I don't have the expertise that's available in your department, and I need to be able to talk to people. So I'm pleased to hear the minister giving us that assurance.
The other thing I will emphasize to the minister and that I hear time and time again -- as recently as yesterday -- is that we have too much government in this country: we have too much government in Canada, we have too much government in B.C. and we have too much government in Victoria. In my view, it's asinine
[ Page 8449 ]
that there should be 14 municipalities on the lower end of this island and in this area. Every citizen I speak to repeatedly tells me that they don't like to see that many municipalities, and they want to see some changes. The public want to change it, but the politicians in the municipalities are busily defending artificial lines on a map. I think the minister must soon show some initiative. Even if he doesn't like to, I don't think he's going to have much choice. I think he's going to have to, because the public want it, not because the municipal politicians want it.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I appreciate the comments from my colleague. There really hasn't been any shift in philosophy from me, I don't think; I have indicated quite clearly that I believe sanity has to prevail in some of these regions someday. My philosophy, though, is that to some degree the sanity has to come from the local level. The province can believe it, the minister can believe it and the Legislature can believe it, but if the citizens and the local elected officials don't want it, you are going to fight forever. They have to come along.
In your area, hon. member, I have met two or three times with currently elected political representatives -- particularly the mayor of Sidney, Marie Roscoe, who is keen on amalgamation. Whereas I am sympathetic, and I say, "Good for you. You have a challenge. You have something you believe in -- pursue it," my suggestion to her has been that that belief just can't come from the top in terms of elected officials, if she is going to be successful. You also have to build some community consensus to give you some support, because if it is from here, and it is not understood down there, it is not going to go anywhere. So I have suggested to her that she should get together a restructure committee. There is a detailed process. One of my staff here now, Mr. Paget, along with some others, has probably been active in this kind of issue for many years.
[3:00]
We have a fairly sophisticated system in place, in terms of advice first and structure second, on how to pull these kinds of things off. It is very delicate, particularly when you talk about restructure, reorganization, new government structures, and changing people's ways of doing things for a very long time. If you don't do it right, they don't understand, it goes wrong, and it takes you another five or ten years to get back to square one.
I understand that there is interest out there, but some municipalities are not interested. I think it is the mayor of North Saanich, Maurice Chazottes, who has some reservations. There are some natural partnerships to be made, but my advice to them is to build some consensus among them all, then come to see me when there is some consensus at all the elected levels and some consensus in the community -- not just the chamber of commerce, but general community support. Then we can start to talk about bringing some goals together, about helping them do the studies, and about the financial implications of pulling themselves together. I haven't talked to them recently out there, but I have been supportive in terms of going in the right direction.
C. Tanner: The minister was also going to comment on his guarantee this time that his officials will be available to us as members, so that we can talk to them and get their advice and expertise, so that we can better understand the situation.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, ministry staff are available to MLAs. My philosophy is that ministry staff work for all of us, unless it's perceived that the MLA has an agenda and that there's not some genuine community support for it. The evidence from past experience is that, unless there is community support in terms of building the bases, these things can go off the rails very quickly. But advice can be given and we can explain the system very clearly to you, as I've explained to the mayor. I believe actually, hon. member, that you attended a meeting with the mayor in my office.
C. Tanner: I thought I made it clear the first time that I'm not talking about the elected municipal officials. I'm talking about the main swell of the population of this area. I hear all over that they resent the fact that municipal politicians are defending lines on a map which don't mean anything, other than lines on a map. While the minister might be talking to those elected officials -- as he should do, and as I do -- the fact of the matter is that there is a groundswell there now. Whether or not we can bring it to some sort of fruition, it seems to me that I, as a responsible MLA, should help facilitate getting both the public and the municipal authorities together to do something about it. The same thing is true of the minister. He has the responsibility of representing his constituency which is composed of more than one municipality or parts of one. I certainly have the same responsibility, and if my knowledge is expanded and if I can facilitate bringing the municipal politicians together, I think it's my duty to do so.
I think a greater duty, though, is to the citizens of my constituency so that they have some way of expressing their frustration, and that's not what the minister is addressing. It seems to me that the minister is only concerned with what the municipal politicians say -- if he is interested in listening to what I have to say.
L. Fox: I've been listening with considerable interest to the debate on restructuring -- having gone through this process myself back in 1982, as the chairman of a restructuring committee, which led me to this point today. Certainly I understand much of what the minister is trying to say in terms of concern.
One of the major concerns I have about restructuring a particular area is that bigger government -- created when you unite communities together -- may not bring about the efficiencies it should. We have evidence of that in the provincial government where the larger you get, the less efficiency you have. So there are a whole lot of efficiency questions that have to be considered when you look at a restructuring. I recognize that the ministry's role is a very tedious one, and certainly it wants to accommodate communities who show some significant interest in either amalgamation or restructuring. That's why I stood up, because I know
[ Page 8450 ]
that the minister is attending a meeting this evening in Happy Valley -- at least, according to the notice, he is.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Staff, not me.
L. Fox: Okay. Well, then, that's good.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I know about the issue -- very well.
L. Fox: That's good to hear, hon. Chair, because I was extremely concerned that the minister was getting directly involved in something different than what he suggested just a few moments ago.
I've had several calls from this particular area, and I'm told that there's no resolution at the regional district level requesting this restructuring committee to be struck. I'm told that there's no contribution from the regional district level, and yet somebody is putting up $10,000. So the first question I have to ask the minister is: has his ministry committed any dollars to this process at this time?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Happy Valley, yes indeed -- a very happy place. It is one that I happen to know a little better than some of the other restructures. There are many going on across the province, but that one happens to be very close.
We asked -- and staff can correct me -- the Capital Regional District to be the coordinating body pulling all the interested parties together, particularly those three that might be interested in taking Happy Valley under their umbrella: Metchosin, Langford and Colwood. We've asked the regional district to be the coordinating body, and for that the chairman, Mr. Frank Leonard, asked for some financial support. I agreed to pay $10,000 to have them coordinate that kind of activity. It is going to take a little doing, but they've agreed to do that.
L. Fox: My first question is: who asked to have this facilitated? Was it the actual municipalities that surround this group of people or was it the regional district director who represents this area, Mr. Dalby? How did the request come to the ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Just to get a little historical perspective, some months ago a Langford incorporation vote was called. To do that, of course, the boundaries have to be determined. In the restructuring analysis, there was a suggestion that Happy Valley would be included in the Langford vote. There was really no consensus in Happy Valley as to whether they actually wanted to be part of Langford. After much discussion and consultation, we left the Happy Valley portion out of the Langford incorporation vote. Langford had to determine what it was going to do, which it has; I believe it was the largest unincorporated area in Canada at the time, and is now incorporated, thank goodness. My promise to them was that once that happened, then we'd turn our attention to Happy Valley in terms of where it should go. But they would get a vote on their destiny -- their manifest destiny, if you will. Was that Theodore Roosevelt? This is basically carrying out the promise I made to the Happy Valley residents. So what we have done is bring together the residents and the key players and the representatives of the current interested municipalities. I fully presume that, at the end of all this, the Happy Valley residents will determine where they want to go; but of course, we have to see who is interested in taking them. On a restructure vote, the residents can't just vote to go into a municipality, because the municipality they wish to join also has to have a say in whether they actually want them. That's how these things go. So we are going to work out some of those details. I don't know, Mr. Paget, if you can tell me what the time frame might be on when we might pull this to a conclusion. By the end of this year, we hope to have a resolution of some sort.
L. Fox: Can the minister assure me that these people will be able to have an independent vote, knowing all the facts, independent of the actual community that wishes to take them in or to incorporate them?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, I give you my assurance. My number one rule.... I may not have mentioned this to you, but one of the things that I have said, in all the restructures and amalgamations that I have dealt with, is that every bit of information has to be on the table. Indeed, I have held back votes because I have not been satisfied that all the information, pro and con, is in the hands of the residents so they can make an informed decision. Yes is my answer.
L. Fox: One final question on that issue. That would include a working out of tax rates based on the assessments within that area so that they understand what the increases would be?
Hon. R. Blencoe: As the member has been involved in restructuring, he knows that is a prerequisite.
L. Fox: I want it for the record.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, for the record, you've got it.
A. Cowie: On the same subject, I want to thank the minister for giving me a list of 80 or 85 currently active projects on boundary alignment or extension of municipalities and regional districts. It is very interesting. In fact, I'm sure it's a big job; it must keep several people busy just doing that.
I want to move to another subject, if I could. We certainly haven't exhausted that one at all, but there is no point spending too much time on it. I would like to go to the structure of the ministry staff, just for a minute, to ask some questions. There is a little diagram that the minister has. The one I have is updated to January 14, 1993. There is nothing mysterious about it, but I'm a believer that graphics indicate where one's priorities are, and I see planning way down here at the bottom. There's a line that runs down it, underneath executive director, local governments, and then you
[ Page 8451 ]
look down and there's executive director, planning and corporate relations, and under that comes planning, local government structure and public affairs. Planning is sort of hidden in there. In my opinion, one of the major roles of Municipal Affairs is to actually do some of the things we have been talking about in the last hour or so -- and that is planning. I'm wondering if this is an indication of where the minister sees planning as a priority, underneath boiler inspection and a whole bunch of other things. I'm being a bit cynical, but maybe the minister would like to comment.
Hon. R. Blencoe: One of my comments in my introductory remarks was that this ministry is incredibly diverse. When you take a look at the things we have to do, all the way from safety engineering to the fire commissioner, it's in my ministry. We monitor elevating devices. We take care of incredible engineering services at the local level. We have a whole local government service department, and even downtown revitalization. And then we go all the way over to managing the University Endowment Lands and the fire department. I can tell you that is a challenge, and a creative department. Then we go over to managing the homeowner grant, and then we have all the sports, and then the housing department. What I am saying is that for your eyes -- and for the staff -- we try to fit it all on one page. You are right: planning is a priority of mine. We could just sort of slip it up. The bottom line is that because it is down there doesn't mean it is not highly rated by the minister.
[3:15]
A. Cowie: One of my pet themes, and something that people often say about this particular ministry, because it is so broad, is that transportation planning and Municipal Affairs should be together. If you did that, you would have a very strong ministry that would really be suitable for today's needs. Some of these other things.... For instance, recreation has been bounced all over the place over the years. While it is a very interesting field, it could fit with Tourism. Tourism, Culture and Recreation could fit together. It might be just as appropriate to have it in Municipal Affairs, but it is not necessary. There are a number of items. I don't want to prolong this too much, but take electrical safety, for instance, which is under the minister's mandate. When a homeowner calls for an electrical inspection in Delta -- as I have -- they call Richmond. In fact, you get a very efficient and knowledgable person, but I can never understand why the municipality of Delta couldn't be given that authority. I can't see why Municipal Affairs would even want to do that.
Hon. R. Blencoe: First of all, let me answer the recreation question. Recreation has been within the ministry, I think, for about five years now. Most of the recreation in the province of British Columbia is recreation programming, for which there are thousands of staff involved in municipal recreation. It is basically delivered at the local level; in terms of budgets at the local level, it is probably one of the biggest, because we live in a society where people are more active: they want to participate, they want their kids involved, and it is delivered by the local government. I would be very reticent, as a matter of fact, because I have quite a bit of personal interest in this part of my ministry. I have personal interest in all parts of my ministry, but I think it makes sense for recreation and sport -- delivered through this ministry, working with local government and those local recreation commissions -- to be in this ministry, because there is some definite overlap.
As a matter of fact, hon. member, the sport and recreation division is going to be front and centre at the UBCM in terms of our programming and what we are doing. We want to get some feedback from local government on how the province can be more involved in helping. We don't fund a lot of recreation; we do research, we provide assistance, and we help the recreation department develop policy. We have just finished a major recreation policy for the province, which is now being looked at by local governments.
In terms of the issue of electrical safety, I think your question has generally been as to why we do some of the things we do here, under the assistant deputy minister for safety and standards. Let me give you the background that staff have provided to me on municipal electrical inspections. Presently, nine municipalities do their own electrical inspections: Vancouver, Victoria, Burnaby, Surrey, North Vancouver city, North Vancouver district, West Vancouver, New Westminster and Maple Ridge. Eight municipalities do gas inspections: two-thirds of the above list plus Richmond and Kelowna. All other municipalities were specifically asked in 1987 if they wished to take on these safety inspections. Surprise, surprise: none responded positively. Of course, they would say it's downloading. Concern for liability seems to be the principal reason why there is no interest in assuming these safety inspections, notwithstanding the fact that they are net revenue producers for the municipalities which provide them. In fact, our inspectors produce revenue in excess of operating expenses. Our entire safety engineering services division brings in more money than it spends on an annual basis.
A. Cowie: In asking that question, I didn't at all want to give the impression that the electrical inspectors don't do a good job, because they do. The person who came to my house to inspect my lousy work was extremely helpful....
Interjection.
A. Cowie: Yes, I always get a permit on everything, and I even get zoning.
D. Lovick: We should have the same system for speaking in committee.
The Chair: Normally, hon. members, at this time the Chair would interject with a request that the debate go on through the Chair, but I think under the circumstances we'll just enjoy the afternoon.
[ Page 8452 ]
A. Cowie: As long as the Chair doesn't have any further comments about my modern jacket.
D. Lovick: No, it's the tie.
A. Cowie: Anyway, I just wanted to say that they do provide a good service.
Housing is becoming an even more important part of this ministry, and I think that's a good mix: land use, housing and transportation. What does the minister feel about the Ontario situation in municipal affairs and housing? It's a little different from what we have here. Does the minister have any comments about that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: In terms of what?
A. Cowie: In terms of integrating housing with municipal affairs. They also have an appeal system for development approvals.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Just very quickly, I was talking to Ontario's Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes, this morning. Housing is the only ministry she has -- it's separate from Municipal Affairs.
A. Cowie: Is it completely separate there?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes.
A. Cowie: That satisfies my question, I guess.
I have often talked about transportation being part of Municipal Affairs or vice versa. In fact, that's not a frivolous suggestion. I would like to hear the minister at least give me some response on that, since almost everywhere I go now people are saying you just can't solve regional problems without having some control over transportation.
The Chair: Before recognizing the minister, the Chair will confess that there is a bit of difficulty with the philosophical nature of these questions. Under standing order 61, we are required to debate the estimates covering those areas that are strictly under the administrative capacity of the minister. So if we would restrict our questions along that line, I think we would progress admirably this afternoon.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm obviously not in a position to talk about which ministries should be together. I will leave that to the good auspices of the Premier. Quite frankly, my ministry is big enough. I have three ministries in one, so I don't really want any more.
But your point is well taken in terms of transportation issues and my ministry being involved in helping to coordinate. There are a number of initiatives now, including Transport 2021 -- which someone you know is very involved in, Mayor Campbell, and others -- and we are working with that. Indeed, I have staff who are liaising and working with that organization and monitoring it.
One reason, though, why growth management strategy and regional planning is alive and well and we're talking about it is the need for transportation planning and coordinating transportation, especially through the GVRD and the CRD and, I suppose, to some degree the Okanagan Valley. Many of the issues are transportation -- no question, in the GVRD. Why do radio stations get so many sponsors for those people who fly in the sky and give information on trying to get to work? Because it's a major issue and it needs better planning and better regional coordination. Our ministry is heavily involved -- not in actually driving the agenda, but often this ministry is the glue in terms of pulling other people together and coordinating other activities. We can give the planning and the regional perspective, and indeed, can provide the experts who can give advice on a more global sense of some of the issues.
A. Cowie: Hon. Chair, I think it is important to actually let us get through some of this philosophy, and then we can get through the rest very quickly. You'll find the willingness to do that once we can get through this.
The Chair: Hon. member, I would just caution again that the Chair is bound by the standing orders and that philosophical, theoretical and future policy questions are out of order in the examination of the minister's estimates. I would ask the hon. member to bear that in mind, please.
A. Cowie: One of the really good things I've seen this government doing in the last little while is coordinating the functions of different ministries. My purpose in asking the other question was to try and get some information about this coordination, and the minister was helpful in that. The Crown corporations secretariat.... Actually, I think he has 17 Crown corporations under his authority. I was amazed when I added them all up. In fact, the ferry authority and highways, through the Crown corporation of 2021.... There is a great deal of coordination going on. For the previous ten years I found very little coordination going on with previous governments. Highways would do something and Municipal Affairs would do something -- since I happen to work in the field, I know what I'm talking about -- and there was very little coordination, unless you could get some minister to take on the role because it was his area and he was very interested in it. So what I am hearing and seeing now is some attempt to coordinate things like ferries.... The ferry impact on Delta is tremendous right now. There needs to be a lot of money spent on highways. You can plan all you want, but if the roads are going to be wider, more traffic is going through there and the municipality doesn't know anything about it until it happens, it's a very difficult situation. So that was my reason for asking that particular question.
I notice the member from the Social Credit Party wanted to ask some questions, so I'll leave some room for him.
L. Fox: Along those lines -- and I'm not going to talk about the Highways ministry, but the minister will be well aware that the funding available to municipalities for secondary and alternative roads is
[ Page 8453 ]
funded through the Highways ministry -- a sharing of the upgrading and building of those networks.... Is the ministry going to play a role in allowing municipalities to access some of the funding available in B.C. 21? Not only with respect to the highways, because I would expect that that would probably happen through the Highways Ministry.... But I recall the second reading debate when some of the members of the government stood up and suggested that there would be funding available for fire halls, libraries and those kinds of things. I couldn't see that evidence in there, but I guess the reason for asking the question at this point is to be sure that I understand what opportunities there will be for municipalities to access whatever funds might be available under B.C. 21 through your ministry.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The question is probably more relevant to the various ministers that are actively involved in B.C. 21. I cannot provide details of my involvement, because we haven't finalized them; but there will be a housing component -- which was announced in the budget.
[3:30]
My understanding is that there will be significant highways initiatives out of B.C. 21 of which details will be forthcoming. I have to say that the municipal highways section and my revenue-sharing -- if that's what the hon. member is getting to -- were reduced this year. I reluctantly did that because we were in a sort of budget reduction mode. Something had to give, and local governments were saying to me that they wanted the unconditional portion and police and health equalization maintained, and there is a maximum amount of money for sewer and water we could.... But something had to give. This year one of those things was underground wiring. We reduced the highways part to about $4.5 million. I would hope, but I can't guarantee, that in time there very well may be a portion of B.C. 21 that might be utilized for a municipal highways component, but I cannot give you that assurance today, hon. member. There are a number of very needy infrastructure requirements across this province, particularly in the highways section, but also in areas that just don't get the same kind of attention -- the underground services; sewer and water services that you know about and worked in for years. They are just not very attractive projects, because they don't get the kind of attention that they should. My direction is trying to maintain those as much as I can through my ministry. There could very well be something there in the future, but I can't provide that assurance today.
L. Fox: I thank the minister for his answer. I guess I was concerned more about.... Given that you are a member of cabinet, you must have been looking at B.C. 21 from a municipal perspective. Some of the members of the government mentioned, at second reading stage, that moneys would be available for municipalities for such things as fire halls and libraries -- those are two items that I can recall during that second reading debate. Are you aware that municipalities will have access to B.C. 21 to facilitate building that kind of facility within their respective communities?
Hon. R. Blencoe: You can be assured that this minister is extremely active and knows the need, particularly in libraries. Again, you are right: it is in my ministry. Like all ministers, I am making the case to B.C. 21 for funding, but I think you will have to wait to see what the final results are. B.C. 21 will be ongoing for a number of years. There are some big projects to be out the door as quickly as possible, and I think those announcements will be made very shortly by the appropriate ministers. But the bottom line is that this minister is aware of the need at the local level. I am particularly aware of the need in the recreation community, as you know. Many of the recreational facilities across this province, especially in the smaller communities, are getting a little old and need a little upgrading....
L. Fox: They don't have them.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Or they don't have them -- you are absolutely right. It is something that comes to my attention all the time. I can assure you that I make the case that it is required. That was one of the things in my opening remarks -- you weren't here for my opening remarks, when I talked about the recreation division in my ministry. One of the things I have been trying to do is expand our services outside the lower mainland and Victoria. We have that responsibility, because we are well served down here. There are many northern and remote communities where just getting an arena or a ballpark or even a diamond is incredible. We take all those things for granted down here, but up in those communities, which you are familiar with, there is a desperate need. We are very conscious of wanting to get out, get back to the old kind of GO B.C. program where we gave community grants for those recreation and sport groups. We are working on that. I certainly can assure you that I have been advocating that most strongly. In my recreation portfolio many groups from up in these smaller communities come to me and say: "Look, we don't need much. We need $5,000 or $10,000 to get the new diamond together, or to get whatever for the hockey team."
You should know, hon. member, if you don't, that I doubled the budget for recreation commissions in terms of provincial support, particularly in more remote northern communities, recognizing that those communities need our greatest help.
L. Fox: I won't get into the GO B.C. issue....
Interjection.
L. Fox: Exactly. But I want to talk a bit about the funding for Sport B.C. Last year the minister cut Sport B.C.'s budget. What happened this year?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I will try to go from memory, and then we will get more details for you if I can't quite remember it all. Last year was a real tough year in the sport and recreation division: I was asked to administer a 12 percent or 13 percent reduction. The easiest thing for me at the time would have been just to apply that
[ Page 8454 ]
across the board and affect everybody the same way. My concern and my priority was to make sure that the maximum amount of money got to the community level -- to the coaches, the young people and to the sports organizations which are actually delivering it to the young people, or to the recreation commissions. So I took a look at the administrative structure of some organizations, and Sport B.C. had a significant administrative structure. For instance, the province provides approximately $500,000 to Sport B.C. just for rent for their building in Vancouver, and a considerable amount of money for their administration. We applied cuts to their administrative side, and it created a lot of consternation, as you can imagine. For the first time, we actually laid out in a contract what services we required from Sport B.C. They had just been getting every year some amount of money that had increased incrementally, but there was no actual contract in terms of what services were to be provided for the taxpayers' money.
This year, and through our ministry staff, we got a substantial reduction in the building they're in through negotiation with the owner, and we've got the rent down substantially. If I recall, this year we provide Sport B.C. with $600,000; however, we've said to them that if there are special projects they want to take on, we can be in the business of helping them fund those particular projects. My understanding from my discussions with Mr. Carlson, who has just left the presidency, is that the relationship between the provincial government and Sport B.C. is much better subsequent to the cuts. We have some better working arrangements; and quite frankly, from my information, things are much better, although it was tough for them to take a look at exactly what they were doing and to restructure their own organization.
We continue to fund sports organizations with additional funds this year over last year. We managed to give close to a half-million-dollar increase to the sport division. My personal priority is still to put money into the community, the sport groups and the coaching. We give a lot of money, about $1.5 million, to young athletes who are going to school and are trying to achieve excellence. It's not like the American system, but we do have a kind of mini-scholarship system encouraging excellence plus participating for British Columbia or for the national team. People like Silken Laumann have benefited by the provincial program that is administered by this ministry.
I'm the first to admit, though, that the relationship between Sport B.C. and myself was difficult for a while. We had to administer some difficult cuts. I chose to take on the administrative side of some of those organizations. I asked them to take less on the administrative side, and I maintained the money for the kids, the coaching and the sports organizations at the community level. Quite frankly, from all accounts, the relationship is doing well. We have more money this year, and we're now moving ahead on some other new initiatives for the sport community.
L. Fox: I wonder if I could get into the issue....
Hon. R. Blencoe: If the member wishes to continue, I can get the executive director of sport and recreation here.
L. Fox: No, that's fine. The only reason I got into that section is that you were talking about the recreational side. But I don't have the questions with me for recreation, anyway.
What I did want to talk a bit about was tax increases that happened specifically in the Prince George area. Obviously much noise has been made in Vancouver, and in fact I have a copy of the Vancouver bylaw which was passed under section 288, I understand. The request is being made to the minister under section 288 to offer rebates of '93 taxes that were over 25 percent higher than the 1992 taxes. The bylaw allows for rebates to those particular taxpayers. The first question I have to ask is with respect to Prince George. My recollection of last year's legislation is that it allowed for an averaging of assessments. Was this offer made clear to Prince George early in October, or shortly thereafter? They have an indicator which tells them what their assessments are going to be doing in the relative classes over the next year. Were there any requests at that time to opt into the averaging?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It is not a matter of requesting. You are right that under Bill 66 last year, we introduced annual assessments, phasing and averaging. All local governments have had that at their disposal for this year. I am not sure how many have actually utilized that. Only one? Only one has utilized that capacity this year. My understanding is that some now wish they had utilized it, but are past the deadline. Prince George staff were aware of that, but my understanding is that, in their staff work, they looked at it and concluded that it didn't work because of changes in improvement values. That is what the Prince George staff told my staff. So they didn't go in that direction.
I have had representations from my good colleagues who represent the area -- the hon. Minister of Government Services, the member for Prince George North and the mayor of Prince George, Mr. Backhouse -- and of course, now, yourself. They put a proposal to us. I have looked at it, the staff have looked at it, and I haven't got back to the mayor yet or to the council. Let me say to you that I am sympathetic to their proposal, and I think we can do business.
L. Fox: Obviously I am not going to try to ask what the proposal is. I just want to try to find out....
Hon. R. Blencoe: You don't know about it?
L. Fox: No.
The Chair: Hon. members, if you would like the debate on the record, you should carry on through the Chair.
L. Fox: One of the things that has happened in the Prince George region -- and I'm not sure how much of an influence Bill 66 was, which changed the Assessment
[ Page 8455 ]
Act last year -- is that the shift that has happened within the commercial sector in Prince George has affected that community substantially, as it did in Vancouver. You see the Kerrisdale area and the shift that happened when one part of the community had a huge increase in assessments. It causes a shift of taxes from one particular part of the community into another one. Look at some of the assessments; I have several copies here. If we look at the basic school taxes, we see that one year it was $3,000 and next year it is $4,900. On one small business, that creates quite a hurt. Then when you put on top of that the general taxation load of $5,000, whereas in the previous year it was $3,000 -- and this is a small business that I am quoting from -- it's extremely difficult. I want to find out what was available to communities like Prince George. Has the ministry looked at whether or not the averaging of assessments -- the three-year averaging or phase-in...? No, it would have been the averaging.... Has the ministry looked at what that would have done in terms of the Prince George taxation base, in the consideration of accepting other proposals?
[3:45]
Hon. R. Blencoe: First, we didn't do any analysis -- we weren't asked to do that. We presume Prince George did some analysis. One of the difficulties is that averaging and phasing are not available on improvements, as you know. There are some really complex and complicated reasons why that is, and quite frankly, I don't profess to understand all the nuances. But given that this has become an issue, particularly for commercial properties -- and not just in Prince George, the jurisdiction the member points to.... I think it's incumbent upon us and the UBCM -- and we'll be talking about this to see.... Hon. member, you and your committee did excellent work when you chaired.... You know this, so.... I don't recall how much your committee worked on this particular aspect, but we may very well want to ask the UBCM to do further work on this, if it continues to be a problem. We'll review this year's experience and take a look at what happened, and if it's a trend, then we're going to have to take stock.
L. Fox: I appreciate the minister's willingness to review it. I think the review has to be fairly wide-ranging because when we look at it now, we have a situation where business is being assessed on the basis of its volume of business beyond.... In fact, income-based assessments on some businesses go beyond the old formula where there were assessments on improvements on lands. Now we have a situation where we're causing a shift in taxation within communities when the income or business in a certain area drops. In another area it increases, and that causes another shift in taxation. By the way, I kind of support the way that happens. But because it's based more on the ability to pay when the income approach is used, the problem occurs when that's not allowed in the three-year averaging, when it's only on the land improvements. Then the three-year averaging doesn't have a whole lot of impact.
I suggest to the minister that while the issue is certainly complex, the changes we've seen in the assessment process deserve some consideration by the minister and the ministry. I would hope that we see something in the future that would recognize how all the shifts could take place, rather than just the land. As I recall from that committee I chaired on behalf of the government and the UBCM of the day, that land issue was primarily a Vancouver issue, and it was the land values that were driving up the assessment rates in the Vancouver area. That particular data is somewhat outdated in terms of today's assessments, because of the income approach and so on.
I look forward to a revisiting of what we could do. Hopefully, when we revisit that, we might also look at trustees -- the BCSTA. I realize that may not be within your jurisdiction -- it may be a Finance matter -- but we might look at how we can tax all taxpayers more appropriately on their ability to pay for school purposes. While I recognize you have no jurisdiction over school taxes, it's part amd parcel of the problem of the taxpayer and the municipality. At the end of the day, even though a $6,000 hike in taxation reflects both school and municipal taxes, it's the mayor and the council of the day that take the brunt for those kinds of increases. In Prince George -- as I'm sure the mayor made you aware -- it was only a 2 percent increase in taxation, but because of the variances and the shifts within the assessment, anybody over 2 percent got hammered and anybody under 2 percent got a break in their assessment.
So I look forward to the minister announcing that he is going to look at the assessment process and how it might be streamlined in order to better reflect today's kinds of situations.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I will undertake to talk to Richard Taylor of the UBCM and Bill Trewhella to see whether they want to take a.... I don't think we need to do a full-scale, massive, big-dollar review, but there are some signs that we need to look at.
Part of the problem, as the member is aware.... Actually, it's funny you should mention that, Mr. Member. I have a copy of your "Financing Local Government," chairperson, Len Fox, mayor of the district of Vanderhoof.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Actually, it was a good piece of work, hon. member. I note, though, that you say: "The present system of actual value assessment is the most appropriate method of property evaluation. While the system has its drawbacks, it is substantially better than all the available alternatives." I see you go on to say: "The use of the actual value system, coupled with variable tax rates, is still relatively recent. Taxpayers do not fully understand the differences between assessments and taxation decisions. Differences between the two will become better understood over time." I hope, hon. member, that when we get into assessment time again you will remember your comments and your
[ Page 8456 ]
report, as you obviously are a clear supporter of the current system.
Hon. member, the difficulty with the issue we have now, of course, is that it's very tough to distinguish new construction from price increases. We have to get refinements on how to distinguish....
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Well, there may be some way. Anyway, I undertake to talk to the UBCM about that.
L. Fox: I just want to follow up a little bit on.... If you look at that document, you'll find that it's a committee report, not a chairman's report.
Hon. R. Blencoe: So you didn't endorse it.
L. Fox: Anyway, it was good work. I think it was completed in '88.
Hon. R. Blencoe: August '89.
L. Fox: So obviously some things have changed. Certainly the way we do assessments and the way we appeal assessments have changed, thanks to this minister and this government. We had some changes in the Assessment Authority last year.
What I did want to request is a little more information, just for my own information. Under what authority did Vancouver pass this bylaw? I asked some ministry staff -- I think it was the deputy minister -- whether or not it was section 288, but I wasn't able to find that out.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is aware, of course, that Vancouver has its own charter. The emergency powers in the Vancouver Charter were triggered by a cabinet order. They had to get a cabinet order to do it. I believe a request has just come in to do the same again for this year. It's somewhat late, but it has just come in. As a matter of fact, I just saw it this morning.
L. Fox: I have one final question of clarification for the minister. I have to go now and debate a health bill, so I would like the assurance of the minister that he won't conclude the estimates while I am not in this room, because I do have several items I wish to canvass. In the interest of both sides....
Hon. R. Blencoe: To comfort the member, I have to leave here just before 5 o'clock. My colleagues may wish to pass my estimates in one hour, which I would be grateful for, but which I suspect is highly doubtful.
A. Cowie: Regarding time, I think we went eight hours last time. I imagine that we probably should go a similar time, depending upon the Social Credit contribution, so it won't conclude today.
D. Lovick: Is that based on numerological principles?
A. Cowie: It is based on last year's experience.
I have a number of questions on taxation, but I don't want to ask them at this time; I would like to do them later. I would like to go back to some of the general questions.
On this list that was so kindly given to me, I see that one of the incorporation studies was done on the University Endowment Lands. Since that is adjacent to my riding, and since there is a great deal of development going on on the University Endowment Lands, I am curious as to the status of the study done by Tom Reid, the economic consultant. It concludes that they will move toward an independent village concept, and my question is: how much consultation with Vancouver went on in that study? Does it include the university itself, or is it just the residential portions of the endowment lands?
Hon. R. Blencoe: First, let me say that I am the first to agree. I am sure that I am not the first minister to say that in the structure of my ministry I would love to see the UEL removed, totally on its own, and administering itself in some form -- either through Vancouver, or whatever. But I understand that there is a long history of trying to resolve this issue. The hon. member is aware that I inherited a restructure process that was in place, which involved people like Mr. Robert Bonner and others in the UEL. I have met and talked with them. A committee has been meeting for three years, and we are very close to holding a vote in terms of incorporating the UEL proper, the community. There has obviously been consultation with Vancouver, and the university is aware of the issue. But the issue that continues to confound us, quite frankly, is what to do with the fire department; how to continue to have a fire department that serves the UEL community, but also makes sure that it protects the incredible university complex. My personal view is that the UEL fire department should be part of Vancouver, but you can imagine that Vancouver might be a little reluctant to take that over. They would consider that as: "What is the province prepared to do for us if we do that?" At the present time, through my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, we are exploring options for the UEL fire department. But we are moving. Mr. Paget, do we have a date set for restructure for UEL? No, we don't. We would like to try to find some resolution to the fire department situation, but I hope in a year or so to have some resolution on UEL proper -- and maybe even on the fire department -- because I don't particularly like being the mayor of the UEL, or anything else, or having to administer the fire department. It is a huge chunk of my budget that we could put elsewhere, quite frankly.
[4:00]
A. Cowie: Well, at one time I was in charge of grounds at the university...
Hon. R. Blencoe: Grounds? Oh, I thought it was the fire department.
[ Page 8457 ]
A. Cowie: ...and the fire department was a major problem then. Major amounts of money were spent on getting the fire truck around two-thirds of every new building that was built. It would be cheaper to have new fire trucks with inflatable tires or whatever. We looked at that some 20 years ago.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Anyway, I don't think the problem is going to get resolved within a year. I think you are probably very ambitious in thinking that it might be. I think that the population in the new residential developments there, in apartments and townhouses, will soon exceed the population in single-family houses. It would be rather weird if the few influential people, of whom I would imagine Mr. Bonner is one, would have the same force if these new residents were included in the survey or the study. So I'm not as ambitious in thinking that there will be a resolution to that problem within a year.
Since the minister has given his opinion, I personally see absolutely no need at all to have a separate municipality. I think it should be part of Vancouver. It's Vancouver's problem getting people to the university. All the shopping and everything is involved. You can't leave Vancouver out of it. It would seem to me that it should just be part of Vancouver, but I don't see any point in pressing that any further at this stage.
I'd like to ask a couple of questions about the Islands Trust. Just as a review, the Minister of Highways informed us in this room two or three weeks ago about innovations. Highways has finally come to its senses and has allowed roads to be twisting and to go around trees, and they don't have to be 66 feet wide. Perhaps the Gulf Islands will actually be preserved. The hon. member for Nanaimo, I understand, was very responsible for that. I want to thank him. It is something I used to argue about 20 years ago when I was doing some development consulting over on the Island. Highways was ruining the islands then.... Anyway, I won't wander onto that subject. We've got a better future to look foward to in terms of what's going on on those islands.
As for this policy draft statement that the Islands Trust has produced, it's a very fuzzy document, I must say. I've seen a lot of planning documents and goals documents, and this is the fuzziest I've ever seen. It's not clear to me where we're going with the Islands Trust. I wonder if the minister has any ideas at all about where we are going with the Islands Trust.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Where do we start? I've had a number of meetings with the Islands Trust people -- Carol Martin and various people who are part of it. First let me say that I think that the intentions and the work of the Islands Trust people are good. They generally have the interests of the islands at heart. I think it's quite obvious to a lot of people -- and, I think, to them to some degree -- that we've had the current structure and administration and governance model there since l975. Another government of the day, as you know, was involved in establishing that.
C. Tanner: Another bunch of deadbeats.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, you may wish to withdraw that comment, actually.
The Chair: The Chair has not heard any comment. Would the hon. minister please continue.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It has been some time since any substantial review of the legislation has been done. I have had constructive meetings with the Islands Trust, and I think they've come to the conclusion that the time is right to have a review. The issue is the scope of their review -- how big, how large, when and where. I don't think it's a question of if. As a matter of fact, I believe that I am due soon -- tomorrow -- to have a further meeting with the Islands Trust in terms of moving this agenda on. I am sympathetic to the hon. member's view, and to many others', that we can do a very proper and systematic look at governance. The time has come. It has been there a long time. It has served us well, but these are the nineties.
A. Cowie: I won't get into a lot of detail in the reports, since the minister is going to be meeting with the Islands Trust. There is no point at this stage. It would seem that the trouble with the Islands Trust has been the old formula that area equals power. If you have the regional districts looking after part of it and the Islands Trust looking after other aspects of it, there is no power there, because the area isn't defined. It seems to me that that has always been a problem with the Islands Trust.
I have to say, however, that a lot of the objectives in this report -- the ecological objectives, or the way you go about planning -- are very good, and the type of material that they have been looking at. In all reality, the problem is that the Islands Trust hasn't looked at what its future is in terms of all of B.C. and all of Canada. There tends to be a very protectionist attitude within here, to say the least, as to what goes on in the islands.
Just a couple of weeks ago we saw the results of that. When land prices go up beyond all reason -- as they have in the west side of Vancouver too.... Still, it is a market-driven system. Then somebody starts to cut the trees down to help pay the taxes. That's a really regrettable situation, but I can certainly understand it. Some older couple just hasn't got the funds, and the land has gone up from $50,000 to $300,000 -- or $600,000, I believe that particular Galiano Island parcel was that was mentioned. It was a large parcel, and it is worth a lot of money now -- there's no question about that, but they just can't afford to pay the taxes. That is the reality of our society.
I know the hon. member beside me wants to ask some questions on the Islands Trust, and others do too. What I will do is allow that to happen, and then I would like to move a little bit into taxes, because that does relate to what we are talking about, and assessments.
D. Lovick: Thanks to the member for Saanich North and the Islands for allowing me to offer a few very quick questions to the minister.
[ Page 8458 ]
I want to pick up on the point made by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena regarding the planning document, the proposal that he referred to a few minutes ago.
There is considerable anxiety, I suspect, in all of the islands. I have Gabriola within my constituency, and so I certainly pay close attention to Islands Trust politics, as I'm sure all of us do who represent trust communities. There is considerable anxiety about whether the intent of that document will have any impact that might take away authority from local planning and local autonomy, let's call it, for want of a better phrase.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Let me put the question in a very direct way. What will be the status of official community plans with the new document and the new legislation in place? I recognize that I'm asking for a bit of a crystal-ball answer, but that is certainly the question that people in my constituency and on my island are asking, and I suspect I'm not unique in that regard. I'm wondering if the minister could give us any kind of insight into that.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The simple answer -- and I will try to give a very short answer, because there are some very long answers.... As you know, this document is there and we also have current official community plans. First, rest assured that current official community plans do not become redundant overnight or out the window. But when committees move to amend their community plans, those plans will have to be consistent with that document. That's a normal process that happens through all official community plans. So in time they will be consistent, but we allow it to happen normally.
D. Lovick: I hope that I understand the answer correctly to be, that there will not be any radical change in the governments and the operations of local governments within the trust area, because that is the assurance that most people want.
If I could, I'd like to follow up ever so briefly with one other question. As somebody said a moment ago, there are so many questions, and you can make them very long or very short. I don't want to take up a lot of time, so I want to see if I can focus.
One of the large concerns in the trust area, and certainly in my community, has to do with the perceived need to regulate tree removal and so forth. I know we do that in larger municipalities, and I wonder if the same authority that the ministry has now in terms of regulating tree removal and so forth also obtains in the trust area. Or is that in other levels of municipal government? I mean private property.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I wondered when the question would come up. Currently the act that I passed last year deals with urban regions only. The issue of private land logging is one that's under constant review by the Ministry of Forests, my ministry and the Assessment Authority. It's of particular interest to the islands, as you know. It sparked the Galiano situation -- an ongoing situation. Although I passed the bylaws that they asked for, it has ended up in court, and I'll say no more on that. We are aware that the issue of private land logging is there, and that it is a very complicated and contentious issue not to be resolved overnight. The Minister of Forests and I are continuing to work on it, along with the Assessment Authority and the Ministry of Environment, and I can't give you any time frame for resolution.
D. Lovick: One final question to the minister if I might. Speaking of complicated and contentious areas, it seems to me that the difficulty that the ministry has in grappling with the concept of the trust area is that the trust area is based on the premise that the whole is not only greater than the sum of its parts but also different from the sum of its parts, and the logic of the trust area is to protect the communities against themselves to a degree.
[4:15]
The other side of that particular problem, however, is that the principle of local autonomy is almost sacrosanct on the islands. Therefore we see islanders wanting to argue, on the one hand, the sovereignty and the sacrosanct character of the trust area, but at the same time that "our" island must be free to go its own way. I simply want to get that on the record to show that I think I understand the problem, and to offer the minister all my sympathies, condolences and understanding in trying to grapple with that problem and resolve those two competing impulses that are frequently articulated by the same persons, which makes it even more difficult. If the minister would be willing to share a response to any of those comments, I would certainly appreciate hearing it.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I appreciate your condolences and support. If you have any great ideas for governance models for the Islands Trust, they would all be gratefully received. I sometimes think that it should be one big, regional district with a ward system -- there is a variation on a model for you right there. I think the issue really is that the Trust is a land use regulatory agency, and it was basically brought together for that. Today it has grown beyond that; we know that we have some governance problems with it. You are right, the islanders of each island, or each committee, preserve their autonomy like crazy; but they also recognize that they have some common governance issues that they need to resolve. Somehow we haven't been able to meld the two in terms of what it will be. Tomorrow we continue the discussion.
C. Tanner: The member for Nanaimo put it rather well, and I think he has very succinctly itemized the problem that we have in the Gulf Islands. The minister seemed to indicate in his initial remarks, when he was referring to this document, that in his own mind or in his department's mind there are some sorts of suggestions that he might make to the Islands Trust as to how to resolve their problems. Could the minister indicate to us whether he has some suggestions that he is going to make, whether he has any solutions to the
[ Page 8459 ]
problems that exist, and whether he is open to suggestions from me or anybody else?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It is like a baseball game, and being minister of sport, I am going to use that. We are at the plate. We are off the plate. We are heading to first base, which is that we admitted that we need a review. But there is no agenda etched in stone, and they are coming to talk about how big the review will be, what the models should be, and what the options are. Quite frankly, I would be very appreciative of any suggestions from all those members who are MLAs for the region -- in consultation with the Islands Trust and those committee members, I am sure. I think it is going to take that to find some new governance model for the islands. What I am saying is that we are at the review stage. I have said that we are prepared to review it, and we will go from there.
A. Cowie: I just have one comment. I think it is very fortunate that the minister changed his mind and gave non-resident property owners a vote. That is a major issue, and it keeps a sort of balance on the islands with those people who live there. As I say, I think the people who live there are very fortunate, but my personal vision of the islands, if I could have one, is that it is a unique area, and as such, it should be kept for the betterment of all Canadians and all British Columbians. There should be a balance between the people who live there and those who are able to visit. We should keep all of our options. I recognize that some of the Trust committee members wouldn't appreciate my comments, but I am quite prepared to continue making them for the betterment of the whole province.
I would like to move on to the topic of the day: the minister's office and his estimates. I am trying to get a grasp of the staffing that is necessary for this ministry. It seems to be taking on a more aggressive role and actually going out and doing some things which, as I keep saying, haven't been done for a long time by previous governments. When I look at the staffing in public affairs.... I have always seen public affairs as public relations, but there isn't a big budget for public affairs. What is covered by that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: You are right. The public affairs division of my ministry is very small. I wish it was larger, because we are doing great things. We want to get the message out, and we don't get it out as fast as we'd like. We have a director of public affairs, Mr. Philip Newton, and three full-time staff, I believe. Obviously they do everything within the ministry in terms of standard stuff like news releases, but they produce various documents for my speeches. Anyway, it's a small department -- I don't think I need to go into the details. They obviously do normal public affairs kinds of things, like special plans. They help produce documents like this one we've just put out, a guide to developing affordable housing strategies, which I will send you a copy of. They develop these sorts of things for the ministry. But you're right, hon. member, it is small.
A. Cowie: How much would this public affairs section spend in a year?
Hon. R. Blencoe: This year we've budgeted roughly $507,000, down from last year when we spent $527,000.
A. Cowie: Does the minister expect any staff increases in that area?
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, as a matter of fact, the branch got a small reduction this year. Although I would like to see an increase, it's not likely to happen. We are in a difficult financial squeeze, as the member is aware.
A. Cowie: Getting back to this chart, the chart says Cassie Doyle. Well, she's moved on to B.C. 21, and we never did have the benefit of seeing her in action, because she was there for such a short time. I believe a new deputy has arrived on the scene. Perhaps the minister could tell us who that is?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is correct. Ms. Cassie Doyle has moved on to administer and direct B.C. 21, and B.C. 21's gain is obviously this ministry's loss, because although she was only here briefly, her impact was felt. She did exceedingly good work, and started us off in many directions. There will be a new ADM coming on staff at the end of this month. It will be Denise LeBlond, who is currently executive director of the Capital Region Housing Corporation. She has been somewhat delayed because of personal and health reasons, but she will be with us on July 26 exactly and it is a one-year secondment.
A. Cowie: Looking through this structure, there are two assistant deputy ministers and then there are executive directors. I take it assistant deputies are senior to executive directors.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The assistant deputy ministers are senior to the executive directors, you're quite correct.
In terms of staffing, the ministry is very small. Most of the budget of this ministry -- I can't remember exactly the amount or the percentage -- is basically grants and revenue-sharing to local government. My staff has given me that exact breakdown: revenue-sharing grants are 65 percent of the total ministry budget; non-revenue-sharing grants, which are library and sport grants, are 25 percent; salaries and benefits of the ministry are only 6 percent; and overheads, 3 percent. So you can say 9 percent salaries and overheads in this ministry -- the rest is made up of strict grants to local government, libraries and sport.
It's a very small ministry. We have a deputy minister, two assistant deputy ministers and then for key, critical areas of the ministry, executive directors administer certain components of the operation.
A. Cowie: I kiddingly call this a pass-through ministry because funds do go through quite quickly.
[ Page 8460 ]
When one looks at the chart.... I guess the reason for having so many executive directors is that you need fairly senior people to administer and pass through all that money. I'm just wondering why there are so many executive directors. It seems to be a top-heavy structure. Is that because it has historically been that way? Has there ever been a review to see if one can't economize a little bit?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I have to say that staffing and organizational charts.... Nothing is ever for sure or forever, and my instructions to staff when we meet.... We talk about structure and improvements and efficiencies. We have a huge amount of stuff we administer in this ministry. We have one DM and two ADMs. There are three senior people in terms of the traditional management structure. It is basically a very traditional kind of flat organization, and the reason we have executive directors is that we don't have.... Other ministries in a similar kind of separate administrative area would have more ADMs, while we have executive directors who are taking on, as you can tell, responsibility for a number of program areas. It has been found to be quite successful thus far. When you take a look, only 6 percent of my budget is actual salaries. You can imagine what that says about the administration. Quite frankly, it's very efficient and the ministry works very well, but there is always room for improvements and changes, of course.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: More ADMs? No.
A. Cowie: I'm sure the ministry is very efficient, and I am certainly not criticizing that point at all.
The other day we had a briefing on the Georgia basin area. The Premier seems to be very keen on the Georgia basin study, and he seems to be keying in on that as a major issue he would like to deal with. Since it's primarily a land use issue and an economic issue as well, what role does Municipal Affairs play in those studies? I guess I would have to call them studies because that's exactly what they are.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, you're right. In many ways, the Premier is the leader or the inspiration behind the Georgia basin initiative. There are other names for it, but he prefers to call it -- and I think we generally call it -- the Georgia basin. It is very much in its infancy in terms of work. The Premier has met with his counterparts in Washington. There is work going on around it. The round table has done a report, and I'm sure the member has received the initial work of the round table on the Georgia basin.
[4:30]
As you know, this ministry is coordinating the local government growth management and regional planning structures, obviously within our own boundaries in British Columbia. The rationale for the Georgia basin initiative is that the 49th parallel does not cut off the issues. So we are looking at structures -- at this point looking at establishing relations with our friends south of the line -- and basically getting everybody thinking that even though there is a border there, we are really one big region; that we have some unique problems, benefits and characteristics that can be shared; and that we can manage and coordinate together. Our government is committed to establishing a sound planning practice for the province, but also for the Georgia basin. I don't have the exact figures, but the projections for population growth in the Georgia basin are substantial. There is no question that this is a preferred area, and the opportunities are immense. But we have learned from other jurisdictions that if we don't manage it properly -- on a town and municipality basis, a subregional basis, a regional basis, and then on the Georgia basin basis -- we will end up with the horrendous problems that other jurisdictions have gotten into. So we are trying to establish the groundwork for avoiding those problems.
The B.C. Round Table has undertaken a Georgia basin initiative and recently released its report. It focused on creating a sustainable future for this area. The report makes recommendations on regional governance, and the need for greater social planning and public awareness. Our work, as I already said today, is conducting research and developing policies toward an implementation of regional planning. In terms of your specific question, a number of staff are working on or assisting in the Georgia basin work. Mr. Erik Karlsen particularly has had some connection with the round table, and so have Mr. Paget and others. We are a major player in those discussions, obviously, because we are the major player in developing regional planning for our own province, and we will continue to do that.
I will be the first to admit that we are moving ahead slowly on the Georgia basin initiative. It is an ambitious one, and quite frankly, we don't understand all the parameters and nuances of it yet -- what kind of structure it will take. Someone suggested that we need an authority, another governing body. We don't know. Your friend Mr. Artibise has some suggestions, and there are variations on a theme. But the bottom line is that we are a government that believes in planning and coordinating, and we are moving ahead on that agenda. This is a very ambitious one, and it will probably take a little longer than perhaps we would like, but to make it right we are going to have to take that time.
A. Cowie: If I can go by the projections in that study, it seems to me that in the next 20 to 30 years the Georgia basin is going to double in population. It would seem to me that some kind of overall authority or realignment to look at and deal with the issues is absolutely necessary to get moving very quickly. I would tend to agree with the Premier in his identification of the area, but I haven't heard him come out and say we've got to go faster and got to get control of this. But at various seminars I have heard people say that it's absolutely necessary to do something very quickly, and I'm glad to see that Erik Karlsen is designated to that, because I'm confident that he'll do a good job.
[ Page 8461 ]
I have to ask another question related to the Georgia basin, because I think that how we relate to Washington and Oregon is terribly important. I note that the other day they started a train service -- or at least they're trying it out -- between Bellingham and Seattle. They are looking at a Swedish train. I guess they haven't decided which train system they're going to use, but there was a Swedish train being tried out. It was going to go from Vancouver all the way down to Eugene, if not eventually to San Francisco. I'm very interested in that, because 25 years ago that was identified as a major need. They used to call that area one of the 13 "megalopolises" in the United States. It's a hard word to even pronounce, much less to spell. It's one of the major growth areas in the United States, if not the major growth area. I would have thought this province and the government would want to quickly get some kind of structure going, so that we could look at the Georgia basin.
I'd like to move on, since I believe we've got about half an hour or something like that before....
Hon. R. Blencoe: About 20 minutes, actually.
Interjections.
The Chair: Hon. members, if the Chair were to actually interject at this time, the Chair would probably request that the debate carry on through the Chair and that we refrain from mentioning the names of members in the chamber and stick with identification by constituency -- and all those rules that we refer to as the standing orders.
A. Cowie: Hon. Chair, this tends to be a friendly estimate compared with some others, so I guess we get a little more friendly sometimes.
The Chair: That's precisely why the Chair is smiling. Thank you very much, hon. member.
A. Cowie: I really appreciate that.
I'd like to get into ministry operations a little. I believe we are going to continue with estimates tomorrow, and then we can get into housing, so I will leave housing until tomorrow. I notice that administrative and support services have gone down -- according to my figures, anyway; I'm not referring to the estimates -- by $163,000. Could the minister say where the cuts have taken place or where he's had to be more frugal?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I will give an explanation. Yes, indeed we have, like all ministries.... Even though the administration of this ministry is only about 6 percent in terms of the cost, we have managed to achieve some savings. The deputy minister's office has taken a reduction of $48,000. The financial services division has taken a reduction. The homeowner grant administration division.... Oops, that has taken an increase; we have increased some staff there. In administration generally, there's been a $153,000 reduction. We have done some revisions of vehicle management holding charges. In SAFER, we have trimmed a little bit and saved $28,000 within that administration. In information systems, we have done some new efficiencies there, for a $5,000 reduction. In the human resources department, I'm not sure what the details are, but there has been a $53,000 saving in there. In corporate resources and planning, it's $16,000. I have already noted a $20,000 savings in public affairs. Overall, net, there's a total of $163,000. The bottom line is that we were requested by Treasury Board during the budget process to achieve certain reductions, and we have achieved them.
A. Cowie: I note that Bob Williams, in a presentation at the Planning Institute yesterday, mentioned that our land title system, registry system and assessment system were the finest in the world, and I believe they are. In fact, I believe this government is exploring selling some of these services to Russia, since they are going to have to set up a whole new system. I wonder if the minister has been party to any of these discussions. Although it is probably not a key strategy within his ministry, I'm curious whether the ministry is going to have any part in that, since the Assessment Authority does report to this ministry.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll just find the exact notes. First, let me say that the B.C. Assessment Authority and the system of market evaluation that we put in place is genuinely recognized around the world. We are constantly being asked to provide information and advice, and the biggest potential....
Hon. member, yes, I have been involved. Mr. Johnstone, Mr. Williams and I meet fairly regularly to talk about the initiatives. I'm very supportive of those initiatives not only in terms of helping other jurisdictions to get what we know and use our expertise, but also in terms of the opportunity to make some money, to put it bluntly. There's some value in exporting some of our expertise. The biggest project is the St. Petersburg -- in Russia -- memorandum of understanding. The B.C. Assessment Authority is involved in a memorandum of understanding which, when we sign it, will explore opportunities for developing and implementing a fully integrated property registry, valuation, rental and taxation system.
The memorandum of understanding is currently awaiting the last three signatures from the officials of the city of St. Petersburg. This is an incredible opportunity for British Columbia. If it works in St. Petersburg and we show them how to.... As you know, Russia is now turning over their whole system to what we have. It could very well be that we get an immense contract with Russia and other jurisdictions there, and I cannot predetermine the value of that. Mr. Williams, head of the Crown corporations secretariat, was in Russia in May of this year, along with Mr. Johnstone and others. They made a presentation, I believe, to about 250 mayors about what we do here in the Assessment Authority and about the opportunities. It was an incredibly well-received presentation, and we are continuing to hold our discussions with St. Petersburg -- and with Estonia. We hope to have a memorandum of agreement signed very soon.
[ Page 8462 ]
To conclude, this is an example of our Crown agencies that have developed incredible expertise. Not only are we going to benefit from that expertise here, but it looks like we're going to be able to export that expertise and get incredible value for it. I'm going to be meeting very soon with Mr. Johnstone and Mr. Williams over the Russia experiment.
The B.C. Tel memorandum of understanding is another exciting opportunity. Since November 1991, the Assessment Authority and B.C. Tel have been exploring the creation of a property information service business. On January 20, 1993, a memorandum of understanding was signed. It is an agreement between B.C Tel and the Assessment Authority of B.C. to explore a potential new business that will provide property information services to a variety of customers.
Let me just explore how the public will benefit. By this new system, the public will have access to an efficient property information service, and property owners will benefit from a reduced levy. There is a considerable cost to the Assessment Authority, and as you know, there is now a levy on tax notices. I have given instructions to the Assessment Authority, through a new board, to look for any opportunity to raise money to offset that levy, and therefore take it off the property tax roll.
For instance, one of the areas that we are investigating to raise money for the Assessment Authority is selling non-confidential material. Much of the information that we have is provided or is available free from the Assessment Authority. We are thinking of packaging a lot of that information in a very sophisticated way, and selling it for a price to experts or to professionals who want it. Although I don't have the details here, I am told that we will make a considerable amount of money.
[4:45]
Back to B.C. Tel. The government will not be giving the database to the private sector. The B.C. Assessment Authority will retain control of the property information database, so the privacy of individual owners will continue to be protected. No confidential information is released about them or their property now, nor will it be. There is a great deal of information in the public domain, and we are making this information more widely available. In other words, we are entering into partnerships with the private sector, and getting a return for our public investment over the years. Of course, that public return is beneficial to the taxpayers who made that initial investment. Interested parties in this new property information service are obviously financial institutions, insurance companies, the real estate industry, lawyers, universities, and others. Although I haven't had a recent update on the memorandum of agreement, I understand that it is going well, and I think, quite frankly, that it is a sign of the times in terms of public-private initiative and partnership.
A. Cowie: I want to commend the minister for getting involved with this sort of thing.
Earlier today the minister offered to take me to Chilliwack tonight. Unfortunately, I had to decline. But if there is a trip to St. Petersburg sometime in the future, and if he gives me a little warning, I would be pleased to consider it.
I wonder how the Freedom of Information Act is going to affect the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in that you have an investigations branch that is continually getting complaints in regional districts on rezoning applications that the ministry has to go and look at. In the past you had files -- and I imagine there are lots of notes in those files, giving opinions and....
Hon. R. Blencoe: Not any more.
A. Cowie: That's what I wanted to ask. I have heard.... Not this particular ministry, but most ministries -- Highways for instance.... It's fairly easy. A professional goes in and talks to another professional. They open up the file, go through it, come to some sort of agreement and you get the information you need. What I'm worried about now is that you're not going to get any information. Because of the Freedom of Information Act, people aren't going to put what's in here down on paper and put it in a file for fear they are going to be personally liable or responsible for what's in that file. Would the minister like to comment on that?
The Chair: Hon. minister, again recognizing the theoretical nature of the question, I would leave it in your hands.
Hon. R. Blencoe: First, on the trip to St. Petersburg, hon. member: yes, but I only have a one-way ticket for you.
A. Cowie: That will do. I'll pay my own way back.
C. Tanner: We'll go along with that if you do.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll resist, hon. member.
Freedom of information -- there's no question that we're all going to be living with it, and we already are living with it. It's a whole new world, a whole new cultural shift for us. We obviously fully believe in it. There will be some adjustments made. There will be some inhibitions for some people who want to make complaints and put down details; but because freedom of information is there, they may feel they don't want to go that far. Obviously we will have to adjust.
In terms of our files, we expect our files to be open, subject only to the protection of personal privacy and, obviously, cabinet confidentiality. I understand that "advice to the minister on policy" is protected, although there will probably have to be some determination of what is advice and how far you go with that. We fully believe in it, but cabinet still has to perform and we still have to have some ability to have some confidentiality. But it's affecting all of us already. I can assure you that I no longer write little messages or thoughts on the sides of letters, because you never know where it's going to end up. You have to think about those things these days.
We're ready for it. Within the ministry we have an information and privacy section, and just two staff are
[ Page 8463 ]
working on preparing us for it. I don't know if the member is interested, but the budget for this year in terms of information and privacy and getting our ministry ready for FOI is $100,000. Basically, the objectives of this section are to prepare the ministry and to make sure the ministry complies with requirements. We're developing access and security policies to reduce problems as the requests come in. I am told by Mr. Seminiuk that there are some funds from Government Services as well, in terms of giving us assistance to prepare for this.
We are having to look at the management of our records. Our records management system is having to be reviewed in terms of FOI and, of course, we are trying to do that in as cost-effective a manner as possible. We want to ensure timely access to information by citizens who require it. But we also have to be concerned with the security of vital records and personal information. I think all ministries are going through this, of course.
I don't know if your question covered local government itself, but as you know, there has been some debate about FOI and local government. Local government initially wanted its own act. The decision has now been made that local government will come under one act, and FOI.... Local government has now accepted that they will be coming under that jurisdiction.
The other issue, of course, is that the ombudsman is going to be -- in 1994, I think.... The last component of the Ombudsman Act is local government. We are getting ready for that, and we've been meeting, as local government has, with the ombudsman to get ready for the ombudsman office having jurisdiction over local government. That is going to be a fascinating experience, too, not only for us but for local government as well.
C. Tanner: I think my timing is absolutely perfect. I think the minister wanted to close down now.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Are you ready to go?
C. Tanner: I have some questions, but I think I heard the minister say that we were going to knock it off.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Unless you've got one or two very quick questions.
C. Tanner: I think I might as well let it go until next time, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Thank you, hon. Chair, you've been very easy on us. I must admit that I'm so used to being in the chamber for estimates, I'm getting used to it....
I move we rise, report considerable progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 4:54 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]