1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 14
[ Page 14709 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Prayers.
Hon. E. Cull: Today we have some very special visitors in the members' gallery. His Excellency Billy Modise is the newly appointed High Commissioner for South Africa to Canada. He's visiting British Columbia from Ottawa for the first time. The high commissioner is accompanied by Patrick Evans, consul general of South Africa at Toronto. We're delighted that South Africa is again a prominent and dynamic member of the Commonwealth, and that South Africans proudly participated last year in the Victoria Commonwealth Games. Would all members please join me in warmly welcoming our visitors to the House.
Hon. D. Miller: Today in the gallery we have a group of 16 people with the Governor General's Canadian Study Conference, and I beg the House's indulgence as I introduce them. They are here in Victoria, and the theme of the 1995 conference is "Redefining the Working Relationship for a Better Canada." They seek to explore our notions of employment and management in the current and future social and economic climates -- which may be apropos of some debates that we'll have later.
In the gallery are Andra Takacs, who is the chair of Big Sisters of Canada; Michel Roy, vice-chair and secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada; Joan-Marie Aylward, Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union; James Bowen, CompEngServ Ltd.; Anders Bruun, Manitoba Pool Elevators; Lenore Burton, Canadian Labour Force Development Board; Jack Cooper, Kingston and District Labour Council; Alex Emile, Pratt and Whitney; Joanne Fletcher, Department of Intergovernmental Affairs; Sandra Ginnish, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Danielle-Maude Gosselin, Syndicat de fonction publique du Quebec; Maurice Hucon, Bank of Montreal; Pierre-Paul Lachapelle, Insitut Raymond Dewar; Michael Monette, Xerox Canada; Pierre Morissette, Les services-consiels Systematix Maison; and Bryan Joseph Neath, United Food and Commercial Workers. I would ask all members of the House to make them welcome.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Would the House please welcome Bill Sundhu, Satwinder Paul and their young daughter Ellora from Williams Lake. They're friends and visitors. Please make them welcome.
F. Gingell: I would like to introduce to the House the British Columbia Liberal Party candidate in the riding of Chilliwack, Mr. Barry Penner. Barry and his good friend Beth Chipperfield are over here enjoying the sights of our beautiful capital city, and I would ask all members to make them welcome.
F. Garden: Accompanying my wife, Margaret, in the gallery today is my granddaughter. This is her first visit to the Legislature. She's three years old, and she calls this "grandpa's castle." Being king of the castle, I'd like to introduce her. Her name is Bailey Margaret Garden. Would you all make her welcome.
SCHOOL SITES ACQUISITION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. A. Charbonneau presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Sites Acquisition Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
The bill before you contains amendments to the Municipal Act and the School Act which will enable the acquisition of lands for school sites, or cash in lieu, at the time of a subdivision of land, by joint agreement of the local government and school board. Currently, local governments may require owners of land being subdivided to provide up to 5 percent of the land, or cash in lieu, for park purposes. This bill will allow land or cash in lieu of up to 5 percent to also be provided for the acquisition of school sites.
In order for this requirement to apply to an owner of land being subdivided, the proposed legislation requires the local government and school board to have a joint planning agreement, setting out whether school site acquisition will apply to the area, the amount of land to be set aside for school site purposes -- which may include a combination of park and school site land -- and the terms and conditions of the acquisition.
These amendments will provide needed savings to the taxpayers of the province in the acquisition of school sites, and will enable better planning for new schools by local governments and school boards when land is being developed for residential expansion. This will also result in school boards being able to acquire school sites in a timely manner, at a reasonable cost and in appropriate locations in order to meet enrolment increases within areas where local development or redevelopment is driving the need for new schools.
Bill 43 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.
[2:15]
SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1995
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm pleased to introduce these amendments to the Securities Act. The primary purpose of the amendments, which complement recent budget legislation providing the B.C. Securities Commission financial autonomy, is to implement the major legislative component of the government's response to the Matkin commission report.
[ Page 14710 ]
The amendments increase the size of the commission, provide for a second vice-chair and provide statutory authority for the appointment of the recently established British Columbia Securities Commission Policy Advisory Committee. The commission will have power to pass binding rules that will have the same force and effect as regulations enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Other amendments strengthen the regulation of investor relations activity and the commission's oversight of self-regulatory organizations, exchanges and registrants. As an added deterrent to securities market abuse, the commission will also have the power to seek court-ordered forfeiture of ill-gotten gains.
Finally, the amendments strengthen and update the act to ensure its currency and, where necessary, its uniformity with other jurisdictions. For example, provisions will assist in the effective regulation of mutual funds and of developing and complex securities such as commodity pools and derivatives.
These amendments represent the most comprehensive amendments to the Securities Act since it was proclaimed in 1987. These are significant and necessary steps towards improving the regulation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and improving overall public confidence in the regulation of the British Columbia securities market as a whole.
Bill 44 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.
VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, this bill is another step in the government's response to the Matkin commission. This bill amends the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act to require that one-third of the Vancouver Stock Exchange board of governors be public governors appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and to require the Vancouver Stock Exchange board to elect one of these public governors as its chair. The bill also adds a new provision that in operating as a stock exchange, the purpose of the VSE is to contribute to the provincial economy. The VSE will be required to submit an annual report outlining how it carries out this purpose, which will be tabled in the Legislature.
Bill 45 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.
Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. A. Petter: Bill 42 makes a number of amendments to the Forest Act to facilitate expansion of the woodlot licence program; to assist the chief forester in determining allowable annual cuts, and extending the time available to the chief forester to make such determinations as requested by the chief forester; to implement the recommendations of the independent review of royalty rates; and to facilitate implementation of the Vancouver Island land use plan. These amendments will improve forest management, increase government efficiency and help protect the economic base of small communities on Vancouver Island.
Bill 42 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.
DOUGLAS LAKE RANCH BLOCKADE
G. Campbell: As a result of the confusion and lack of leadership shown by the NDP, the crisis at Douglas Lake continues. Kids are still unable to get to school, workers are still unable to get to work, and the community of Douglas Lake feels like it is under siege. The confusion shown by this government is clearly escalating the risks for all concerned.
Can the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of British Columbia, tell the people of B.C. if he has personally contacted the chief of the Upper Nicola band to tell him there will be no discussions until that illegal blockade is removed and access to Douglas Lake is restored?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is no confusion. The court on last Friday made it clear -- and an enforcement order was issued subsequent to that -- that this blockade is on a public road. The police, the RCMP in British Columbia, are charged with clearing that public road. They will choose the way and the time in which they will do that, and they are now involved in that issue in a very, very thorough way.
Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.
G. Campbell: I believe most British Columbians would prefer if the police did not have to get involved -- if the blockade wasn't there to begin with. This blockade has ramifications for all British Columbians, and it's time for this government to show strong, decisive and consistent leadership.
The Attorney General clearly has not been hearing the comments of his colleagues, which has sent confusion across the valley. It is time for the Attorney General to make it clear that there is one law for all British Columbians in the province of British Columbia. When will the Attorney General show the leadership, act like the chief law enforcement officer for the province of British Columbia, call the chief of the Upper Nicola band and tell him there will be no discussions until that illegal blockade is removed and legal access to Douglas Lake is restored?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is only one law in British Columbia, and that law applies to every British Columbian equally. On occasion in our society, some people of a variety of persuasions choose to violate the law. When it is clear -- as it is clear in this case -- that the law is being violated, the police then embark upon their lawful obligation, which is to enforce the law. That is what the police are involved in doing at the present time.
[ Page 14711 ]
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Further to the member's question, there are no negotiations between the province and the Lower Nicola band. There have been discussions at a variety of levels in an effort to persuade the band to take their blockade down. That variety of levels includes discussions that the RCMP, the government and private citizens have been involved in. I urge all members of this House to lend their support to an encouragement to the band to withdraw from this illegal activity immediately.
M. de Jong: Contrary to what the minister said, it was the Premier who told us those negotiations were taking place. He'd best speak to the Premier about that.
Yesterday the Attorney General said that he "...does not direct the police as to how to enforce the law." That statement is not only incorrect but, I'd submit, represents a gross abdication of this minister's responsibility as chief law enforcement officer. In the past he has directed the police and prosecutors to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to spousal assault. He has directed that drunk drivers be targeted on the streets. The situation at Douglas Lake Ranch continues to deteriorate. When will the Attorney General direct that the RCMP adopt a zero-tolerance approach to illegal blockades that are being used as a tool of negotiation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member had listened to my answer, I believe yesterday, he would have....
Interjections.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know how members can listen to the answer when they're talking at the same time.
If the member had listened to my answer yesterday, he would recall that I said the Attorney General gives general policy directions to the RCMP in this province on an annual basis. I have done that, and included in those general policy discussions are policies affecting how blockades are dealt with in this province. They make no distinction among environmental blockades, labour blockades, blockades over abortion issues or blockades by native people. There are no distinctions.
The member suggests that I should participate in directing the RCMP in a specific initiative, in a specific action. I will not do that, because I will not improperly direct the police to take a particular initiative that might endanger their lives. It might endanger ordinary citizens' lives, and it might in fact be the wrong tactical decision for the police to make at a particular time. Only the police on the ground can make the appropriate tactical decision. No one in this province should want politicians to be making policing decisions.
Deputy Speaker: Supplemental.
M. de Jong: The minister won't speak to the police, and he won't speak to the chief. We wonder who he's speaking to, if anyone, to get this matter resolved. The fact of the matter is that the police report having observed individuals from eastern Canada arriving on the scene at the blockade and have openly commented about the potential need for calling upon the military to become involved in this situation. That's what the police are saying. That's a decision the Attorney General will have to make. He can't wish this circumstance away. British Columbians and this opposition want to know at what point the Attorney General will finally take decisive action to ensure the removal of this illegal blockade and prevent a further escalation of this deplorable situation in Douglas Lake.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member quotes unauthorized comments by a corporal, not by the commanding officer in British Columbia or the chief superintendent in British Columbia.
M. de Jong: How do you know? You're not talking to him.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Just so the record is clear, I talk to the RCMP and I have talked to the RCMP about this issue, just so the member can clearly understand that.
The member is suggesting, and I think that all members of the House should pay particular attention to this suggestion, that I should ignore the tactical, operational decisions of the RCMP and that I should order them to proceed in there with all arms bared -- to go in there come what may, consequences be damned, in order to clear the roadblock.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The potential consequences of that kind of ignorant approach to resolving this difficult issue can only be imagined, and I hope the member never, ever has the opportunity to be in this kind of position.
[2:30]
J. Weisgerber: My question is also for the Attorney General. Yesterday the minister indicated that he was helpless to do anything about the illegal blockade at Douglas Lake. British Columbians want to know who's in charge here. Is it the government of British Columbia, with its obligation to uphold the law? Or is it a band of illegally-blockaded-road militants? Are the militants in charge in British Columbia? Or is it indeed the government that is ruling this province?
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, members -- on both sides, please.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The law is clear. The government has made it clear on several occasions now that this is an illegal blockade. The people who are charged with carrying out the enforcement of the law in British Columbia are not cabinet ministers or the Attorney General but the police, who are sworn peace officers with a duty and obligation to carry out the enforcement of the law. The RCMP are doing just that now.
Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, on a supplemental.
[ Page 14712 ]
J. Weisgerber: My supplemental is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The government continues to negotiate with the Upper Nicola band, even though they're involved in an illegal blockade. Will the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs show some leadership and indicate that there will be no negotiations now or until such time as the blockade is down? Further, will the minister show some spine and say to aboriginal communities that there will be no negotiations with bands who involve themselves in this blockade -- no interim agreements, no treaty agreements, no negotiations with people who defy the law in British Columbia?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, there are no negotiations; there have been no negotiations; there will be no negotiations. As this hon. member well knows, this government will discuss what it takes to get the blockade down. That is our job and our responsibility. We are seeking diligently to do that.
Since this is a time that calls for statesmanlike qualities from all opposition benches, I think the members of this House should know.... I'm reading from a Vancouver Sun article of October 20, 1990, page A5, where it says: "Mount Currie Indians accused B.C. Native Affairs Minister" -- then it gives the name of the current Leader of the Third Party -- "of 'scheming' and refused to negotiate with him...when he unexpectedly showed up at their Duffey Lake Road blockade." He refused to negotiate. It goes on to say that they "faced each other silently for almost a minute" before the Minister of Native Affairs "announced he had come to negotiate a reopening of the road." The story goes on to say that he arrived there with an entourage of the media. The natives didn't know the media were coming with him, and he used them to try to foment that type of inappropriate action at that time.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: I would caution all members that we are using up a relatively precious commodity of time in question period.
ALLOCATION OF HEALTH CARE FUNDS AND CARE OF SENIORS
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. This Minister of Health is aware that there is a crisis due to this government and their ability to cope with Alzheimer's patients. The crisis is evident, and the minister has simply not responded. Yesterday this minister said that he will not investigate allegations of inappropriate care being provided to seniors in this province -- he will not investigate that. Why isn't this Minister of Health showing some leadership and demanding to know why this care is being delivered in the manner it is? When will this minister take charge of his ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Providing quality care to people who are residents in long term care facilities rests with care providers and the administrators of those facilities. I have yet to meet one of those care providers or administrators who is not upset and distressed when inappropriate care is provided. I have yet to meet one who is not interested in taking appropriate remedial action. I would suggest to the hon. member that when she receives such cries, she ask those patients and their families to approach the administrators of those facilities. Investigations of inappropriate care are done daily in this province. They also have a clear avenue to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. and other governing bodies of health professionals. That is the appropriate venue for investigation, hon. member. I would suggest that you stop fearmongering among seniors in the province, and advise people what their rights are.
Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
Hon. A. Edwards: I have the pleasure to table a report, titled Towards Energy Sustainability: Implementing the B.C. Energy Council's Energy Strategy for British Columbia, which is the government's response to 65 recommendations put forward from public consultation.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors; and in the House today I call second reading of Bill 29.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT
(second reading)
Hon. D. Miller: I move second reading of Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act.
As I indicated during the bill's first reading, the amendments in this bill are being introduced in response to the first comprehensive review of employment standards in the history of the province. We do have a long tradition in Canada and, in fact, in North America and other European and industrialized countries of having employment standards acts that represent a kind of minimum standard, if you like, in a variety of ways for unorganized workers.
The current Employment Standards Act was a cobbling together in 1980 of about ten different statutes into what we now know as the Employment Standards Act. Thus the review that was initiated by our government was the first comprehensive review of that Employment Standards Act, and the new act we are dealing with now is the result of some fairly intensive consultation around the province. I'll deal with some specifics on consultation, because there are those who are currently alleging that that consultation did not take place. But we'll deal with that in substance in respect to second reading and as we move into committee and the clause-by-clause debate that will ensue.
The act sets out minimum standards in the workplace for more than 1.5 million B.C. employees and their employers. This act does not deal just with minimum standards for working people -- for employees. It also deals with the rights and obligations of employers with respect to those employees.
In April 1993, Prof. Mark Thompson was appointed by the then Minister of Labour and Consumer Services to review the act and its regulations. In that regard there was a panel of people. It was not structured similar to the approach to the Labour Code, but nonetheless there was a panel of people who represented both the organized workforce in the province and different employers' organizations. That panel was there to advise Professor Thompson as he pursued the various issues around the province.
[ Page 14713 ]
In February 1994, Professor Thompson submitted his report on the Employment Standards Act. That report is available for any members who haven't yet had an opportunity to read it. It is entitled Rights and Responsibilities in a Changing Workplace and included 118 recommendations for changes to the act. I made that report public shortly after I received it, and I invited a response from the public and from organized groups, whether they be employer groups, trade unions or whatever. I wanted to hear their views on that. An extensive and lengthy analysis was conducted internally. It was one of the most comprehensive analyses that I've been party to with respect to a bill -- and obviously this is a very large bill. It's very important that a thorough job be done in terms of the various provisions contained in the act, both existing and new. A very comprehensive analysis ensued as we also received input from the general public. That resulted in a decision to proceed to incorporate some of the 118 recommendations into a revised Employment Standards Act, and to reject some of the recommendations that had been made by Professor Thompson.
I announced on November 21, 1994, the government's decision with regard to the Employment Standards Act. I announced at that time, members might recall, that we intended to proceed to increase the minimum wage. That first increase has now gone into effect, as of March, and the minimum wage now stands at $6.50. The second increase in the minimum wage that I announced last November will kick in during October and November, and B.C.'s minimum wage at that time will be $7. It's not the highest -- and who knows what other provinces may do in time? -- but it is nonetheless one of the leading minimum wages in Canada.
But to go back to November. I announced then in some detail those areas in which we would be proceeding, as well as those areas we would not be proceeding with. During the day following my announcement, I held specific discussions with a variety of organizations -- the Business Council of B.C., the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, the B.C. Federation of Labour, agricultural groups, domestic workers, the agricultural sector -- a whole range of people who had expressed concerns, one way or the other, about certain provisions of the Thompson report.
Based on those discussions last November, I was satisfied, on balance, that we had indeed listened and that we had responded in an appropriate way to the concerns that had been raised. I don't suggest that everybody was completely satisfied or completely happy with the decisions our government had taken, but quite importantly, they were satisfied that their concerns had in fact been listened to and had been reflected in the final decisions made by the government.
I made a commitment at that time, which was subsequently followed up, to share the draft as we moved forward with the groups I had met with. To turn the report and the decisions we'd made into legislation, we then took pains to go back and meet with those groups to share with them the kind of language we were proposing to use. As I indicated at the time, this was to ensure that there were no unintended consequences of any decisions that had been taken.
[2:45]
We arrived at this moment in time, which I suppose is coloured somewhat by some events over the last few days with respect to one of the organizations that had been consulted on this legislation. We have prepared a very comprehensive analysis of a letter received by the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, and I hope members take the time to read it to try to understand the issue in specific detail. I would hope that, having read the analysis, they would come to the conclusion that in fact there's nothing to fear with respect to the issues that we are discussing here today and as we move into committee.
This bill promotes social and economic equality for all British Columbians and addresses a number of changes. Our economy is changing. As we all know, it's gradually changing from resource-based to a more service-based economy. Social values and human rights concerns are changing. This bill addresses the need to enhance compliance with the statute through a combination of sanctions for non-compliance and, more importantly, an education strategy to promote awareness of rights and responsibilities under the act.
This legislation covers major changes in the act. To the degree that it has been possible, the act has been rewritten in plain language. I know that anybody who ever picks up a piece of legislation no doubt will arrive at sections that appear at first blush to be somewhat incomprehensible. I suppose the challenge in trying to address the plain-language issue was to construct a bill that was sound in its construction. After all, bills are legal documents. They are subject to court challenges, for example, and therefore the bill must be constructed and the language written in such a way that they meet the test and, in fact, support the intention of the bill.
Despite this, we have made a very sincere attempt in working with legislative counsel to draft the bill in what we call plain language. Anybody who now might want to take the time to review the existing act and contrast it to the new act would come to the conclusion, I hope, that our efforts were not in vain. In fact, we have done a reasonably good job in meeting one of the tests that the business community suggested in their submission to Thompson: a bill that could be interpreted by the average person. You didn't need to be a lawyer to try to understand the act. Again, we will move forward in, I hope, a comprehensive way, not just.... We don't feel it's good enough simply to introduce an act, let it lie and let people kind of sort through provisions.
We intend to move forward with an education program. We have discussed that at length with the various constituent groups who have an interest in the bill. They were generally pleased with that approach and look forward with some enthusiasm to that kind of educational program.
It's based on the premise that the majority of people impacted by the bill have no desire to break provisions of the bill and, in fact, feel that if they're well informed about what is in the bill, those kinds of problems will not arise. We will not have applications to the employment standards on breach of legislation. So we will be promoting and moving forward. I hope that as part of that exercise we will develop, as we have in the past, a new pamphlet that is available to the layperson, both the employee and the employer, so they can better understand the provisions of the act.
Some of the changes that have been made.... All of the interpretations and definitions have been moved to the beginning of the act for ease of use.
The term "work" has been broadened to recognize and include work that is done in the worker's residence or the residence of another person. We talk about the changing
[ Page 14714 ]
nature of work. We understand -- it's very clear -- that there are those who gain their employment by working full-time in the residence of another person. Typically, those are the live-in domestics or nannies. Typically, in British Columbia they have been mainly women -- in fact, I would say almost exclusively women. Many, if not most, of them are drawn from the ranks of immigrant women, who have the usual difficulties in adjusting to our society with respect to language and alienation from their families.
They are subject to abuse. When I say that, I'm not denigrating any individual; but it's true -- they are. Submissions made by the West Coast Domestic Workers' Association clearly indicated that some people who gain their employment through full-time work as domestics do not work and live under a standard that, quite frankly, I think any member of this House would find acceptable.
Therefore, in broadening the definition of work, we have been able to capture those people who do earn their living by providing that kind of service in another person's home. Again, the provisions are not onerous. But we feel that these people are British Columbians, and they should be entitled to these minimum standards that the act lays out for all working people in British Columbia. I hope that we would find concurrence from members opposite with respect to that basic approach.
The definition of immediate family has been expanded to include adoptive children, parents and other persons who reside permanently with the worker. No doubt there may be some who object to the connotation there. It certainly does come into the area of same-sex couples. I look forward to any debate that people may wish to entertain on that subject. Primarily, the issue has been canvassed well in this country. The courts have, I think, spoken on the issue. Nonetheless, there may be a diversity of opinion here in the chamber. I'm quite prepared to engage in some reasonable, rational debate around that issue.
The terms of employment.... The amendments addressing the conditions of employment required in the workplace include hours of work. We have made, I think, a positive change. In the current act, if an employer and employees wish to alter their work schedule from the schedules laid out in the act.... In other words, any work after eight hours in a day or 40 in a week is subject to overtime. That has been a provision of the act for some time. Under the current act, if employers and employees wish to alter that work schedule, it is now a fairly onerous process. There's more paperwork than is required. One needs to have agreement by about 100 percent of the employees. We normally send an investigating officer into the workplace. In other words, it's a cumbersome bureaucratic approach.
We have streamlined that in this bill. Compressed workweeks can now be approved with the approval of 65 percent of the workforce instead of 100 percent, as was previously the case. We have developed some on-the-shelf models of a variety of shift schedules. Different flexible shift schedules are on the shelf that both employers and employees can take, if you like. The requirements to maintain that flexible schedule are less onerous, less burdensome and require less paper than in the existing act. That's a subject that has been raised in recent days. I would hope, again, that members would appreciate the work that we've put into this section in order to reduce the kind of red tape that had been part of the act even before our government came to power.
Statutory holidays. It changes the name of the holidays from "general" to "statutory," extends the entitlement to holiday pay to all employees after 30 days of employment and standardizes the method of payment. What this really means is that part-time workers will now be able to collect pay for a statutory holiday on a prorated basis, based on the hours they've worked. They have previously been excluded from that kind of payment. We think it's only proper that permanent part-time people be allowed, in a modest way and on a prorated basis, to be paid like other working people when a statutory holiday occurs.
One of the new provisions -- and one that I'm sure will receive broad support from members opposite; I know my caucus is very enthusiastic -- says to working families, for the first time in British Columbia, that if you have a sick child or parent or some family crisis, you now have the right under employment standards to take a day off to care for that child or parent, or to deal with that crisis. I know that most employers in our province probably do that already. But I was struck by an article....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: I hear the leader and lone member of the Social Credit Party muttering in his seat, so perhaps I should respond and refer the member to an article that appeared just last week in the press -- and I'll get a copy of the article -- citing a woman's response to this new provision. Her response was: "Thank goodness. I lost my job because I did that very thing. I was fired for taking a day off to care for my child" -- I can't remember the exact circumstances -- "because that protection wasn't in the bill."
This bill is not designed to say that all employers are bad and need this kind of requirement in order to be good. This bill is designed so that where employers are not prepared to grant what we all, I assume, agree is a reasonable day off, the employee has the right to take the day off. I say that it is long overdue that we in British Columbia have that kind of right. Similarly, it ensures that where there is a situation that requires bereavement leave, which, again, most employers would provide.... For those who are not prepared to provide it, we now will have a piece of legislation that guarantees the ability of a person to take three days off for bereavement leave.
The article I just referred to just magically fell into my hands. It's from the May 24 edition of the Province newspaper, page 26. May I quote from the article by Barbara McLintock, a well-known, senior reporter in the press gallery, and Stuart Hunter. It goes like this: "A woman who said she was fired because her boss thought she couldn't manage her baby and her job got some satisfaction yesterday. Nicole Antonovitch joined unionists and business owners" -- business owners! -- "in applauding a new law that helps working parents." It goes on to say how she lost her job because she took a day off. So that kind of activity, if this bill is passed -- and I hope with full support.... I must say that I have heard some disquieting rumours. I understand the former Minister of Labour and now the critic in the Reform Party intends to put a motion forward to hoist this bill. He doesn't like this bill. I read, to my absolute horror, this morning's newspaper, where it suggested that the leader of the Liberal opposition doesn't like this bill. He describes it as a job-killer. I only assume that we're going to get the Liberals opposing this bill, and we'll get into some more debate around that, I sincerely hope.
[ Page 14715 ]
The bill reduces the time period in which an employee is covered for the purpose of termination. Currently the act says that if you have worked less than six months, your employer can summarily fire you, and you have no access to the Employment Standards Act. I encountered a young person who had worked in a circumstance.... I can't remember where the community was. A young fellow came up to me and said: "You know, I got a job, and it was a real struggle. It was a minimum-wage job. But I got a job in this small video outlet. I worked for five and a half months. The person who owned the shop sold it to somebody else. The new owner came in, and he fired me, not because I was a bad worker or anything else. I went down to Employment Standards to see if there was some redress and was told: 'Sorry, there's none.' "
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: I hear the leader of the Reform Party now, and I'm looking forward to some debates that hopefully we can have with the leader of the Reform Party -- an enlightened individual when it comes to these issues. We'll leave that again, I guess. I look forward to what that member might have to say today.
So we've lowered that to three months from six months -- again, I think, a move that generally will be applauded by all members. And I would hope that even some members of the opposition might bring themselves to support these kinds of modest improvements in the conditions that govern the working lives principally of those working poor, if you like -- the minimum-wage, low-wage earners -- who rely on the employment standards as a set of minimum standards.
[3:00]
We have changed some sections with respect to enforcement. One of the issues that the employers brought to us, in fact, was the need, as they identified it, to single out the bad employers -- the repeat offenders, if you like. So the bill will contain the ability to levy fines and penalties for repeat offenders. That was generally supported, by the way, in the discussions my staff and I held with organizations representing the business community.
The bill changes a condition that had been criticized by the business community where, currently under the act, the employment standards branch is both the arbiter of a dispute and the judge, if you like, with respect to that. The bill will establish a separate tribunal, which will not be a huge bureaucracy but will, I think, eliminate that problem which was identified by the business community, and will also, I think, remove the issue of appeals of decisions of the branch to the courts rather than having them dealt with by the tribunal. Therefore it should be less costly and less onerous for all those involved.
I already mentioned another provision, one that I think is timely in light of the changing social values that we have not only here in British Columbia but in other parts of Canada and other parts of the world. The bill never contained provisions to respect the rights of pregnant women in the workplace. They, in an unorganized setting, were always at the whim of their employer when it came to determining when they had to leave the job in order to see the pregnancy through. The bill now provides that the individual, the woman in question, will have some say in determining when that period of time is, when that time is that she has to leave the job. Surely the members opposite -- the Reform Party... I can't anticipate -- won't be objecting to this section; but perhaps I'm wrong.
The bill is intended not only to enhance minimum standards but provide for new standards, and I've mentioned some of those new standards. I don't want to get into too much of the substantive debate or the separate-issues debate in my opening remarks, but I've tried to outline in a general way that the bill is one that has been put together with a lot of care, a lot of effort. It is as the result of a significant amount of consultation in the province, both through the Thompson process -- through the submissions that were made to Thompson through the process that I initiated directly with various organizations, both in my office and in Vancouver -- and through discussions that my staff have had subsequent to those discussions. In fact, some of those are ongoing -- as we work with the agricultural sector, for example -- and we're prepared to make further commitments along those lines.
There may be issues in here that, despite our rigour, we, for whatever reason, erred on -- we failed to consider issues. I would hope that this forum, where we have MLAs who are elected to represent all of the constituencies in the province and, clearly, a variety of points of view in the province, will be the forum where we can engage in a reasonable debate. Perhaps as a result of that, the public will have a clearer understanding of where we all do stand respectively when it comes to these kinds of issues, which we think are fundamental to our modern society.
So, hon. Speaker, I will take my place and listen with pleasure to the, hopefully, enlightened debate to follow.
G. Farrell-Collins: I too want to participate in the debate today. I imagine we will be here for some time, discussing the other half of the government's labour agenda. We had the first half -- the B.C. Labour Code, which came in very quickly after the government assumed office -- and now, some three and a half years later, we have before us the changes to the Employment Standards Act. I was one of the few who.... When the government made clear -- I think it was last year -- that they weren't going to bring forth employment standards in that session, I made it clear that I was disappointed. I thought that there were changes that needed to be made and that the government should get on with it.
The unfortunate thing is that as this bill has progressed, and as we've seen the Mark Thompson report -- which I think, quite frankly, was a bit pie-in-the-sky, for the workers' utopia, and didn't have a lot of grounding in reality and practicality.... I was a little disappointed with that report, and I said so at the time, although there were good things in it that needed to be dealt with and there were some recommendations there.
I think it was last fall that the minister made a statement of intent of this government as far as some areas that they weren't going to proceed with and others that they were. Again, I was pleased to note a number of changes, some of those to the requirements for farm labour contractors -- to clean that up a little bit; certainly people have been taken advantage of. Certainly the area of domestics was another thing that needed to be dealt with. I was pleased to see those.
But I, apparently unlike many other people in the province, wasn't privy to the actual legislation until last Wednesday. I must admit that I was shocked to find that a
[ Page 14716 ]
meeting had been set up on Thursday between the group that represents small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia and the Premier; I think it was one of the few times they've had to meet with him. They were also meeting with us on that Thursday. The day before that meeting took place, the minister brought the bill into the Legislature and tabled it, before they even had a chance to talk to the Premier about what their concerns were.
Hon. D. Miller: We thought you were more important.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says he thought we were more important and should see the bill first. The reality is that many other groups saw the bill before we did. That's fine; that's the way this government operates; that's okay. They took that bill.... Those people had a chance to actually see the legislation, and were quite upset with certain elements of it -- not all elements, but certain elements of it -- and wanted to voice their opinion to the Premier. Instead of having the opportunity to be briefed quietly on the bill and then come back to the government and bring their concerns and have those concerns dealt with in an open manner, the bill is tabled the day before the meeting takes place -- sort of thumbing your nose at people who want to have some opinion on this.
The previous Labour minister had promised the small business group, when the B.C. Labour Code was brought through, that they shouldn't be terribly upset with the Labour Code, because it didn't affect them a great deal. Well, we now know that it has affected them substantially, in that the number of certifications among small and medium-sized businesses has skyrocketed under the labour bill. What has happened is that they were assured by the previous Labour minister that the bill they should really be concerned about was the Employment Standards Act. Unfortunately, that has come to be just too true. They should be very worried about the Employment Standards Act and some of the implications that are in that, and we will be discussing them as we move along.
That wasn't the end of the insult. On Thursday, when they finally got the meeting with the Premier after the bill had been tabled, the Premier told them.... I have a copy of a letter that was sent to the Premier, thanking him for the meeting that was set up last Thursday, trying to be as polite as possible despite, I think, the less than forthright practice of the minister in tabling the bill. It said that they were glad the Premier had agreed to take under consideration their position that this bill be used as exposure, that we have a chance to look at some of what they consider problem areas, and then come back. They also said that the Premier couldn't do anything about it; he had to take it to cabinet on May 31, and that on May 31 cabinet would be discussing it. Well, we heard last night before cabinet even happened this morning that this bill was coming forward today, about seven days after it had been tabled initially.
Once again the Premier promised the people of this province one thing and delivered something else. He promised the people of the small business coalition that....
Hon. D. Miller: Point of order.
Deputy Speaker: I have difficulty comprehending a point of order, minister, but....
Hon. D. Miller: Well, hon. Speaker, the member is using all his time complaining about the fact that the bill is in the House, and I thought he might want to actually debate the contents of the bill.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister. Will the member please proceed.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I had a chance to get a glass of water.
The reality is that the Premier told those people that he would take it to cabinet, and they would discuss it at the cabinet meeting today, which took place this morning. Yet yesterday the government decided to proceed with the bill before it even came to cabinet. So you have to ask yourself why people are being told one thing and another thing happens. It does nothing to instil any sense of confidence in the consultation process that's supposed to be taking place, that has taken place to a certain extent on this bill and that will take place in the future. What does that do but erode that sense of cooperation the minister talks about that is necessary between business and labour and the government in this province? It erodes it. The Premier has gone to great lengths and great expense with these Premier's summits all around the province on a variety of issues, to get business and labour and government working together, and then the Premier and the minister snub their noses at the small business community, the mom-and-pop operations, when the chips are really down.
The minister smiles; he doesn't think there's anything terribly important about that. But I can tell you, hon. Speaker, with all this minister's philosophical positions on the battle between labour and management in the province -- and I know his background; I know where he comes from -- that unfortunately small business generally doesn't work that way. The element of confrontation that takes place sometimes in the big mills and the big mines doesn't necessarily apply to small businesses. In many mom-and-pop operations it's the family that's working there, or it's relatives, or it's people who are actually quite good friends, and they work quite closely together.
What this government has tried to do, I think, with some of the changes they have made -- not all of them, but quite a good portion of the changes they're trying to make with the Employment Standards Act -- is impose an industrial relations model on small and medium-sized business. I don't think that's the right way to go, and I don't think the minister, if he sat and thought about it, would agree that it's the right way to go. But I don't know that he's thought about it. I think he's just fallen back on the thing he knows best, the thing that's easiest, the thing that he'd like to see the most, which is that good old-fashioned, industrial relations conflict model in the corner stores and the small retail shops and restaurants and hotels of the province of British Columbia.
I think that is extremely unfortunate. If those workers wanted to join a union, they would join a union. Heaven knows, the Labour Code makes it really easy to do. They have the right to do that. We all say they have the right to do that. But why don't they do it?
Hon. D. Miller: What don't you like, member?
[ Page 14717 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll get there, hon. member, I'll get there. Hon. Speaker, I listened quietly to the minister, and I wish he would listen quietly to me. The minister has fallen back on old ways and is trying to impose an industrial relations conflict model on small and medium-sized businesses, and I think that's unfortunate.
Small and medium-sized businesses have, I think, frustration at the way this bill was introduced and the context around it; there is frustration about the understanding they had with the Premier last Thursday that their issue would be addressed in cabinet before this bill came forward -- clearly that wasn't the case. More importantly, we have yet to see the regulations of a bill that's going to have the ramifications this one is going to have. I know the government gets the complaint from the opposition from time to time on various bills of, "Where are the regulations?" but you would think that after three and a half years of working at drafting this bill, the minister would have those regulations ready for us, because they are going to have a huge impact on what the meaning of these various sections actually are, how they're going to be implemented, how much red tape is going to be involved and how much of an administrative workload is going to be involved in bringing this forward.
I think the Employment Standards Act is really about people and jobs. It's about making sure that people have safe jobs and that employees are respected, but it's also about making sure that employers are respected and have flexibility in a changing economy to provide flexibility, to be competitive, and to provide jobs -- particularly for the young people in the province. Every time the minister raises the minimum wage, I caution him that what he's really doing is damaging the job prospects for young, single employables.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister seems upset by that, but maybe I could use some statistics....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to show some statistics to the Minister of Labour. Since October 1991....
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Could we perhaps allow the member to make his comments without too many interruptions.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. The minister gets two chances to speak to this bill; I get one, so maybe he can write down his objections and raise them when he gets a chance to sum up.
For example, we start with October 1992.... If you look at some of the employable males who are presently under the auspices of Social Services -- those people who have fallen through the cracks of the UI system; they've run out their time, they're still looking for work and now they're on social assistance -- the number has gone from 51,335 to 67,584. What impact is this bill going to have on employment for those young people? What about the employable single females? It has gone from 18,559 people on social assistance to 24,365. Those are pretty huge increases, and I think the minister should stop smiling and start getting worried about what's happening.
[3:15]
Hon. D. Miller: Check the statistics, my friend.
G. Farrell-Collins: Mr. Minister, these are statistics that come from your government, so if there's a problem with the statistics I suggest you talk to the minister involved; don't talk to me about it.
If we look at the statistics for unemployment alone -- not those people who appear under social assistance, but the unemployment rate.... Again, this comes from the B.C. stats branch, so the minister knows where he can source them out if he doesn't have them himself. In 1990 the unemployment rate for males aged 15 to 24 was 14.5 percent; in 1995 it is 17.3 percent. That's an increase of 3 percent in the unemployment rate in British Columbia, under the guidance of the NDP government which is supposed to be doing wonderful things for working people in the province.
Let's look at what happens to young women aged 15 to 24. Again, for young people -- that lost generation we're worried about finding jobs for -- in 1990 the unemployment rate was 11.7 percent, and in 1995 it's 15.3 percent. In this case it's almost a 4 percent increase in unemployment among those people.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I ask the minister -- and I ask him to do it in his summation -- to tell me what the Employment Standards Act that he's bringing forward is going to do to help small and medium-sized businesses get some of those young people in British Columbia off social assistance and unemployment insurance, and back into the workforce where they all want to be.
Perhaps the minister can tell us.... We know they've got this little Skills Now program that they have been playing with for a while that seems to be nothing more than spending money on advertising -- little buckets and bolts and cute little advertising things. I know they've probably got a huge office space and contracts to NOW Communications. The only people who are working in this province are those who have NDP cards. They are the only ones getting the contracts and the only ones who are getting a deal. So maybe the Minister of Labour can tell us what the Employment Standards Act is doing for those young people.
When he goes out around the province and talks about his Employment Standards Act and talks about the wonderful things it's doing for workers in B.C., I hope he meets with the young people on social assistance and unemployment insurance who are just trying to get a job, and tells them what his Employment Standards Act is going to do for them.
Hon. D. Miller: I will. I'll tell them the Liberals are going to reduce the minimum wage.
G. Farrell-Collins: He should be telling them in the Employment Standards Act where he is going to find jobs for those people. Where's he going to create those jobs? Where are the small and medium-sized business people in B.C. going to find jobs for those young people? I'd like to know.
[ Page 14718 ]
What he's done with this bill.... I've said there are some good things, and I'll talk in a little bit about some of the bad things. It's nice to put the good things first so that people know they are there, because oftentimes they're not brought forward.
I think the Employment Standards Act that we have before us is really a lot of.... I guess you could say it's almost like the death of a thousand cuts for small business in B.C., because almost every section imposes another layer of regulation, another paper burden they have to bring upon themselves, another process they have to involve themselves in that's going to take time away from actually doing their business and creating jobs and creating profits for themselves and their employees, and then has them doing more work for the government -- once again, doing more work for the government.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is asking me if I've worked for minimum wage. I worked for minimum wage an awful long time. I put myself through school and university on minimum wage. I can tell you that the flexibility provisions in this act are going to kill the restaurant industry and are going to kill the small retailers in this province. That's where those young people find their first jobs. That's where those young people find the flexibility to keep jobs and go to university at the same time. They can scrape up the money to pay the ever-increasing tuition and the ever-increasing cost of books.
Interjection.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
G. Farrell-Collins: That's where those people get those jobs, and those jobs won't be there. All that the loud-mouth member for Prince George-Mount Robson has to do is go talk to those young people who are out there looking for jobs this summer. She'll find that there are tens of thousands of university students in B.C. right now who are looking for jobs so that they can scrape together enough money to go back to university and college next year. This isn't going to be.... The options in this bill aren't going to help them at all.
L. Boone: What about your federal counterparts?
G. Farrell-Collins: The former minister from Prince George-Mount Robson who occupies the back corner is running down her list of heckles, and when all else fails, she blames the federal government. She runs down her whole list, and when she gets to the bottom: let's blame the feds. That's all this government can stand on. If they're going to go into an election blaming the feds and that's the only thing they've got, she's going to be demoted from a minister to a backbencher to the unemployment ranks. She should be darned concerned about the Employment Standards Act in this province, because she won't be able to find a job.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
G. Farrell-Collins: We've seen the impact of the Labour Code in B.C., and I would suggest that some of the....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I've just shown the minister some of the statistics in British Columbia so that he knows what the unemployment rate is, he knows what the social assistance rate is and he knows what's happening to small and medium-sized businesses that are going out of business, particularly in the construction industry. He knows those stats.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't notice the former minister on the speakers' list, but I would be glad to get her on so that she has a chance to speak.
The Labour Code has proven to be inflexible and biased, and it's proven to damage small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia. Small business has been faced with outrageous increases in Workers' Compensation Board fees and assessments.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: And the minister smiles. Perhaps the minister wants me to talk about that. Well, I will, because a lot of the fees that those people are paying to the Workers' Compensation Board are going to unusual places: $88,000 of it went right into the pocket of Connie Munro.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says he knows. Can the minister tell us what he's done about it? I would be glad if the minister would call his estimates and we could discuss that.
The reality is that the small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia are paying massive increases in the workers' compensation rates they have to pay. The unfunded liability is going up, the number of injuries is going down, and the service to injured workers is getting worse. I don't know what that minister has to brag about with workers' compensation, but I can't wait to get into estimates so we can have a good discussion about it. That's just a couple of things.
Then we look at the increase in fees and licences that this government has brought in and imposed upon the small and medium-sized businesses here. It costs hundreds of dollars to get your pool inspected if you own a hotel, hundreds of dollars to get your restaurant inspected from the Minister of Health and hundreds of dollars to the Minister of Agriculture.... There are lists and lists of them, not to mention all the other regulations that have come from the various other ministries: the Finance ministry, the Agriculture ministry, the Health ministry, Aboriginal Affairs -- you name it. You can just about name any ministry in this province and find the layers of regulation they have put on small and medium-sized businesses.
We have a situation where there is a conflict between two ministers. We have the Minister of Small Business who's gone out there and promised the estate wineries in British Columbia that he's going to sweep aside the regulations and make sure they can be competitive with American wineries down south; that they can be competitive with other industries in the tourism sector; and that they're going to be able to serve food and alcohol on the estate wineries -- those neat little
[ Page 14719 ]
places. The minister has promised changes to the people who are struggling to actually keep land in agricultural production in the Okanagan instead of building condos. Then they go and deal with the Minister of Agriculture, and the lists of regulations and requirements in order to get there are killing them, not to mention the Attorney General and the liquor distribution branch. It's getting to the point where you can't do business in B.C. anymore.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister can tell me how many went out of business last year, too. There are two sides to every story.
After all of that, now we have the Employment Standards Act -- this wonderful new bill that we're all going to see. As I said earlier, there are some good things but there are some bad things too. The provision for votes to create some flexibility in the number of hours in the workweek requires a 65 percent vote of the employees. It only takes 55 percent to form a union, but it takes 65 percent of the employees to make any changes to the workweek. Why? Does that make sense? Why not 55? Why 65? Where did that number come from? It just makes it that much more unfortunate. Why not have a simple majority of the employees working with the employer to make some flexibility in their work schedule so they can have it work better for them and better for the employer?
I speak from a little bit of experience, having been in the restaurant business, from dishwashing to managing. I've done the whole work, and it's one of a number of industries that I do know. I can tell you that a lot of young people get into that industry because the money is decent; they can do okay. But more importantly, it allows them the flexibility to come in and work a couple of hours, and if it's slow, you go home and work on a paper or study for your midterm. There are all sorts of options there for you. That's what's great about that industry: it's so flexible for young people. You'll find a ton of university and college students are in the restaurant industry. They make their money in the summer. If they're lucky enough, they can hold onto their jobs throughout the year. It allows them to pay for their tuition and their books and get an education.
I can tell you, however, that requiring those people to do four hours of work regardless means that they won't be called in at all. It means that they're not going to get the work. It means that they're not going to make any tips; they're not going to be able to get the money that they need to stay in school.
Where are those people going to go? They had a part-time job, they were going to university or college, and they were paying for their books. Instead of having a part-time job, going to university or college, advancing themselves, taking some training program or whatever it may be, these people are now going to lose their jobs. They are not going to be able to afford to go to school. They are going to land on these two pieces of paper: first, they're going to go on UI, and when that runs out, they're going to be on social assistance. Then the government is going to step in with millions of dollars and run a great advertising campaign to talk about how they're going to give people skills to get into the workforce. They were already in the workforce; they already had a job; they already had a future. They were working toward it, and now it's gone.
Is it gone because the economy went down? No. Is it gone because tourism has dropped? No. Those jobs are gone because the government came in with a whole raft of ideological regulations and sections of legislation in a bill. That's why those jobs are gone. If the minister can't understand that....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the member from Prince George can't understand that, I'd suggest that she go out and talk to some of the people who are out there. Talk to some real people.
[3:30]
One of the other items that I think is a little outrageous in this bill is the requirement that once businesses come to some agreement with their employees to actually compromise and make some changes and make for some flexibility in the workplace -- if they ever manage to get there -- they have to keep those records for seven years. I don't think even the tax department demands that you keep your records for seven years. These people are going to be keeping so many records that they're not going to be able to run their business. Every time you want to make any change at all, you can't just go and talk to your employees and say: "Hey, let's try this." You've got to sit down, write it out, get it all printed out on paper, have a vote on it, get 65 percent support, file that in a file somewhere and report it to the employment standards bureau. Then you get to implement it.
I don't know how many small businesses that members of this House from the New Democrat side have ever been involved in, but....
An Hon. Member: Lots.
G. Farrell-Collins: Lots, perhaps. Successfully or unsuccessfully? Hon. Speaker, I can tell you that it's pretty tough.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Four votes. Four out of 51. Great.
That's not the way a small or medium-sized business works. If you're going to be competitive, you've got to be fast, and you can't be spending all your time doing paperwork for the government.
Another area that the government is going to have an impact on with this bill -- perhaps unintended -- is the little boys and girls out there and the seniors in the province who deliver papers for pocket money.
An Hon. Member: Seniors deliver papers for pocket money?
G. Farrell-Collins: The member seems shocked by that. Talk to people. If you get outside of this building and actually talk to real human beings, you'll find out that it happens. She's shocked that young people and seniors are delivering papers for pocket money. They go out and work for a couple of hours or an hour or so during the day, and they take a couple of routes. Some of them do it just for exercise, quite frankly. They're out walking anyway; they might as well deliver the paper and pick up some money for doing it.
[ Page 14720 ]
Young people in school, those oppressed paper-boys and paper-girls around British Columbia, have now lost their jobs under this bill, because they are going to be required....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I understand that as a designated speaker I have up to two hours to speak. I'll be taking full advantage of that.
I think those young people out there who have those jobs are doing it because it gives them some pocket money -- they can save their money for whatever. Now the big government is.... It's like Bambi Meets Godzilla: there's the little paper-boy walking down the street, and there comes the big Minister of Labour with his big foot and smacks him into the ground. He's out of a job. Those are the types of stupid things that government does. Another one, which I'm very pleased to see the minister back down on, is the change to the act with regard to babysitters.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I'd love to talk about it in committee. Maybe the minister is changing his mind back; maybe he didn't make that decision of his own accord; maybe he did it at gunpoint. I don't know. But he doesn't seem too happy with his decision. I think there's a difference between a domestic -- a nanny -- and a babysitter. If the minister didn't see that difference, then I wonder why he repealed his regulation. Why would he repeal his regulation if he stands by it? Either he stands by it or he doesn't.
We saw him back down on that one, and I hope that with some sober second thought he'll have a chance to back down on some of the changes he has brought in with this bill, and to make some changes to this bill.
There is a lot more to be said; there will be more said. Other members have things to say -- members from agricultural communities, members from our caucus and other members who have experience in other areas have things to say.
I do believe, however, that some time needs to be taken with this bill. The minister, after the time he has taken, unfortunately still doesn't have the regulations ready for us so we can see them and see what the real impacts are going to be as they are implemented in various small businesses around British Columbia. We haven't had an overwhelming sense in the last week or so from this government that they are willing to listen in the short term. Rather, they have, I think, been a bit less than upfront with the members representing the small and medium-sized businesses. There are problem areas in this bill, some of which I have itemized and some which other members of our caucus will be itemizing. But there is in this case, in this bill, a lack of confidence, unfortunately, that the government is really listening. It's one thing to open your doors and have people come in and tell you what they think, and they go out. And you slam the door and say, "Great, I heard them; I don't believe anything. I'm not going to listen to them, and I'm not going to make any changes," and away they go. There's a difference between that and actually consulting people, listening to what people have to say and making some changes. I think it's important, and as much as I have encouraged this minister to get on with the job, having now seen the complete job I can't tell you how dismayed I am with the quality of what's here and the policy choices he has made.
Unfortunate as it is, I think the minister has to take some time to look at this bill. He has to get out there and talk to the young people. I suggest that he go to the universities and colleges and talk to people; I suggest that he talk to the small and medium-sized businesses, and that he sit down with the restaurant and hotel industry and talk about the flexibility provisions in this bill, and whether or not there can't be some changes to accommodate the four-hour allotment and some of the lunch break periods. Having worked in the restaurant business, you come in and you start at six and you go until 11, or you start at five and you go to 11:30. The customers are there; you don't just sit down and take a break. You work, and when you're done, you're done. And it's great -- it's fun; you work hard, you get paid for it, you earn good tips and it's helpful. Some of the provisions that are in here are a bit ridiculous, I think.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister laughs. I know he has only worked in a union environment. I would suggest that he try something else for a while and see what it's really like out there. I think his laughter just indicates his lack of understanding about what it's really like to run a small business.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd just suggest that they get out and talk to people. Talk to real people. Don't talk to Ken Georgetti, who has got his agenda, his big labour agenda: let's certify every restaurant in town -- which is what he'd love to see. Certify McDonald's, certify Burger King, certify Wendy's. Get everybody -- get all those teenagers -- in a union, despite the fact that they don't want it. He talks about sectoral certification. Let's get out there and talk to real people, working in small and medium-sized businesses, and find out what's going to work for them as employees and employers in order to ensure that they have a business and that there are jobs there for the employees.
With that, I move that the motion for second reading of Bill 29 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."
On the amendment.
L. Hanson: I guess I haven't been around here long, because obviously we made a tactical error of some kind. We published a press release that said we were going to ask for a hoist motion. Regardless of where the motion comes from, regardless of the source, we believe that a good idea is a good idea. So we will speak in favour of the hoist motion because, other than a few words, it's identical to the one that we were going to bring forward.
The process that we've been through is kind of an interesting one. I think the minister mentioned that he had made some statements as to what the employment standards were going to include. Back in November, I think, was the date he
[ Page 14721 ]
mentioned. He acts surprised now that there is opposition, because he had put out this information that told us what we were going to do or what he was going to do -- so why is everybody so surprised?
First of all, there are some surprises in the bill. Much as it pains me to say this, there are some improvements in some of the wording because of the plain-wording initiative -- even though some of the clauses within the bill are a little difficult to understand even with the plain wording. But I know that that's an issue that we will cover on a serious basis when we get to the clause-by-clause debate, and maybe we could even suggest some improvements in that.
But it's interesting that in November we were told what was going to happen. On May 24 we actually got a copy of the bill, amazingly coinciding with the timing of the B.C. coalition of small business having a visit to Victoria. And with a very, very short interval in between, we're all of a sudden up in the Legislature debating the principles of the bill -- although right now we are speaking on the hoist motion. I might add that this gives an opportunity to speak again at a later date without having lost our place, after we have the opportunity of listening to what some of the members of the governing party may have to say about the bill. As a matter of fact, I've been hearing a lot of opinions, not necessarily in the proper form, but certainly in the form of heckling of the former speaker.
It's difficult to understand the rush that has been obviously placed on this bill, the emergency nature of having it brought in and debated so quickly. It may be pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that there may be some sensitivity to the different analyses that have come forward already as a result of the bill.
Even though there appears to be some difference in the public approach to this process by the Premier and the Minister of Labour, I guess the Minister of Labour is the one who is driving the bus. That's kind of interesting. I don't know yet how the minister has been able to twist the story to blame it on the past government, but I suspect that the minister would recognize that he and his colleagues have been driving the bus for a little over three years now. We hope that the minister would encourage his colleagues and particularly his leader to call forward the driver's test by going to the electorate, to see if they will give them another driver's licence. I suspect that it may be a pretty questionable process that they would like to avoid as long as they possibly can.
There are so many things in the bill that we will, I know, get to argue about when we get to the clause-by-clause, committee stage of the bill. But there are things that indicate where this bill came from. The minister and the members of government are very proud of and very emphatic about the consultation process that they claim to have gone through with almost every piece of legislation they have brought forward. It's kind of strange why organizations like the coalition of small business, the Business Council of B.C. and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce would suggest that the consultative process was less than an honest one, because they now have had an opportunity to look at this bill. They see that the various presentations and positions they have taken are not reflected in the bill that has been brought forward. So that raises some questions.
I guess that the obvious bias is indicated by the requirement for 65 percent of the employees to adopt and approve of a flexible work schedule, when if 55 percent of them were to sign a union card, they would get an automatic certification. So somewhere there are some different standards, quality and level of approval. That seems to indicate, certainly in my thinking, that there is a bias.
[3:45]
Interjections.
L. Hanson: Again I have members heckling me, asking: "What is the federal Reform's position?" They're two different parties, and they're different people.
Interjections.
L. Hanson: I hear the Liberals laughing about that. I suppose their assurances that the federal Liberal Party and the provincial Liberal Party.... That's different.
Anyway, it's the usual bill that comes forward. We see so much of the bill that we're unable to analyze or determine what the result will be. We're unable to determine what the direction of it is simply because so much of the bill allows for regulations to be made. When we do see them, we will understand the true intent of the various clauses in the bill. But I'm not sure why I'm pointing this out, because it's been a habit of this government. I don't know why I'm surprised.
The minister mentioned the new entitlements that are in the bill. I suppose there has been the odd circumstance where some situations have not been done as well as we would like to see them done. I suggest to the hon. Speaker, to the members of this House and to the public of British Columbia that 99.9 percent of employers are very understanding when employees have a true need to have some time off, and are already recognizing the need in some circumstances to accommodate their employees. It seems there is a direction here that would seem to say: "We can't trust you, so we have to put it into law; therefore here it is in front of you. You have to do this, you have to do that, you have to do something else."
I guess the whole of the issue, as far as I and my caucus colleagues are concerned, is that there should be an opportunity to look at some of these various clauses in the bill. There should be an opportunity for the people who are involved in the workplace to study the application of what the minister has brought forward. It doesn't seem to be too onerous to suggest that this bill could be set aside for some six months to get that response.
The main thrust of the concern we have is the analysis of the bill -- the opportunity to analyze the bill, its impact and the influence it is going to have on our small business community. The minister and the government are quite loud in claiming that British Columbia has been a leader in the creation of small jobs in Canada. They're very proud of that fact. I think all British Columbians should be proud of that fact, because it is less to the credit of the government than it is to the small business people of British Columbia.
The main thrust of the concern with this bill -- from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the coalition of businesses and the Business Council of British Columbia, which probably represent close to the majority of the workers in this province -- is that the new Employment Standards Act adds more regulations and increases the extent of government intervention in the province's economy. If this government doesn't
[ Page 14722 ]
understand how important small business and those other organizations that are represented here are to the economy of British Columbia, to job creation and to the healthy financial position of this province, they had better start to learn.
It was pointed out in the conclusions of the job study published in 1994 by the Organization for Economic Development that rigid labour market regulation is one of the biggest obstacles to new job creation in industrialized countries. While other jurisdictions are taking note of this important finding, the British Columbia government is adding to an already onerous burden of government regulation and intervention with respect to labour and employment matters. That is true, and that is a prophecy that is going to affect British Columbia. It is going to hurt British Columbia's economic future and hurt the job creation market this government is so proud of and brags so much about as being a result of its initiative and its laws.
That is going to hurt British Columbia. I'm not a betting man, but I would bet the hon. minister on that. I would like to re-emphasize the fact that he and his colleagues have been driving the bus of British Columbia for the last three and a half years. Let's go take a driver's test by putting this subject to the electors and see if they'll renew his licence. I support the hoist motion.
D. Mitchell: I wish to say a few words to the amendment moved by the official opposition to second reading of Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act. In speaking to the amendment, I'd like to note that the amendment suggests that this bill should not now be read a second time -- or in other words, approved in principle -- but should be read a second time six months hence. The effect of this kind of amendment at second reading stage is, of course, to kill the bill. It's not really a motion to have the bill read six months from now; it's a motion to kill the bill. We know that the House won't be sitting six months from now, or if it is, that will be a total surprise to all of us. We know that it's extremely unlikely that the House will be sitting six months from now. Even though some of us would like the House to be sitting six months from now and to have a schedule that would tell us when the House would sit, we don't have that. We're not quite that civilized in British Columbia. So I think we have to recognize that this amendment.... It's considered to be, in parliamentary language, a dilatory amendment, but it's seeking to kill the bill.
There's only one other kind of amendment that's allowed at second reading stage of a bill, and that's a reasoned amendment. My preference would have been that if an amendment was moved by the official opposition or any other member of the opposition, we might have had a reasoned amendment moved that might have, for instance, suggested that the bill be referred to a select standing committee. That's a perfectly acceptable amendment that can be moved. It can't now, because only one such amendment can be moved in second reading stage. So this is it -- unfortunately, in my view.
When the bill was tabled in the House last week, I think all members of the opposition side were somewhat surprised, even though there had been a long, ongoing process of a couple of years of discussion of a new Employment Standards Act in British Columbia. The minister is quite right: there has been substantial consultation, not only by himself but by his predecessor as Minister of Labour.
When the bill was tabled, it still caught us by surprise, because we weren't sure what the government's intentions were. No one was sure. We weren't sure in this House. The business community wasn't sure; we weren't certain, either. It was an amazing coincidence that it was tabled the day before an important meeting with the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. Just by coincidence, the following morning I travelled to Victoria with some members of the coalition who were coming to the meeting with the hon. Premier and the hon. minister who tabled this bill -- simply happenstance that I had a chance to chat with them on the way over. I can tell you this: they sure noticed -- they had sure heard -- that this bill had been tabled the day previous. It was quite a surprise to them. It was a surprise, because their meeting had been scheduled with the Premier and the hon. minister for some time previous, so obviously this was going to be the subject of the meeting.
That morning, when I arrived in Victoria, I wrote a letter to the Premier. I suggested in a constructive tone.... I tried to be constructive. I didn't release this letter to the media, but I copied the hon. minister on it. I'll tell you what I suggested in the letter. I'd like to read that into the record. It's a brief letter, hon. Speaker.
"Dear Premier:
"Yesterday, your Minister of Labour introduced the above-noted legislation in the House" -- referring to Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act. "I recognize that a great deal of work on the part of the government has gone into this bill, including the study conducted by Prof. Mark Thompson. However, there remains some real concern among the small business community regarding the cost of implementing Prof. Thompson's recommendations."
I said that because I had been told that morning by representatives of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses that that was the case.
I go on in my letter to say:
"I know that you will be meeting this afternoon with representatives of our business community, and I am assured that you will hear this point of view expressed. I would like to suggest that you consider using an innovative parliamentary procedure to help allay these concerns. In other legislatures, including our House of Commons in Ottawa, first reading bills are often referred to all-party standing committees for review and possible amendment before moving to the second reading stage."
It often happens in other houses. Never in our House has a bill been tabled for first reading and then sent to a select standing committee -- an all-party committee -- where it's reviewed and where there can be more consultation. But there's no reason why we can't do it. I said to the Premier in my letter:
"If your government was to use this method for the purposes of addressing the new Employment Standards Act, three important objectives might be met. First, one final and important stage of consultation for the small business sector would be achieved; second, the debate over the implementation of the legislation would be more rational, focused and better informed; and third -- just as important -- a commitment to parliamentary reform would also be demonstrated."
I concluded my letter by saying: "Please accept this suggestion in the constructive spirit in which it is offered."
I haven't received a response to my letter to the Premier yet. I know he's pretty busy. I wonder if he's read it. I don't know if he has, but I think the Minister of Labour probably read it, and I can predict what the Minister of Labour's response probably was on the basis of his comments today in the House. His response was probably: "Forget it. We don't need any more consultation. We've had enough consultation, and we're committed to pushing this bill through." That's the Minister of Labour's response, that's cabinet's response. The minister will have an opportunity to speak to the hoist motion,
[ Page 14723 ]
and I'm sure he can give it to me in his own language with his own spin. But that's the sentiment that I think he'd be likely to express.
That is unfortunate, in my view, because even though I for one don't want to see any further delays, I think we should have an Employment Standards Act providing minimum services of employment standards in any workplace in the province. I think the province of British Columbia deserves a good Employment Standards Act. There are legitimate concerns in the small business community in particular -- the small business community that is creating jobs. It's the only sector in our economy that's creating employment. Large companies, we know, are laying people off. Large corporations in the province of British Columbia are downsizing. We know that. The only sector of the economy that's producing new employment is the small business community. So why would we not give them at least one more chance to have some input into a law that is going to affect working conditions at each and every place of employment in the province?
This bill does not impact on large unionized employers. I think it's important to remember that. The large unionized employers in British Columbia will not be affected by this legislation whatsoever, because the collective agreements that they have signed with their employees already provide these standards -- in fact, sometimes go well beyond them.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: Minimum standards are there.
The Employment Standards Act is going to have an impact on non-union companies, small companies, emerging companies. We have to wonder about the kind of signal that's giving to the entrepreneurs in British Columbia who want to create new jobs, start new businesses. We want to encourage them, obviously. The Minister of Small Business should get up and speak on this bill, to talk about how it's going to impact on those small businesses, which are really the engine of economic growth in our economy today.
So that's why it puzzles me that the minister would be so intransigent in his view not to allow one final stage of consultation just to hear -- very carefully, one more time, one final time -- the views of those small businesses before bringing the bill forward. It could well be that with a few minor amendments to the bill we might have been able to placate some of the concerns of small business and had a consensus to move forward. I don't think that consensus is quite there today.
We have a hoist motion before us that effectively will kill this bill. It's too bad we didn't have a reasoned amendment that might have allowed for some further consultation, because perhaps that kind of amendment might have had a little bit more support in the House than this hoist motion will likely have. You know, this hoist motion is unlikely to be successful. Let's face it. What it does allow is for more debate, and what it does allow is for the minister to get up and speak to the hoist motion as to why the bill should not be hoisted for six months.
[4:00]
I'm going to take this chance just to mention a couple of points about the bill and why the bill should or should not be hoisted or killed at this point. The Mark Thompson report, upon which this bill is based, in my view doesn't really reflect the reality of working conditions in the province. It's unfortunate that the bill wasn't drafted by someone with much more concrete business experience, someone who perhaps has met a payroll and who understands the dynamics of the business community -- not the large business community, not big business. I think that's the one underlying concern I have about this legislation: that it takes a corporatist viewpoint of the economy, where we have big business, big labour and big government somehow coming together and deciding that this legislation will be acceptable. But that kind of corporatist viewpoint doesn't really take into account the small businesses, the medium-sized businesses, the non-unionized sector and the service economy, which are really the engine of economic growth and are really creating jobs. And so that corporatist viewpoint that drives this legislation is, I think, its own weakness. It really deprives the small business sector of having any kind of hand in the kind of employment standards that we all want to see in every place of employment in the province.
We do need more flexible work scheduling; we do need much of what the bill is offering. But the paperwork, the administrative burden that is going to be created, has to be looked at. I think, at the very least, we owe it to the small businesses of this province to have their voices heard on this, to ensure that these employment standards can be implemented with a minimum of administrative burden. You know, most small businesses don't have a human resources department and a full-time administrator to deal with government regulations. Most small businesses can't afford to implement such a position.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
We in British Columbia today should be trying to devise ways to encourage people to go into business, to take the risk -- the big risk that it is -- and to create jobs. But when we look at the array of obstacles for the average business person, at Workers' Compensation Board regulations, at the tax burden of the GST and PST, at the corporation capital tax and now the new employment standards legislation, one has to wonder if anyone in their right mind is going to want to take the risk to go out on their own and create a business that will in turn create new jobs.
Instead of providing disincentives, why not provide incentives to people to go into business? This bill certainly isn't going to provide those kinds of incentives, not if you listen to the small business community. I wonder why the government doesn't want to listen to them. That's one of the problems and the feelings about the bill.
I'd like to refer to just two sections of the bill to give you examples of what I mean. The first section I'd like to refer to at this point, just to highlight this concern, deals with pregnancy leave. I, for one, am in favour of very generous pregnancy leave. I think every business should offer very generous pregnancy leaves to employees who need to have some time off not only to have a baby but to care for a baby in the first weeks of the child's life. I, for one, believe we should be very, very generous. Any employer is -- I think most employers are, probably.
But if you take a look at section 50 of the act, for pregnancy leave, you have to wonder about the administrative burden. This is the example I'd like to use, because it says:
[ Page 14724 ]
"A request for leave must (a) be given in writing to the employer, (b) if the request is made during the pregnancy, be given to the employer at least 4 weeks before the day the employee proposes to begin leave, and (c)...be accompanied by a medical practitioner's certificate stating the expected or actual birth date...."
And it goes on.
This is the amazing part to me: section 50 says a request for a shorter period must also be accompanied by paperwork. In other words, if an employee is taking pregnancy leave and she, for instance, might want to take less than the prescribed minimum standard in the Employment Standards Act, she has to go further. She has to give such notice "in writing to the employer at least one week before the date the employee proposes to return to work," and the employer might be in the position to require the accompaniment of "a medical practitioner's certificate stating the employee is able to resume work."
Some might say that is the standard boilerplate agreement that you would find in any collective agreement. But the point is that this isn't applying to unionized employees, who already have similar regulations in the terms of their collective agreement. This is section 50. Section 50 of the act is requiring any small business person -- a restaurant owner, for instance, who has a waitress who's taking maternity leave.... The administrative paperwork makes you wonder if we're really contemplating a situation here where the employer and the employee don't have any trust or the mutual ability to negotiate a term of leave or any of the terms of their contract. So that's one of the concerns I'd just like to highlight. We'll go into that in a lot more detail in the committee stage.
Another concern, totally unrelated to this, is in section 96, the corporate officer's liability for unpaid wages. I don't know that I understand the section perfectly. I've read it through a few times. When we get to committee stage, I'm going to ask the minister about this.
Here's an example of where a director of a small business is going to be liable for unpaid wages of employees of a company that might go bankrupt -- or for whatever reason, I suppose. Now, I know that people going into small business want to have advisers who will help their business be successful. So if they're forming a board of advisers, they'll want to have experienced business people serve as directors of that company. But I wonder if this kind of amendment in the Employment Standards Act, section 96, is going to discourage any person from wanting to serve as a director of a British Columbia business, because they will then be personally liable for unpaid wages to employees if a company should get into trouble.
I don't know that I understand this section perfectly, as I said; I've read it through a few times. But the minister is going to have to explain how this is going to help small businesses -- for those businesses that form boards of directors -- to attract the very best and brightest business minds to serve on their boards, if we're creating an onerous liability that might create consequences that perhaps were unintended by the drafters of this legislation; I don't know.
Those are the kinds of complex issues -- and there are dozens of them in this legislation.... We have to ask whether or not they are obstacles to formation of businesses, obstacles to the creation of jobs and obstacles for small businesses, which are the drivers of the British Columbia economy today, which is increasingly service-oriented. We also have to wonder whether or not the bill is going to drive more of the economy underground. I don't know if the Minister of Labour has any statistics on this, but there are estimates that 10 to 20 percent of the gross domestic product of British Columbia -- I'm not sure if these statistics are right, but I've seen them cited by respected economists -- is now considered to be part of the so-called underground economy. Are these employment standards regulations in this bill going to drive more economic activity -- more of the building activity, the constructive, economic energy and talents of the economy -- underground because people don't want to deal with the paperwork and the administrative burden? Those are the reasons....
Hon. D. Miller: Less paperwork.
D. Mitchell: The minister says there's going to be less paperwork. But he's going to have to demonstrate that when we get to the committee stage, because the small businesses that have had a chance to look at the bill don't believe that. Why don't they believe it? Why won't the minister listen to them and allow one final round of consultation?
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: I don't want to list all of my concerns on this bill at this point. I'm speaking to the hoist motion. I think I understand why the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove moved the hoist motion. It's a traditional tactic that's moved by oppositions in legislatures.
Whether the hoist motion achieves the objective or not, it's at the very least going to allow us to hear from the minister one more time. I am hoping he'll get up and speak to the hoist motion and tell us why this bill should not be hoisted and read six months hence, and tell us why the bill should not be killed. When he's doing so, in allowing this one member to try to decide how to vote on this bill, he could do me a favour and try to explain why he would not allow one final round of consultation with the small business community that is so concerned that this bill is going to reduce employment and reduce incentives for people to create jobs and go into business for themselves in British Columbia today.
With those few words, I look forward to speaking later to the bill in second reading. But those are my comments on the amendment.
J. Pullinger: I rise to speak against the hoist motion. I find fascinating a number of things that we're hearing so early in this debate. Nothing serves to divide that side of the House from this side of the House faster than a debate about how we should treat the working people of this province. It's also very interesting that this hoist motion we are speaking to, which, as the independent member quite correctly points out, has the intention and the effect, were it to be passed -- and I'm sure it won't -- of killing this piece of legislation, is almost unanimously agreed to by the two opposition parties. The leader of the Reform Party has stood up and said that his hoist motion was virtually identical to the Liberals' hoist motion, and I think that is significant.
I also found it interesting to hear the Liberal member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove calling this rather benign piece of legislation some kind of workers' utopia. Get serious! These are relatively minor changes. Much of it maintains the status
[ Page 14725 ]
quo; much of it clarifies existing legislation. There are some processes that weren't there before and there's some enforcement and some changes, the overwhelming majority of which benefit women. And the Liberals and the Reform Party want to hoist this motion. They want to destroy it and get rid of all those terrible things.
And do you know what else? We listen to them talking about big business and how this is going to damage business and jobs, and if we have a decent minimum wage that you can almost live on -- because you still can't live on it -- that's going to drive jobs out of the province. The only thing wrong with those old, tired arguments is that for three and a half years the evidence shows that precisely the opposite is true -- not only in this province but in Saskatchewan and Ontario. And on the other end of the scale, where they're losing jobs and they've got low job creation and poor economies, that's where the Liberal and Conservative governments are. So let's not forget a couple of things.
We're making it fairer for workers; we're keeping jobs in British Columbia; we're stimulating the economy in B.C. And they're right: the jobs are private sector jobs by and large, and that's good. But British Columbia has created 40 percent of all the jobs in the country; the others are creating about 7 percent. We have created 40 percent of all the jobs in the country.
Let's look a bit at the economy that they're arguing about. By every measure for the last three years, British Columbia has been leading the way. We've got the highest job creation; we've got the lowest per capita debt; we've got the second-lowest overall taxes. Where the North American average hotel occupancy is around 65 percent, we've got 75 to 80 percent in British Columbia. We've got the highest retail sales in British Columbia, bar none. And guess which other provinces have also got the highest retail sales? Saskatchewan and Ontario. And guess where they're at the bottom? The four Liberal provinces are at the very bottom of retail sales. In fact, some of them have got negative 2 and 3 percent. In British Columbia we also have the lowest bankruptcy rates, and we have had increases in incorporations every year and declines in bankruptcy rates.
Their arguments about decent minimum wages driving jobs...and all these poor young people who are going to be out of work.... If we have a decent minimum wage.... They're crying over there about how sad that is. Again, there is no evidence to show that's true. The most recent studies show that there's minimal, if any, disruption, which quickly picks up again. And also, if you look a little beyond the reports, which are sketchy, unfortunately, you can see very clearly that the provinces with the lower minimum wage -- guess what -- have got higher youth unemployment. And if you go to the United States, where they have right-to-work legislation -- which the Liberals tried to bring in in a private member's bill, which means no minimum wage in the United States -- they have even higher youth unemployment. So the argument is absolutely bogus; it doesn't hold any water at all. What we're doing is stimulating the economy. We're saying that when our economy picks up, everybody should have a share of it, including our young people. That's what we're doing and it works, and there's lots of evidence to show that.
[4:15]
The other argument -- and I found this in a sad kind of way a little amusing.... But the other thing is that, while we have these terrible arguments from the member who spoke first for the Liberals, saying that the sky is falling, that if we have decent labour standards, decent labour legislation and a decent minimum wage all these terrible things are going to happen, we've seen that it doesn't affect the economy and it doesn't affect jobs. The reason that these people are on social assistance -- the member says that we've got people going on social assistance -- is because the federal Liberals, who were elected on a jobs, jobs, jobs platform, have done nothing but cut, cut, cut ever since. And at the same time as they're cutting jobs, they're cutting unemployment insurance. And at the same time as they're cutting jobs and unemployment insurance, they're moving to get rid of health care, they're cutting funding for health care -- they're all but eliminating it -- and they're gutting the funding for higher education.
So again, we hear the Liberals arguing: "Gee whiz, all you need is one of these wonderful minimum-wage jobs, and you can go to university." The problem is that Liberal policies are driving the costs out of sight. So there just simply is no basis in logic; there is no evidence to what the Liberals are saying.
Let's just have a little look at what the Liberals are promising, although I notice that they're being very general. They're not telling us how far they will roll back the minimum wage if they're elected -- they're not telling us that. They have told us that we'll go back to Bill 19, the labour legislation the Reform member spoke of, which the Premier of the day drafted with one person and presented to the Legislature; well, that member thought he was undertaking some consultation. We do have a commitment from both opposition parties to go back to Bill 19, which was condemned -- to our shame -- as unfair and oppressive by the International Labour Organization, which is a body of the United Nations. We have labour legislation now that is a 98-percent consensus between business and labour -- 98 percent -- and they're going to get rid of that and go back to the one that was condemned by the ILO.
They have committed to rolling back wages. He says they'll consult, but legally negotiated contracts.... These people who are complaining about process -- and we've had three years of consultation -- have already decreed that they're going to roll back wages for public sector workers. Isn't that going to be great? They're going to roll back wages of nurses, health workers, teachers, CUPE workers and people who work for government. Isn't that going to be ducky? We're going to have a war in all of those sectors. Of course, they're going to lay a whole lot of them off, which means we won't even have some of those services.
They have also made it very clear that they'll get rid of things like the Island Highway project agreement, which keeps jobs in B.C. and on Vancouver Island. They have said very clearly in this Legislature that they think it's okay for corporations and workers to come in from Alberta and get jobs that are created with our B.C. tax dollars. That's the Liberal vision.
They voted against Forest Renewal B.C., which is keeping people working in the forest industry, cleaning up the mistakes of the past made under the now Reform Party -- which used to be the Social Credit Party. It's keeping people working in communities like mine, cleaning up the mistakes of the past, while we shift from extensive forestry and the liquidation policy of the previous government, who had a specific policy that said we should liquidate all old growth in British
[ Page 14726 ]
Columbia. We're moving from those kinds of antiquated policies that created confrontation in British Columbia, and that kind of extensive forestry, to intensive forestry, where we manage and care for our forests, the people who work in them and the communities that depend on them. The Liberal vision is that they're going to get rid of that instrument of social and environmental policy because they just don't think we should have it.
We see a drive to the bottom being enunciated from both opposition parties. They want to lower wages and get rid of the basic standards for workers, of fair labour policy and of all those rotten, nasty environmental regulations so you can go and do good stuff, like mine and log in the parks. That's the kind of thing we're seeing. We know it doesn't work. The experiment in New Zealand might have been a success for a handful of people, but it was devastating to most of the population. The Klein administration: a handful of people like that, but we're hearing more and more about the pain it's causing the average person, and their economy isn't doing that well. We've got businesses moving -- guess what! -- from old laissez faire Klein Alberta, which both opposition parties love, to British Columbia, where we're doing some things to manage the economy, stimulate it and make it grow in a way where we share the results of that growth with all the people of British Columbia, not just a handful.
That's the kind of policy we're seeing from both of the opposition parties. They're making it very clear that while we want to engage in the drive to the top, where we have a better educated workforce, high technology, affordable investment and necessary infrastructure for the twenty-first century so we can compete at the top with countries like Japan and Germany, they want to drive to the bottom, so we can compete with the Third World. I reject that notion, and so do all my colleagues. I would offer that the drive to the bottom won't even meet their own goals, and it will hurt a lot of people on the way.
One of the arguments we've heard again and again is that there was no consultation, and that we should hoist this bill, send it to a committee or do something to delay it another six months. Holy smokes! First of all, this is not draconian; this isn't drastic. This is pretty tame stuff. We have had three years of consultation -- three years. We've had 14 public hearings across the province; 400 organizations submitted briefs. Throughout that process, there was an advisory committee made up of two representatives from the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, two from the Business Council of B.C., two from labour and one representing equity issues. They were there throughout. That group met 30 times to discuss the issues. After Mark Thompson issued his report and its 118 recommendations, we sent it out and asked the public and businesses and workers to react.
Interjection.
J. Pullinger: I'll let my friend have the floor until he's finished, hon. Speaker.
Interjection.
J. Pullinger: Are you finished? Okay. Thank you.
After Mark Thompson issued his report with 118 recommendations, after all of the consultation that had already happened -- it had been consulting and continues to consult -- this government asked the public and working people and business to provide us with some responses. Guess what. We had almost 400 responses to that, as well. There have been meetings after meetings after meetings, and they continue. The process of consultation continues while we develop the regulations for this bill. I'm not sure how else they want us to consult. I suppose we could consult forever and never get this bill passed. Obviously that's what they want to have happen.
As I said earlier, this legislation, as does any other legislation that is designed to create minimum standards and improve the environment or improve the way we treat workers, especially vulnerable workers.... This legislation clearly demonstrates the difference between the members opposite in the Reform and Liberal parties, and the people on this side of the House. It demonstrates that it's part of that agenda to drive to the bottom, and we reject that. In saying no to this employment standards legislation, they're saying no to working people; they're saying no to some of the most vulnerable women.
We hear all this bleating and crying from some of the members over there about people who are vulnerable and how we should look after them, and I agree entirely. We in this party have a long history of doing just that. The first leader of the CCF traded his vote in the legislature for the first pension plan in Canada. It was the New Democratic Party that brought health care to this country, etc. We think that that is a good thing to do.
We hear rhetoric from the other side. They say that they're going to slash wages and working conditions and lay people off and gut social services, while at the same time, they're egging the federal government on and saying: "Sure, you've cut health care and education funding, but cut more." That's what we're hearing from them over there.
While they're saying no to this legislation, they're also saying no to women, and they're saying no to domestic workers. Some of the most vulnerable workers will now be entitled to some basic standards of protection, and they're saying no. Similarly, they're saying no to those people who live in homes and look after kids and households: nannies. No protection; now they have some. The Liberals and the Reform Party are saying: "No, they don't deserve that."
They're saying no to women who, for the first time, now have the right to decide when they'll take pregnancy leave -- not their employers. It used to be up to the employer. The boss used to decide that; now the woman can decide that. And they're saying that that's not okay; they object to these changes. They're saying no to five days off of unpaid leave.
We all know that women are entering the workforce in unprecedented numbers, not only because they want to use their talents and abilities, but also because of economic need as a result of the kinds of policies that we saw happen federally -- and provincially until 1991 -- that drove down wages and made it necessary for both partners to work if they wanted to survive.
The biggest single barrier against women getting ahead in the workforce, and one of the reasons that women are still only paid about 60 or 70 cents on the dollar for work of equal value, is that they still carry the burden of child care in this country and in this province. I'm really pleased that we've
[ Page 14727 ]
done a lot about that. There's a lot more child care available than there has been for a long time. All of the initiatives of 1972 to 1975 were immediately unravelled. We've started....
Interjection.
J. Pullinger: There was a wonderful infrastructure beginning for child care back then. It was wonderful stuff, but it was dismantled by the free enterprise coalition, who don't see children as important.
In this legislation, workers.... We all know we're dealing primarily with women, but, happily, more men are taking responsibility and getting involved with their kids as well. Five days' unpaid leave a year is not excessive. And that's to deal with illness or to deal with family bereavement. That's a necessary right, if you're going to be able to function. When the Liberals and Reformers are saying no to this bill, they're saying no to those women primarily, but also to those workers who need and want to be at home with their kids when there's illness or a crisis in the family.
We have two opposition parties that are arguing the same line, opposing this piece of very moderate legislation and saying no to women and workers, and those workers are among the most vulnerable workers to date in the workforce. Until this legislation is passed they don't have any protection, and the members opposite are rejecting that. But they are saying no to a whole lot of other stuff, too. They're saying no to an effective and timely appeals mechanism. There wasn't one before, and now there is one. They're saying no to putting some teeth into the labour standards legislation so that when employers ignore those basic standards we can call them to account as a society and say: "That's not the kind of society we want to be. We want to have some basic standards. We want to have the kind of society where we treat our workers with dignity, especially our young people, who are frequently among the most abused by those few owners or managers who are inclined to do so."
There's an effective appeals mechanism in this legislation, just as there are educational programs to make sure that the majority of business owners and managers who want to go by the law, who want to treat their workers fairly, who want to do the right thing and go by these minimum standards, won't get tripped up unintentionally. That's in this legislation, and that's good stuff.
We hear all sorts of noise from the opposition benches -- the Liberals and Reformers -- saying: "Oh, my God, this is going to create all this bureaucracy because a woman who is pregnant has to send a letter in saying when she wants to leave and give her employer four days' notice." The independent member gave that example. We haven't had anything specific from the two opposition parties, but they're crying and bleeding that this is going to create such terrible bureaucracy. But they haven't read the legislation, because there is a reduction -- it reduces the paperwork.
[4:30]
For instance, wage statements can now be made electronically. Businesses can now adopt the flexible work schedule without applying to the ministry; a whole lot of paperwork is gone. Business can establish a time bank without prior application to the ministry, as is now the case; a lot of bureaucracy and paperwork is gone. They can substitute another day for a statutory holiday without prior application to the ministry, which is the case now. It's no longer compulsory to have a medical certificate for pregnancy and parental leave, so a lot more paperwork is gone. They can set common anniversary dates for vacation pay without prior application to the ministry; more paperwork gone. No administrative fee is to be paid to the ministry prior to an appeal; more paperwork gone. And the appeals go to a tribunal and not to the courts. We all know that when you go to mediation or a tribunal rather than the courts you are not only reducing paperwork by a whole lot, you are reducing costs. Again, the argument that this creates a whole lot of paperwork is just patent nonsense. In fact, it reduces the overall paper burden.
I think it is really interesting to listen to the arguments coming from the opposition benches. There are all these wild claims about what having the most basic labour standards will do to our economy, jobs and small business. There is no evidence to back up their claims; in fact, all of the evidence points to precisely the opposite. I would suggest that maybe the opposition should think about all those young people, 15 to 25 years old, who are trying to survive on minimum wage and can't. Every young person knows that. It's getting a bit better. Maybe you should talk to those kids who have gone and got a job somewhere in a local Safeway or whatever; whereas the majority are good employers, talk to some of those kids who were promised a wage, only to discover when their paycheque came that they got a dollar less and that there's no enforcement, or who were promised different hours, and there's no enforcement.
Talk to some of those women who are working as nannies and domestics, who are not only dealing with employers who are not going by the guidelines for wages and hours of work, but who are also, in fact, subject to all sorts of abuses. Talk to some of those people and find out what their lives are like before you reject this out of hand. This is good legislation. It's good for business -- especially small business, because it lowers the paperwork burden and clarifies the legislation -- and for workers, especially our most vulnerable workers. I would strongly suggest that the members opposite read the legislation a little more carefully, because I think they'll find that it's quite different than what they're saying it is.
I think the whole context of this debate is important, and that it's something the people of this province should be paying close and careful attention to, because we're going to be hearing two things from the other side. We're going to be hearing them echo the same line they echo on everything. They look after the interests of the wealthiest among us and the big corporations. The first commitment of the Liberals was to cut a billion dollars in taxes from the big corporations. That was their first commitment. We haven't heard what it is they want to do; we just know that they don't like having increases to the minimum wage. I guess they'll roll it back. How far are they going to roll it back? They're going to roll back contract wages that have been negotiated in legal negotiations. We've heard that already, and every public sector worker had better be paying attention.
But where are they going? They're going to drive down wages; they're going to tear up legal contracts; they're going to cut taxes for big business. They're going to privatize health care. The latest euphemism is: "Outsource to the private sector." That means: "Let private profit into the public health care system." They're going to let that happen; they're going to encourage that. They think there is lots of room for profit in the health care system. We reject that. But there's a vision
[ Page 14728 ]
there; it's not articulated very well, because if it was clearly articulated they know the people of British Columbia would reject it in just the way they rejected Bill Vander Zalm and those same policies.
I think it's interesting to note, too, that the very first policy articulated in this House by the Reform Party was the old Bill Vander Zalm policy that when your infant is six months old, we're going to cut back your social assistance. Wow! What a great commitment! There are some agendas at work, and we're going to have to choose in this province whether we want to do what Ralph Klein is doing: destroying investment, coming to British Columbia and lowering standards for workers. They got an F on their environmental report card. They got an F; Alberta got the worst in the country, and we got the best.
Interjection.
J. Pullinger: I wouldn't be so sure. I wouldn't be so sure. Whatever happens in Alberta, what we do know for sure is that they are destroying the economy, and they are taking a lot of human beings down with them. I don't find that so funny. It's the same thing that happened in New Zealand. A handful of people won, but most of the people lost big time. We're looking at that kind of thing on the opposition benches here, where you drive down standards, you drive down wages, you gut social programs, you blame the poor, and you look after the big corporations and that little layer of very wealthy people -- that's what you look after. That's what we're hearing articulated. The difference is clear. This side of the House has a plan for a future that includes all of British Columbia. It includes a prosperous future, investing in people and investing in infrastructure so that we can go ahead to the next century at the top -- competing at the top with the very best, because we have the very best here in British Columbia.
As I close my remarks, I just want to end with the remark that this is an important debate; this is the kind of debate that makes it very, very clear who and what we're dealing with. We need to get beyond the politics of sleaze, from the other side, and look at what they're saying. I'm interested in this debate to see whether they have the guts to tell us how far back they want to roll the minimum wage and how far down they want standards to go -- both environmental and employment and safety standards. It's a critical question. This is a very modest bill, but it's major in that it shows the divide very, very clearly. I hope all British Columbians will look at it.
F. Garden: Permission to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Garden: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House Mr. R. Moffat, a teacher from Cathcart Elementary School in Snohomish, Washington, U.S.A. Accompanying them are almost 88 visitors, including students and adults. Would the House join me in making them welcome on your behalf.
M. de Jong: I will endeavour to keep my remarks regarding the amendment presently before the House brief, because it speaks to a specific point, and that is the question of hoisting this bill for six months.
I should say at the outset that the process that has given rise to the introduction of this bill was undertaken and commenced before my arrival in this House, with the commission granted to Professor Thompson to undertake his study, which ultimately resulted in the tabling of his report. That was a weighty document that addressed a whole host of issues after consultation with a number of groups. It was presented to the government and ultimately tabled for review by the opposition and British Columbians throughout the province. What we didn't know at that time was the manner of legislation that would flow from the document. Professor Thompson's would not have been the first report commissioned by this government that ultimately didn't result in the tabling of legislation. Although we were told that we should expect something, what that was remained unclear, to say the least.
Legislation has been tabled; it was tabled last week. It is legislation that this government trumpets as being significant, hails as being an achievement worthy of note -- significant in setting a new direction for employment laws, employment standards, in the province of British Columbia.
An Hon. Member: Fairness.
M. de Jong: "Fairness" is the word we hear from the government benches. Yet the minister responsible for tabling the bill shows discourtesy to the Coalition of B.C. Businesses in the manner in which he has tabled the bill. But, you know, I don't have to account for the minister's discourtesy; I don't have to account for what in any other business would be considered unprofessional conduct; I don't have to account for the minister's conduct. I have to account for my own conduct.
I'll tell you that when this bill was tabled -- and I haven't been here long -- I recognized and agreed with the government to this extent: it is a significant document. It does introduce and shape a new direction that is worthy of scrutiny and worthy of comment. And it was with that in mind that I sent that document to constituents of mine, to my local chamber of commerce, to employers around my riding. I sent the document to employees in my riding and invited their comment. I did so with the expectation that, at the very minimum, they would be given an opportunity to respond, to provide me with their comments, and that I would be given an opportunity to properly scrutinize and consider the bill.
The government will go to great lengths to point out what is good about this bill, and, undoubtedly, there are sections in this bill worthy of support -- undoubtedly there are. Undoubtedly, there are sections not worthy of support.
An Hon. Member: Name them.
M. de Jong: The member says: "Name them." Wouldn't it be tremendous if the government had had the courtesy to table the document and provide the opposition and British Columbians with a real opportunity to scrutinize the bill and assess it? If it's such a weighty document, if it's so worthy of support, they wouldn't be proceeding in the manner they are today, which suggests that they have something to hide. It suggests that they have something to hide.
Interjections.
[ Page 14729 ]
Deputy Speaker: Members, perhaps this would be a good time to lower the temperature in this room somewhat. I would ask all members to cooperate in doing that.
[4:45]
M. de Jong: We've been given five days, and I will confess to the minister that that has provided me with an opportunity to work through and study approximately 75 percent of the over 100 sections that are included in this bill.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: I wouldn't expect to hear anything different from other side of the House. If the member stops to consider that in the definitions section of this bill, in section 1 alone, there are in excess of 20 new definitions that impact significantly on the interpretation of the legislation.... And if government members are so confident that they understand every nuance, every subtlety of what those newly introduced definitions mean -- if they can stand up in this place and say with certainty to British Columbians that this is what this means, this what the definition of "wages" means, this is what the definition of "flexible work schedule" means, this is what a "farm labour contractor" means -- if they can succinctly and accurately describe for British Columbians the significance of those new definitions, those many new provisions that exist in this bill, if they can do that, then bravo for them. But I can't do that, and I certainly can't do it on the strength of the four or five days that the government has seen fit to provide the opposition and British Columbians to review what it says is a significant piece of legislation. What are they hiding? That's the question British Columbians have when the government proceeds in what is really contemptible fashion. It shows contempt for this House; it shows contempt for British Columbians. You wonder why the minister would proceed in such a fashion. If it's such a wonderful piece of legislation, if it's so worthy of support, why not proceed in a manner that will ensure that informed debate can take place in this House, and not the manner of debate that we are compelled to engage in when the government proceeds on a timetable...?
Interjections.
M. de Jong: I am at your mercy, hon. Speaker.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, if you are trying to speak and are being interrupted, I will intervene. At the moment, you aren't trying to speak, and therefore I see no need to intervene.
M. de Jong: One of the sections that this bill includes, section 9, dealing with the hiring of children, sounds good. Who couldn't support a section that deals with hiring children under the age of 15? Except that the section has serious implications for the agricultural sector. People in my constituency, whom I have spoken to about this legislation.... Kids earn money during the two months that they're not in high school by throwing bales of hay on a wagon, and according to this legislation, they might be precluded from doing so.
An Hon. Member: It doesn't say that at all.
M. de Jong: I wish members opposite would listen. Perhaps I am not speaking loudly enough.
If that child now wants to go across the road and throw those bales of hay on the wagon, the director has to become involved.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: The member for Mission-Kent says that that's fine. That's his point of view; let him have it. But at a minimum, let him acknowledge that the legislation has implications for those farmers, for their children and for the people who earn pocket money during the summer when they're not in school. Let him at least have the courage to acknowledge that it has implications for those people, and that they deserve an opportunity to be heard. The minister hasn't given anyone an opportunity to be heard -- no one at all.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Clearly the hour is getting late, and the temperature is rising. Could I ask members to perhaps lower the intensity.
M. de Jong: We can look at section 15, which could compel employers to provide "any information." I don't know what that means. I guess we'll find out during the committee stage of the debate. Who knows when that will be. Maybe committee stage will take place tomorrow, and it will all be over. It will all be over, because this minister and this government didn't see fit to involve British Columbians in the discussion on this legislation. No amount of balderdash, no amount of obfuscation from that side of the House can deny the fact that the bill was tabled last week, and it was called for debate five days later without any real opportunity for consultation with British Columbians. They've got something to hide: they don't want British Columbians to know what the real agenda is.
[A. Warnke in the chair.]
Section 19 speaks of the payment of moneys to the director. That may, in effect, be a very good provision. That may be a provision worthy of support, depending upon the procedural safeguards that are in place -- and I'm sure the minister will have responses for that -- to ensure that an overly burdensome obligation isn't placed on the employer to locate past employees and not on the employees to retrieve the money that has been paid to the director.
I'm certain that the minister will have responses to some of these questions when we get to committee stage. They are surely matters that will affect the conduct and the relationship between employees and employers in British Columbia. The fact, again, that we're debating this bill today, five days after it has been tabled in this House, with no opportunity to consult with the people this legislation is going to affect.... I wonder if members opposite really appreciate.... They talk the talk that this is....
An Hon. Member: But they don't walk the walk.
[ Page 14730 ]
M. de Jong: They don't walk the walk. They talk the talk that this is legislation that will assist working people around British Columbia. There are parts of this legislation that will assist working people, there are parts that will not assist them, and there are parts that purely and simply will operate to their detriment and to the detriment of employers, who are trying to earn a living and employ people at the same time. Different parts of this legislation will affect working people differently, but it will certainly have an effect.
I find it contemptible that the government would proceed in a manner that would deny to those British Columbians the right to be fully involved in the debate of this document. When members talk about the Thompson report -- when they hide behind the Thompson report -- they show their ignorance about what is in this document, because this is not Professor Thompson's report. This is a separate piece of legislation that dramatically alters employment standard laws in British Columbia -- dramatically.
They don't want Brtitish Columbians to know what's in it before it's passed. That's what this six-month hoist motion is all about: an opportunity to have proper, informed debate. That may be a concept foreign to government members -- informed debate. I understand that it's something they're not entirely familiar with -- informed debate, something that goes beyond prattling on with the standard rhetoric of the NDP. That's something they're not completely comfortable with. But that's what this House is supposed to be all about: informed debate. If the government hadn't proceeded in such a contemptible manner, that's what we'd be having right now, instead of debating the need for that on this amendment.
Section 22(2) talks about the authorization by the director of an assignment of wages. I see one of the members opposite searching in his bill just to check that I'm not misleading him somehow. "Is there a section 22?" he's asking. "I don't know," he's saying. I don't think the members opposite have had the bill long enough to read it themselves. I don't think they've read the bill, either.
I'm hardly surprised. The difference, of course, is that I've been prepared to acknowledge to the House that, given the time this bill was tabled, I've only had an opportunity to go through 75 percent of it. That's all I've had a chance to really review and scrutinize, knowing full well that the word "may" or the word "shall" can dramatically affect the interpretation of the section. That, as well, clearly is a concept foreign to members opposite -- or something they choose not to be concerned with, because they simply and blindly follow the lead of their misguided executive branch. But we've become accustomed to that, and it undoubtedly will continue until the whole lot of them are swept from this place and replaced by people that have a concept of what parliamentary democracy is all about, that have some thought about what it is to conduct informed debate in this place.
But section 22(2) -- and let me assure the members opposite that it does exist; it's there -- talks about the director authorizing an assignment of wages where he thinks it's in the employee's best interest. Now, wouldn't employees be interested to know that there is now a director who, apparently, if one reads the wording of the section, can determine when there should be an assignment of wages? And I have no doubt that the minister will say, well, that's not the intent of this section -- and presumably it isn't. I hope it isn't, but that's what the section says. And wouldn't an employee be shocked to arrive at work one day to discover that the director has determined that a portion of his wages should be assigned because the director has decided that it's in that employee's best interest?
Oh, the members are saying: "That can't happen, that can't happen." But the director is granted that power. My goodness, we haven't heard about that from members on the government side. Perhaps they haven't read it; perhaps they haven't had an opportunity to read the bill.
An Hon. Member: Perhaps you've never had a job.
M. de Jong: The member questions whether I've had a job. The difference, of course, is that members on this side not only have had jobs, not only have been employees, but also have been employers and understand what a dramatic effect this piece of legislation -- some of it good, a lot of it bad -- is going to have on working people and employers across the province, and people on this side of the House want to give that document proper consideration.
There are sections dealing with special clothing....
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Oh, and the member for Mission-Kent feigns outrage. "Oh, isn't that dramatic," he says. Well, it is. It is. The member for Mission-Kent has never had to make a payroll before. He doesn't know what the implications are for a small business person who's got to go out and look at six employees and say: "Guess what, folks. Under the terms of the law now, I'm obligated to pay for all of this stuff that we formerly shared costs on, that we formerly had an arrangement on. This has been imposed on me, and it doesn't matter that we had a different arrangement that we were comfortable with, that worked for us, that worked in our little shop, that worked in our little business, that worked in our restaurant -- the government is coming along and telling you and me how this is going to work from now on."
[5:00]
Interjection.
M. de Jong: And the member for Mission-Kent.... I hope he's making notes. He might be aware that there is Hansard. He doesn't have to write it all down; he can read about it later.
I hope that it isn't lost....
Interjections.
M. de Jong: I hope, hon. Speaker, that British Columbians are afforded the opportunity to properly consider the implications of this section and of other sections, like section 39. Now, there's a general section for you: "No excessive hours." Sounds great. Sounds great until you've had to work in any number of lines of business where emergencies can arise, where special needs can create demands that employees and employers heretofore have traditionally been able to reach agreements on. It sounds great, but will it work?
An Hon. Member: Of course it will work.
[ Page 14731 ]
M. de Jong: Now the minister is going to assure me that this is one of those sections that won't be abused by the director, by his government. I may or may not believe him, depending on what assurances he can offer.
An Hon. Member: Shame, shame.
M. de Jong: I do find it shameful. I find it shameful that provisions like this would be presented in a document and tabled, and then four or five days later presented to this House for debate without any due consideration to the views of the literally millions of British Columbians who are going to be affected by this piece of legislation.
There are statutory holiday entitlements. We'll get to section 47. Members opposite might want to read section 47. I went to law school. I don't profess to have any special abilities. I have already confessed that I haven't been able to make it through more than 75 percent of the bill. But maybe members opposite could enlighten me on section 47. What the heck does it mean? This bill will have profound effects for the allotment of statutory holidays to employees.
Interjections.
M. de Jong: Steady, members opposite. Next time I'll give you a page reference.
Does it mean that employees get one day in lieu of? Does it mean they get two days in lieu of? I've read it; I can't understand what it means. Members opposite say it's clear; they have no qualms.
This government proceeds down this path, touting and trumpeting the fact that it has have introduced such a weighty document, worthy of support, yet is unwilling to afford British Columbians a reasonable period of time within which to decide whether or not that support should be granted. In the end, it is the government that will lose. And they wonder why, through this legislation, they have stumbled and bumbled from one disaster to another, from one crisis to another, from town hall meetings....
Interjection.
M. de Jong: The member queries me on my opinion of the legislation, again showing his complete lack of understanding of the processes of this House. We're on a six-month hoist motion; let me remind him of that. If he can't make an argument why this bill shouldn't be hoisted for six months, then let him stay silent. If he can't make an argument in defence of what is really indefensible conduct on the part of his government, then let him stay silent. That's what this is: indefensible, contemptible conduct. Let those members of the government benches who will run home whining, as they invariably do, "Look at the Liberal opposition, they're not supporting us; we had a good idea, but they're not supporting us," be honest with their constituents. Let them tell those constituents how they conduct business in this House: the shoddy, shabby, unprofessional way in which this government conducts its business by tabling legislation four or five days before it calls debate on what it says are weighty and substantive issues.
Let me deal with section 52. For the benefit of members opposite, that can be found on page 25 of the document -- let me assist them. The section makes eminent sense:
"An employee is entitled to up to 5 days of unpaid leave during each employment year to meet responsibilities related to
"(a) the care, health or education of a child in the employee's care, or
"(b) the care or health of any other member of the employee's immediate family."
We may quarrel about whether five days is a proper entitlement, but on the face of it that strikes me as not an unreasonable provision, until you go to the definition, which, in effect, says that anyone who happens to be living there at the time is a member of the family. What implications does that have for small businesses across the province and employers who don't have the means to grant leave every time one of their employee's friends, who happens to be living with them, runs into difficulty?
It is a provision that on the face of it makes some sense, except when you read closer and start to garner some of the implications of what is being provided for pursuant to various new definitions that are included in the act. It's a shame that the government, during the course of this debate, may well be denied support in some instances where it deserves support. But I've already told the government that I have only been able to study 75 percent of it. Maybe one day this government, and governments that come after it, will understand that it's not just a matter of courtesy but also a matter of promoting informed, reasoned debate in this House that dictates that legislation be tabled in a timely way, so that members can study it properly, go to their constituents and affected stakeholders, and get a meaningful response to issues that are complicated and that are worthy of -- indeed, that demand -- close scrutiny. That's not taking place here today; it can't take place, by virtue of how the government has conducted itself on this matter. Those are my comments on the amendment.
D. Streifel: I have been looking forward for quite some time now -- three and a half years, I think -- to rising in this House and debating changes to the employment standards legislation. Finally, I have that opportunity, but I find it a bit disappointing that I take my place in the House after the member for Matsqui to debate a hoist motion on a piece of legislation that's long overdue. It's a piece of legislation that supplies a few basic rules governing the employer-employee relationship in British Columbia in 1995.
We heard the hon. member for Matsqui talk about this government having contempt for the Legislature because they rushed this piece of legislation into this building over a period of three and a half years and after some 200 consultation meetings, 400 pieces of documentation and individual consultations with specific groups -- from labour to business, large and small, and interest groups of that nature. If that's a rush, I would then criticize our own government for taking three and a half years to bring justice to workers in this province who aren't covered by collective agreements.
The individual from Matsqui was quoted in the local papers the other day as describing me as coming from a simple world and being a simple individual. I plead guilty to that. In my simple world, from my simple perspective, I believe in fairness, and in fairness for workers. If we, as legislators in this province, can only bring a bit of justice to the workplace in British Columbia in 1995, I will stand here and
[ Page 14732 ]
defend that. Some time ago in this Legislature, the member for Matsqui talked about cream. He talked about cream rising to the surface, and if it's necessary to dip twice to get it all, then so be it. Well, I'll tell you about the cream for that member: $13,000 as a school trustee, $50,000 as an MLA and $80,000 as a legal aid lawyer. And what he's saying to the workers of British Columbia is: "I've got mine, and you can't have any. I've got it; it's in my pocket, and it's staying there." Cream rises; the scum also rises.
Interjection.
Deputy Chair: I recognize the member from Delta South on what point?
F. Gingell: On a point of order. I wonder if the member for Mission-Kent would like to more clearly say exactly what he means when he refers to something as "scum" -- whether or not he's referring to a member of this House -- and maybe clarify the issue for us.
Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the member would like to comment.
On the point of order, I'll recognize the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
Hon. A. Edwards: I believe the member was speaking in broad generalities. I believe he was speaking about cream in general and scum in general, and I believe that his reference was for anyone to refer to.
F. Gingell: It isn't possible for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to know what was in the mind of the member for Mission-Kent. So perhaps it would be more appropriate for us to understand if the member for Mission-Kent intended to impugn the honour of a member of this House or not. I'm sure the matter can be dealt with very quickly.
D. Streifel: My remarks were in no way intended to suggest that any member of the Liberal opposition was scum. It was only to suggest that when you're separating out milk, the cream rises to the top. I have a large pond in my front yard, and as the member for Delta South has asked for clarification of what scum is, it's all the stuff that floats on the top of the pond that nobody else wants.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, were you intending to impugn anyone in the House?
D. Streifel: Absolutely not, hon. Speaker. I withdraw my remarks if that has been the case.
Deputy Speaker: Then proceed, hon. member.
D. Streifel: A former colleague of mine in a time of my former employment has come out with some very interesting quotes over the years dealing with employers. He used to describe bad employers as individuals with some of the finest minds of the thirteenth century. I support my former colleague in those comments, because I've had quite a number of experiences with workplace relationships, you might say.
I'd like to describe for you a few of those that happened in the 1990s in parts of British Columbia and of North America, and one of the reasons why in this Legislature we should be proud to bring forward basic workplace representation and sets of rules and regulations for individuals who work in this province. A number of years ago there was a group of workers that were catfish harvesters. They had difficulties with their employer. We're dealing with 1992, so it's not very long ago -- it's not 1892; it's not 1792 or 1692. They had difficulties with their employer. What were their problems? Sometimes they had to answer the call of nature during their workday, and their employer tried to deny them that privilege. With some intervention by a labour organization -- these were non-unionized workers -- that was straightened out. In this province, I dealt with an employer who tried to refuse washroom privileges to a pregnant worker. I straightened that out. That was 1994. I was already elected as an MLA, and this individual had grown to trust me during my time as a union business agent, and so I dealt with her problem and had it set aside for her. She required a little bit of basic dignity in her workplace.
[5:15]
I'm going to keep my comments relatively short on this hoist motion as I am speaking against it, but I feel I must address some of the comments from the member for Matsqui. He stands up in this House and carries on in a manner that I didn't think we would witness in British Columbia from an individual like that, from a privileged position in our community, talking against regulations that would govern child labour in British Columbia in 1995. He says that's intrusive in the workplace, that we must control how we employ our children. Perhaps he's advocating for a system like in Malaysia, or Thailand, where the young female workers are brought to a cattle barn scenario. Those who aren't pretty enough to be prostitutes for the very wealthy and the travellers of this world are chained to a sewing machine for 18 hours a day, seven days a week, in order to produce goods to be consumed by the privileged in this country.
We want to supply a few basic work rules for children in British Columbia, and the member for Matsqui says: "No, we can't do that; that would interfere with harvesting hay, with picking berries and perhaps with the stitching and sewing of garments for us to wear." I find that offensive, and I believe that the rest of this House should be offended by those comments.
We generally know the rules of debate in this House: we should be addressing this bill in a broader perspective in second reading debate. But as the member for Matsqui picked through the bill piece by piece and clause by clause, I feel that I should address some of the clauses and some of the comments that that individual made. He talked about sections 9, 19 and 22. Sections 19 and 22 basically deal with the wages of workers. He seems to be offended that people would actually get paid to work. I'm not offended by that. I think it's relevant; I think it's honourable. When we hire individuals.... I pay the people I hire on my small farm, my acreage, $10 an hour to clean my barn, and help me move some soil around and move some piles of this and that. I wish I could pay them more. It's quite a bit above minimum wage, and I have no compunctions; I'm not embarrassed at all for hiring these students and paying them a wage to do work for me.
[ Page 14733 ]
We heard that individual talk about section 47. Somehow there's a problem with statutory holidays. By definition, a lawyer ought to know that statutory holidays are governed by federal statute. My word! What a concept! How long has that been in place in this province?
Interjection.
D. Streifel: We've got the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove....
Deputy Speaker: Sorry, hon. member. I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton on what point?
J. Beattie: The member for.... I'm sorry, I don't know. Where are you from, Gary?
An Hon. Member: Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
J. Beattie: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove made a comment about the member in regard to his intelligence. I was wondering if he meant to impugn him, or if he would perhaps withdraw that remark.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't believe the record has me saying anything, hon. Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
Would the member for Mission-Kent proceed.
D. Streifel: I don't mind being heckled by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, because that's usually the best he can do in this House anyway.
Section 47 talks about statutory holidays. It's federal law in this land that we're paid for statutory holidays. There is no change in these employment standards regulations as they address payment for statutory holidays. I would ask the Liberal opposition and those others who are interested just to read it. It's fairly clear; it's easy to apply. There are many precedents for the application of payment for statutory holidays. It's not a difficulty.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Section 52 -- a few days off to deal with some difficulties around your family. Wow! Days off without pay -- what a burden. That must really hurt.
The hon. member for Matsqui talked about the definition of a family. I'll read what the definition of family is for you out of the act, as he seemed to get it slightly off centre:
" 'Immediate family' means (a) the spouse, child, parent, grandparent, guardian or sibling of an employee, or (b) any other person who is related by blood" -- not a friend who happened to stop by overnight, as the member for Matsqui would suggest -- "or adoption to an employee or an employee's spouse or who lives with an employee as a member of the employee's family...."
That seems to be very clear. Of course, the hon. member for Matsqui admitted that he had no intention of reading this bill. He didn't read it -- he didn't bother -- and he doesn't want to read it, because he's not interested in how it is applied and how it governs a little bit of workplace fairness.
We had some individuals.... You know, this coalition talks in terms of not being consulted on the formulation of this bill. We already know that there were at least three meetings in person between the coalition and the minister for briefings on the bill. Many things were included in the Thompson report that were not included in broad terms in this bill.
There are certain things that happen in our communities on an ongoing basis that cause me serious concern. We seem to want to focus on those who have little and to ensure that they have less. A happening in my community, a jurisdiction that I share with the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, had to do with student summer employment and some federal grants that were to come down for student summer employment. The local Reform MP refused to acknowledge these grants and refused to sign them off -- grants that would supply employment for students. Her suggestion was that they should just go out and get their own job, that that's what she did, that the job would be there and that it's not in the interests of the government to create jobs for these students. Then we have the Liberal opposition here who during debate on Bill 84 talked about their own workers and about how they would prefer them to be non-union because they're easier to control. That theme is carried on through this debate on employment standards.
Every one of the speakers from the Liberal caucus so far who has bothered to address any provision in this bill has addressed certain things like wages -- has a concern about paying individuals wages -- or has a concern about individuals in a workplace participating in programs and plans in that workplace, as all other employees do, like in the section that particularly bothered the member for Matsqui. It talks about an assignment of wages by the director. If you've got 30 or 40 employees and they're all participating in a dental plan, in a circumstance like that it may be in the best interests of all employees to participate in that particular dental plan. An order like that could be issued by the director to ensure that all employees secure that benefit, to benefit by dental hygiene and dental care.
When I stood up I said I would keep my remarks short, and I intend to do just that. I intend to get up again and readdress this issue in the regular second reading debate. But I want to talk in a few terms of some of the individuals who we've brought in under this Employment Standards Act. They're brought in not under this act but by regulation prior to this act being introduced into the House.
We have individuals concerned about taxi drivers actually having a meal period now -- actually being able to stop and eat lunch, you know. It's usually conducive to good health.
We hear the opposition members complaining about domestic workers being brought in under the act. Well, we had the opportunity as a caucus to meet with the domestic workers when they came over to lobby all the parties, to put forward their concerns about their working conditions. The invitation was extended to the opposition parties. The Liberals didn't show up at this meeting.
The New Democrat caucus was there. We had a chat with these domestics, and they told us what their worklife was like. For instance, they're brought in on employment contracts from other countries and made a few promises. When they get here to work, they find that their place to sleep is in the laundry room, behind the washing machine, and that their
[ Page 14734 ]
work rules consist of serving the hosts and guests until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning and being the first one up at 6:30 or 7 o'clock to get the children off to school while the parents sleep. The domestic workers wanted a bit of simple, basic protection to govern their work routine, and we've delivered it to them by regulation and now by inclusion in this act. I'm proud of that.
The day the Thompson report was delivered to the Minister of Labour, I happened to be meeting with 300 or 400 horticulturalists at the fairgrounds in Matsqui. Some of the complaints and concerns I heard from these horticulturalists were: "My gosh, if we have rules that govern how our farmworkers work -- what governs their workday -- we may have to pay them, and we may have to consider how long they work." One farmer in particular told me: "My farmworkers love to work out here so much that I actually have to go out at night and tell them to get out of the fields -- that they've done enough for today." The guy said that if their work routine is governed by rules, they won't be able to bring their grandmother along to watch them work or to work a little bit with them.
This is 1995; this isn't 1895, 1695 or the thirteenth century. Sometimes I wonder about those finest minds that want to govern this province, that want to oppress workers. I'm embarrassed sometimes to listen to the members in the opposition complain and bleat about a little bit of workplace fairness. That's what this bill is all about; it has nothing to do with oppressing small business. In fact, the small business people I meet with say: "That's fine."
Most of these things are in place now, but there are some particular and peculiar difficulties out there. We have a jurisdiction in North America -- just south of us, the United States.... Many, many of the proposals that are contained in our Employment Standards Act in British Columbia are contained in United States federal labour law. That's a law that governs all the states down there, with the exception of a few of the right-to-work states, for minimum standards.
I'll tell you an interesting story about Nordstrom's workers down there -- Nordies, they're called. Their employer thought it was fine for them to come to work and volunteer -- didn't want to pay overtime, didn't want to pay statutory holidays -- on their day off. These folks were called Nordies. There was a suit filed against that worker in federal Supreme Court. When that suit was finally settled, Nordstrom had to pay back $300 million in unpaid wages to their workers.
We have employers in this province who want to work in that manner. Witness the Wal-Marts that have come in here. Witness the labour relations atmosphere at Save-On-Foods and Overwaitea Foods, where free time is rampant. They don't want to pay their workers to work their full shifts. They just want to keep them there and work them and work them. When they're used and abused, they're discarded.
There's the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove leaning on his hand, looking at me with this incredulous stare on his face. I suggest that he go out and talk to some workers, and actually maybe do this: I interviewed a young woman who was terminated by a retail food employer. She wasn't protected by a collective agreement. She had not quite gone through her probationary period, and she came to me in tears because she had just lost her job. She lost her job because her employer found out that she only had one kidney -- she had had a kidney transplant and so only had one functioning kidney. When she questioned her employer on why she'd been fired because she had one kidney and asked, "What if I had diabetes?" the response from her employer was: "We don't hire diabetics. If we find out about them, we fire them because they're a drain on our benefit system."
In my opinion, we can't go far enough in this province to supply a few basic or simple protections for workers in the workplace, like being sure that they get paid when they work, being sure that they're treated fairly and justly, being sure that any protective clothing or uniform the employer may require for them.... By the way, hon. member for Matsqui, if you're listening on the squawk box, that's not a change from existing regs either that if you're required to wear a uniform or special article of clothing.... In fact, the regs now say that the employer must supply it. There are a few basic, simple rules around when you get a meal period. That's not a change either, except for the inclusion of a few individuals.
So, hon. Speaker, I think I'd like to finish off by saying that I am opposed to this hoist motion. As honourable British Columbians and hon. members of this chamber, we should get on with supplying a few basic protections for workers in this province. I'll take my place in this debate, and I'll wait with expectations of what the Liberal opposition has to say about a few fair, basic protections for workers in this province.
[5:30]
Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Peace River North on the hoist motion, I just want to remind members that the last two speakers on this motion have effectively been dealing with the substantive parts of the bill, even beyond the principle. They've been talking about particular sections and particular clauses, and technically that's quite out of order. On a hoist motion, we're supposed to be talking about the advisability of delay. I would just give that caution to all members before we proceed.
R. Neufeld: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've come to expect a little lecture from you at different times about how we should be dealing with discussions in the House. We've heard a pretty wide-ranging debate today, but I will adhere to the Speaker's words of wisdom and stick with the hoist motion and what that entails.
I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that we in the Reform caucus support some sections of the bill. Some of the sections have been rewritten in clearer language that is a little easier to understand. Many of the sections are the same as the previous act. But there are some onerous sections in this act which are going to be hard to deal with. There has been lots of talk about consultation by the government. I'm not going to dispute that; they have the numbers, and the number of meetings they had around the province.... I attended one in Fort St. John, when Mark Thompson was there, and I listened to what was presented. Interestingly enough, I did not see any ideas that were presented at that time in the report that was tabled by Mr. Thompson.
It's fine to say: "We have consulted; we have listened to British Columbians; we went around the province; we spent all this money listening to people. We asked small businesses, who were the main presenters; we asked small business employers and employees to come forward and make their views known." It's commendable to do that. The second por-
[ Page 14735 ]
tion of that, which didn't take place, is that you have to document that information as it was given to you. That's the problem with what's taking place here. There is an ideology in some sections of the bill that's obviously not what was given by small business and employees to Mr. Thompson. That's not saying that Mr. Thompson didn't complete his job, because he did; he went around, he listened and he wrote a report that that government wanted. It's just that simple. That's the deceptive part of what goes on that people in this province are tired of.
It's difficult, as a small business, to live under some of these rules and regulations, and I understand. I understand that you have to have some rules and regulations. I was a small business person for many years, and I consistently employed about ten or 12 people. So I understand a bit about relations with those people who work for you; I usually like to say work with you, because that's how it is. Without good relations with those people, you're not going to go anywhere, and neither is your business. So I have always worked on that premise.
I sometimes have a hard time understanding when I hear the member for Mission-Kent talk about different people coming to him with all these terrible things that are going on. Since I became an MLA.... I was elected in 1991, so I haven't been here very long. But prior to that I was a mayor in a small community and an alderman in a small community. Very seldom do I remember anyone coming to me -- and since I've been an MLA no one has come to me -- with these bizarre things that I hear from the member for Mission-Kent. Maybe that's because businesses and employees in the north operate a little bit differently than they do in the south. I'm not sure; I'm quite bewildered by what takes place. I'm sure that there are some poor employers; no doubt about it. There are bad apples in every group, but we can't tar the whole group when there are a few bad apples. You can't do that, because it doesn't help.
All the paperwork, regulations and everything that goes along with it, the added burden to small business.... When I say I employed about ten to 12 people on average, I didn't have a person who was specific to payroll and I didn't have a person specific to relations with my employees, because I couldn't afford it. Maybe large corporations can, and maybe that's why some of this is acceptable to the NDP. Most of them come from a background of large corporations working with unions, such as the member for Mission-Kent. I don't think he has enjoyed anything but a union through his whole life, and it comes out loud and clear when he stands in this House and talks.
The rigidity in the union movement.... Before I say this, I understand that unions have a place. There is no doubt about it, and I accept that. But the rigidity that is demonstrated by not all the unions but quite a number of them makes it very difficult for small business or large business to operate. In a world that's changing dramatically.... In fact, the Premier's forum, which we just received the report on a few months ago, talks about how our economy is changing dramatically. The well-paying jobs -- in fact, it's interesting; it's what we've been saying -- are on the downhill slide, and what's coming out are service-oriented jobs, the ones that are usually the minimum-wage jobs. That's the world we're looking to, obviously. Even the Premier's forum came out with that finding.
Somehow we have to be able to deal with it, and we have to deal with it fairly. We have to have fair employers, but we have to have as good wages as we can for those employees. We have to have flexible work hours, flexible shift time. To say that you have to publish flexible shift hours, I believe it is -- and I'm going by memory -- something like a month ahead of time, and it has to be approved by the director and by 65 percent of the employees, is certainly not flexible to me. I have a son who worked in the restaurant business here in Victoria for about two years. Let me tell you, there was flexible work time there. They worked for one another. If one was busy going to school that night, the other one worked for him; that's what I call flexible hours. They seemed to be quite happy with it; he seemed to do quite well at it. And I don't think he's any different from most of the kids or the young people who work in those businesses. They are able to adapt and quite like it.
How about the single moms who have families to look after? How do they get flexibility, if all of a sudden...? You can't tell me that a single mom is going to know a month ahead of time when she needs a day off. That's absolutely bizarre; it's ridiculous.
J. Tyabji: Are those the ones back in the workforce when their babies are six months old?
R. Neufeld: No, it's.... To the member for.... Where are you...?
J. Tyabji: Okanagan East.
R. Neufeld: Okanagan East, right. I didn't want to say Okanagan West, because I didn't want to make you angry.
No, it's four and a half months in the bill, part 6. I know what you're talking about, but I'm just reminding you that it's four and a half months, not six months.
An Hon. Member: Through the Chair.
R. Neufeld: Through the Chair, speaking to the hoist motion, the member brings up an interesting point about the six months and Reform's position. I'm just going to kind of sidetrack a little bit. Single mothers who are on social assistance don't have to seek employment until their youngest reaches 12 years of age; we say it should be six months of age.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Exactly. I don't have any problem with that.
It's interesting that this Employment Standards Act says that that mother has to go back to work in four and a half months. Most union contracts say, on average, six months. It just amazes me that the member for Okanagan East -- I can see why she would have been a member of the governing party, the NDP, at one time -- would believe that six months is terrible.
I want to go on a little further about tabling the bill. Within five days of the bill being tabled, we're here debating it in second reading. The members say that we had three and a half years. We haven't had three and a half years, or even two years; we've had five days to read through this bill. I'm going to be honest. I'm going to tell everyone here, and it's on the
[ Page 14736 ]
record, that I haven't read, verbatim, every part of this bill -- guaranteed. I haven't. I guess you could say that I've fast-read a good portion of it. When you're as short-staffed as we are, that's sometimes what you have to do. We have to pick the areas that we want to deal with.
It was something that I didn't notice, but a sharp person who works with us picked it up. The member for Matsqui talked about how terrible section 22 is. That's interesting. That's in the old Employment Standards Act, the one that this is replacing. It was already there; it's been there for a long time. All this is is a rewrite. Section 9 is the same way. Obviously that member hasn't read the bill either, nor did he do a comparison. That's what happens when you table a document that's 61 pages long, with 142 sections, and expect the opposition to take it apart, look at it and see what parts of it they would approve and what parts they wouldn't approve in that short a period of time, with everything else that's going on in the House.
We approve of the hoist motion. We think this piece of legislation should be put out to the public. Now that Mr. Thompson has finished his dog-and-pony show around the province, maybe what we should do is send this bill around the province and let people, not just the chamber of commerce.... We've got letters from the chamber of commerce and from the B.C. Business Council. They represent almost all small business and large business in this province, and they have some real concerns about this bill.
So it would be wise, I think, for the government to send out the bill for discussion, to find out from the general public whether they agree with it or not, and to carry on after that. Maybe when you call the next session of the House next spring -- or if there's an election before that and there's a different government -- bring it forward, debate it in the House and take out the sections that are onerous. If the public and small business are happy with it after it has travelled around the province for six months, leave it intact, leave it alone and pass it. But at least give it that kind of test. Give it the kind of test it should be given before it's law, so if there are some bugs in this bill, they can be taken out. If there are some places where it can be altered to make it better for employees and employers, do it.
Instead, we have a government trying to jam it through the House in the quickest possible way, so that it can become law. Mr. Speaker, that's wrong. That's inherently wrong, and I think the minister knows it.
I want to re-emphasize the fact that we are in full support of the hoist motion to move this bill out for six months. With that, I'll take my place.
Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his comments and for being in order, and recognize now the member for Delta South.
[5:45]
F. Gingell: The member for Mission-Kent hit a chord, and I think he's absolutely correct. He's absolutely correct when he says that this government had three and a half years to bring this legislation forward. Clearly there is certain legislation in this House which every so often needs to be brought out, dusted over, taken apart, looked at, thought about, discussed throughout the province and changed to ensure that it meets the circumstances of the current era. Many of us believe in sunset provisions for all regulation. I guess it wouldn't be appropriate to have sunset provisions in all acts, but there comes a time -- and I congratulate the minister for recognizing that it's time -- to take out the Employment Standards Act, brush it off, read it all, think about it and talk about changes.
But you don't rush it, all of a sudden, after three and a half years; you bring out some legislation early in the session. This House has been sitting since March 22. We were through a budget and a throne speech in very early April, and it would have been most appropriate then, I believe. Because let's face it: this has been an issue the minister has been concerned about, and it was among his responsibilities before he took on the post-secondary items. It was within his area of responsibility; he needed to bring the legislation forward, table it, let it go out and let people understand it. There's no fear like the fear that is caused by a lack of knowledge.
The minister asks: "What don't you like about it? Tell us." Well, what we're telling you is that there are many things that MLAs do. There has been a lot of legislation tabled in the last three or four days. You got behind in the process of getting legislation tabled, and all of a sudden, it's beginning to be disgorged. You need to get this out, and we need to read it carefully. Many of us don't come from a background of labour union relations. Many of us were in businesses that were not unionized -- businesses that never had any problems, as far as I know, with meeting provincial and federal regulation concerning terms and conditions of employment.
There's nothing that makes business, particularly small businesses that are struggling, more afraid than not having a good handle on and a clear understanding of all of these issues. I'm sure that, yes, correctly, we might even bring up concerns about matters within this bill that haven't been changed, and that are as they were in the previous legislation; but we need time to understand those things. The various organizations out there need time to understand.
I know that the minister believes that he has looked after his consultation commitment well. But it isn't just talking to people and listening before the legislation is written, because at that point you're dealing with a whole series of issues which may or may not be in the final changes. And, as I understand it, in this case there were proposals within the Thompson report that didn't end up in this legislation. So people's concerns that they expressed to the minister didn't fall upon deaf ears or barren ground. The minister took note of those concerns, and those issues of concern to small business have not been included.
There is required a gestation period in which we can all read this and in which those of us that are not as experienced in the issues of labour management can get a clearer understanding. We need to go and talk about these issues to people within our riding -- our constituents -- who are concerned with the matters herein on a day-to-day basis, and we need to move forward with changes in the legislation that we all clearly understand.
There is no difference, Mr. Speaker, between what the government believes and what we and other members of the opposition believe on some important key issues. We all believe, I know, that one of the important things, amongst
[ Page 14737 ]
other important things, is good family-paying jobs for British Columbians. We believe in good conditions of work. We believe in employers treating their employees fairly. We believe in these things just the same way you do.
Now, it's important for us to understand exactly what the consequences of these things are and to know that you will accomplish what you are setting out to accomplish. These are not simple matters, and taking a simplistic attitude simply doesn't work. We need time. You need time to put the actual legislation out, to get responses to it, to think about those things and to move it forward when everybody understands what the issues are. That doesn't mean that you waste a whole bunch of time, necessarily. You've had three and a half years, as has been admitted -- perhaps three years is a more appropriate time; this is our fourth session -- to bring this bill forward. I appreciate -- and you appreciate, I'm sure -- that the thirty-fifth parliament is coming to an end, and this is perhaps important legislation that you want to get in before you get out. Perhaps you should have brought it forward earlier.
I hope that in future years the British Columbia Legislature works more in the manner in which the federal House works, where legislation of this type would first of all move to an all-party committee, where they would have the opportunity to debate it, and to talk to outside experts and bring in witnesses, so that you get rid of all of the issues that we waste so much of our time discussing. You can then get rid of the areas where you agree. Government will make changes to ensure that they get support. Just as much as opposition members, government backbenchers get good input into the drafting of the bill. You can then focus your second reading debate and your third reading debate simply on the differences of policy.
In listening to the government members who have spoken to this bill at some length today, one gets the opinion that there have been some fairly substantive briefing sessions within the government caucus at which this bill has been discussed at great length. And if that has happened, good on you; that's the way it should be. You need to clearly understand the consequences of complex pieces of legislation before they are introduced, but to recognize that the opposition has rights too, that the opposition has responsibilities too, that we need to understand the legislation thoroughly so that we can bring useful and worthwhile debate to the discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is just prior to adjournment time, and I see that the committee Chair, who was earlier practising his violin, is waiting to report out. With an eye on the clock, I would move adjournment of this debate to later in the day.
Motion approved.
Committee A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 6:30 this evening.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:55 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:37 p.m.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. D. Miller: I call Committee of Supply in Section A, the Ministry of Health estimates; in Section B, I call second reading of Bill 29, Employment Standards Act.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT
second reading continued)
G. Wilson: One of the blessings of being the first speaker after a dinner recess is that you tend to have the quiet of the chamber to make a presentation free from heckling and to get one's point across fairly clearly.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the debate so far with respect to the proposition put forward by the Liberal opposition on the hoist motion. To be quite frank, at first I thought that the hoist motion really wasn't a very good idea because what we wanted to do was at least attempt to get the debate underway and get committee stage in place so we could find out where everybody stood on these issues and start to make amendments.
Having listened to some of the debate, I'm beginning to wonder if the hoist motion wouldn't be in the best interest of British Columbians. We could at least save some members, who clearly have not read this bill, embarrassment. I find it absolutely amazing that when we're talking about a bill of this importance -- and the Employment Standards Act is very important, because it affects all working people in the province, employees and employers alike -- we would have the designated speaker, the official critic, standing up and making the comments he did.
I've taken the trouble to actually get Hansard to make sure that I actually do have those comments correct -- or at least as correct as the unedited Hansard. The comments demonstrate, absolutely, without any doubt, that this member not only hasn't read this bill but hasn't read the original act. There are comments in here with respect to matters that are of importance in this bill that suggest.... I will quote an example in response to the member for Prince George-Mount Robson, who is making commentary: "I can tell you, however, that requiring those people to do four hours of work regardless means that they won't be called in at all. It means that they're not going to get work. It means that they're not going to make any tips; they're not going to be able to get the money that they need to stay in school." Bill 29 doesn't change in substance what is in the existing legislation. So it clearly doesn't make any sense for there to be a proposition for hoist if the substance of what we're talking about in a hoist motion really doesn't in any way alter the existing legislation.
We heard from the member for Matsqui, who is himself a lawyer. He confessed that he'd only read 75 percent of the bill. My guess is that he hadn't read any of the Employment Standards Act that was put forward on August 22, 1980, because the concerns that the member was stating with respect to propositions of direct responsibilities are in the existing act. There's absolutely nothing changed from that.
Similarly, we find that with respect to the other matters.... On matters of assignment, if we look at those sections, we find that the exact language exists in the act as it is today. I'm hard-pressed to know if those are the issues and
[ Page 14738 ]
areas of concern, and I've tried to listen very carefully to members with respect to the actual sections of the bill that they're concerned with. Those are in the existing legislation; they're not the ones that have changed.
We heard the member for Matsqui, again, going on at some length with respect to special clothing provisions. Special clothing provisions are in section 35.1 of the existing bill -- and there is substantially no change, with the exception that it provides greater flexibility in this bill for employers and employees. Surely to goodness, if you're saying that you're going to hoist this motion because you don't like this particular section, which is more flexible and is better in the interests of both the employer and employee than the original bill, it doesn't make any sense. I don't understand where they would come from.
Minimum daily hours, which I've already referred to, are in section 34 of the existing act. And with respect to the flexibility provisions that were mentioned, those provisions have not been substantially changed, with the exception of section 34(1)(a), with respect to the least minimum hours for which an employee is entitled to be paid. But it wasn't the minimum-hours entitlement that was of concern to the official opposition critic; it was that they may have to come in to do maximum hours. That's clearly in the language of Hansard, which I've taken the trouble to look at to make sure I don't misrepresent or misquote what that member has said.
So I think that the proposition of a hoist at this point on the sections of the bill that have been brought forward really doesn't make a lot of sense. Because those areas that have been most heavily attacked by the Liberal opposition are sections that are virtually unchanged from the existing Employment Standards Act. I would recommend that if they have some time over the balance of this evening, they might want to not only read Bill 29 but also to go back and read the Employment Standards Act that has essentially been in place since August 22, 1980, so that they understand where the changes are. Quite clearly, the comments have been right off the wall, with the exception of the member for Delta South, who I think gave a good and somewhat thoughtful presentation with respect to the opposition point of view. It must be a great shame, because I think there are a lot of people in the small business community, and those who have come over and have heavily lobbied and provided information, who must be saddened by the fact that they haven't had their issues of concern addressed. So in respect of the hoist motion, I don't think it's a good idea.
Let me say also that I don't think we should hoist this. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi pointed out earlier in the debate that this is a move to kill the bill. I think that's true. If it was a reasoned amendment, and if within the reasoned amendment there were some sections that required going to either an all-party committee or a parliamentary committee, that might have been a proposition we would have supported. Or if it meant there was some new public process that might enhance the public process that has already taken place -- which did take place, although some would argue that the government did not listen to what they were provided in terms of advice.... We'll have some more to say about that in second reading debate. It simply doesn't make any sense for us to kill the bill at this point. I say that, because I really do believe that it's important for all of the political parties in this House to come forward and put their position on the table, clearly articulated, so that the people of British Columbia know where they stand.
[6:45]
Let's say, for instance, where you're talking about the matters of wages and wage statements, and the proposition of how we should put in place payroll records and notices of hours of work and those sorts of things.... These are important considerations, and they're very important considerations for small business, in order to make sure that small business, which has already, unfortunately, become the tax collector because of PST and GST and the need to account for GST and PST separately...that the need for small business to be free from the burden of recordkeeping and the difficulty that imposes in terms of the cost....
It is also important to talk about the matter of flexibility of employment. It's ironic that this bill should come forward today. I was involved, at least peripherally, in a discussion this morning with Jeremy Rifkin, who was on C-FAX Radio on the Joe Easingwood show, talking about the need to redefine the concept of labour and employment -- the need to change the definitions with respect to what constitutes contract labour and what constitutes work. We need to recognize that given the very rapidly changing technology in our society, the old standard of measurement with respect to what constitutes labour and what constitutes work is in fact changing -- that many people will opt to work out of their homes or other areas and that the conventional sort of nine-to-five employment no longer is a particular option. That becomes an important consideration. Likewise, as I pointed out on air in my question to Mr. Rifkin this morning, we have to recognize that when that does happen, there is going to be a dramatic shift between the concentration of wealth and the workers who provide that wealth, because there will be a real reassessment in our society as to what constitutes work and labour, what the value of that work and labour is going to be and how we're going to make a determination of that value. That becomes important.
Here's where I think the political parties.... The reason I don't support the hoist amendment is that I think that in this debate, we have got to get on the table where the political parties stand on things like minimum wage, because the public wants to know, the small business community wants to know and the electorate have a right to know, as we go into the next election, where we stand. I know, for example -- and I don't want to put words in the mouth of any member; I'll let the members speak themselves -- that the Leader of the Opposition recently said there should be no minimum-wage legislation. That has been said on air not once, but twice -- and it now is on record. We are, obviously, trying to keep a taped record of what's said, so that we know when the election comes what the positions are and we can formulate debate on those positions.
If there's no minimum-wage legislation, that sort of flies in the face of what we have heard from the member for Vancouver-Langara, who says that there should be a minimum wage and who in fact would argue, I think -- at least unless his position has changed since I was leader of that party -- for a minimum wage substantially higher than it is right now. So when people hear from a political party that there should be no minimum-wage legislation, and then hear
[ Page 14739 ]
that there must be a high minimum wage -- somewhere in the $8 range -- then clearly we have to know which it is. Is it no legislation, or is it $8, and where does that party stand on that?
That's why I think it's unfortunate that we so rarely hear from the Leader of the Opposition directly in this House as to what the party positions are. Similarly, with respect to the Reform position.... I give credit to the Reformers. At least they come forward and put their position out -- some people will accept it and embrace it, and others will not; that's what democracy and the democratic process is all about -- with respect to the provision of employment and opportunities for maternity leave, for example, and they would argue for amendments there. They argue also with respect to the provisions of a six-month termination for women on welfare who have young children. We would ask how that would then impact on this kind of legislation. Are we going to put the same kind of restrictive limits with respect to women here?
I think that has to come out in this debate, because sooner or later -- maybe not until next year, but at some point -- all of us, as elected members, are going to have to stand in front of the public, and we're going to have to articulate to the public where we stand on these issues. It is going to be a travesty -- in fact, I would say that it would border on the fraudulent -- if we don't hear, directly from the Leader of the Opposition, where the Liberal Party stands on any of these matters. You can't simply try to slide into office by saying nothing substantive about any issue at any time. We say that if we're not going to allow that action to take place, it's important to hear where they stand. This debate is a good starting point; it's an excellent starting point to hear exactly where they stand.
Let me say also that with respect to the contentious issues here -- matters of flexibility with respect to small business -- we do take exception to some of the issues and some of the matters in this bill. One of the areas where we would have agreement with the member for Matsqui is on the need for changes to section 22(2). It's a wording change. It's a matter that I don't think was intended. We have clearly flagged that, and other members in the House have flagged that. The minister might want to look at that section, because that is an area where we need change. That's not a philosophical difference; it's a wording question, in terms of making sure that the employee is the one that initiates that, not the director.
Where we differ on a philosophical question -- and I would point it out now -- is with respect to the powers of the director, which are enshrined in an appointed civil servant. This is something that doesn't only affect this bill; it affects many pieces of legislation that have been brought in through this administration. This is a legitimate philosophical area where, when we get back to the main second reading debate, we will have a lot to say. We have to guard against the proposition of allowing appointed civil servants to have the power to take regulation, to implement regulation and to act in a sub judice way on that legislation. We can see that in terms of the director that's proposed here. There are a number of other civil servants that have been given similar scopes of power. That's a problem.
We would argue that we could actually amend that section. I doubt that the minister would entertain this. It would be a substantive amendment; it may change the focus and nature of this bill. But certainly I serve notice that we're going to take issue with it. We believe that there should be some form of arbitration body that allows for an opportunity for employee representatives, a management representative and an arbitrator -- or at least a conciliator -- to sit there and adjudicate on some of those matters, rather than the kinds of sweeping powers that are granted to the director.
I would point out also that we know that there are currently challenges with respect to section 90 of the Constitution Act of Canada that are now being looked at. There was a case with respect to the residential tenancy act in Ontario that was struck down recently because of this kind of legislation. I've flagged that for the minister, because I think that legislative counsel needs to be cognizant of the fact that people are now starting to take issue with this. Where these challenges will be made, I think the courts may have something to say.
Generally speaking -- certainly from my reading of the jurisprudence on this question -- the courts have been somewhat lenient with respect to matters relating to labour relations, because they tend to move away from labour relations coming into the courts for review, and they tend to look toward that kind of consultative and mediative process. Perhaps, in this case, that might work; but from a philosophical point of view, I would argue that we should not have those kinds of powers put in place.
The second thing I would argue from a philosophical point of view.... This is another reason why we should get this debate actively going now and why we don't think a hoist is going to provide us any additional opportunities to do that, other than what's in front of us at the moment. I'd like the minister to flag this, because hopefully we can hear commentary from the minister as to why he has done this. Why has he broken down the assessment of reporting of salary, the notion of regular wage and the definition of regular wage? And the matters with respect to how that is reported, how that is recorded and how that is paid -- how is that all broken down into a component of hourly income?
This is an area that I think we are going to have some problem with. Notwithstanding that that might provide an opportunity at a standard shop floor -- where people might come in and punch a clock, or where people may have established and regular hours of work -- in areas where there is, by necessity, flexibility of employment required, there may be provisions for.... Especially as we move into a new work ethic and how we start to moderate what constitutes labour and what constitutes work, and as we start to challenge some of those traditional definitions, I think that you will find that the notion of an hourly component is very quickly going to become something of the past. My guess is that we will have to have this issue amended anyway at some future time.
So let me say this, with respect to the hoist motion -- and we would clearly have more to say on the main motion in second reading, in a broader, philosophical context. Had we had a substantive amendment come forward, and if we had some understanding of what is problematic here that doesn't exist in the existing legislation -- because most of what has been objected to exists in the existing legislation, and I've read Hansard so that I don't misrepresent what was said -- and if there had been careful examination and reading of the existing legislation, clearly we would have had a more substantive and perhaps somewhat more productive debate to date.
I don't think hoisting it does much more than try to kill it. I'm not sure that's in the best interests of British Columbians at the moment. We need to try to amend it, to be sure. We have served notice to the minister that we will try to amend it.
[ Page 14740 ]
What is most important from this point forward, as we get into second reading debate, is that we hear from the members of the opposition and of the government -- and I hope we'll hear from more than just the Minister of Labour on this -- exactly what the government position is on some of the substantial sections of this particular bill. The people of the province have a right to know where we stand on everything from the minimum wage through to child labour laws -- which the member for Matsqui is saying we shouldn't have any of in British Columbia, which I find unbelievable at this time. Clearly, I don't think that's.... Hopefully, that's not the party position, but it may be by now. Who knows? But clearly we do need to know where these parties stand on these issues.
I say only, in closing, that I hope the minister is open to substantive amendments and that these amendments which will be brought forward will be to try to improve the quality of the drafting of this bill. That does not change the intent of the bill. I'm hoping that as these amendments come forward, this minister will demonstrate some flexibility with respect to the wording so that we can make it more clear, and that the minister will recognize that, in some sections, some rewording from a legal point of view will be more helpful to both the employer and employee. I hope the minister might also recognize that the amendments we'll put forward are in the best interests of both the employer and employee in British Columbia and serve to try and protect the interests of all working people in this province.
I thank you for this opportunity. The Alliance members will be voting against the amendment.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure to take my place in support of the opposition's hoist amendment, and to add my few comments to this motion. I look forward to the main motion debate and to talking more specifically about some of the issues in the bill. I think all members recognize and support fairness and equity for all employees. The bill states in the explanatory notes: "The primary purpose of employment standards legislation is to ensure that workers enjoy basic standards of compensation and conditions of employment in their workplaces." I don't think anyone disagrees with that. However, there are some sections in this bill that we find not in the best interests of all members in the workplace and that we will be debating section by section in committee.
[7:00]
One other reason that I believe this motion should be supported by all members of the House is that regulations are not part of the bill. As most members know, regulations define bills and add a lot more detail and have the ability to change a bill's focus and direction. We recognize the reality that this legislation is needed in many ways, particularly around the items the minister referred to in his opening remarks about women, particularly domestic workers and farmworkers, and in some of these areas where there have been instances of difficult employment practices. Those are items that need to be addressed, and those are items in this bill that I think are worthwhile.
As a small business owner for 13 years, one other area that raises concern for me is that the increased costs of this bill are quite significant and quite substantial, particularly around the regulations and red tape that this bill will no doubt impose on small business owners. In 1992 there was a survey done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which found that 71 percent of small and medium-sized businesses say government regulation and red tape are a significant cost to their business. This is up from 43 percent in 1983. I'm sure that the level of concern around increased red tape and bureaucracy is much higher, and I can say that when I was in business one of the biggest problems that small business faced was the high cost of compliance with government regulations, both provincial and federal, and it got to the point where it was very onerous.
I'm sure that all of these demands and new legislation, and new rules and regulations that come forward, in many ways with the best interests of individuals in mind, can in fact work at cross-purposes. That's something we're going to be looking at in trying to determine whether this bill is balanced -- as this government likes to call much of their legislation; this minister in particular -- and whether there can be some amendments made in order to ensure a level playing field.
Interjection.
L. Stephens: This is a hoist motion, and we do support this hoist motion for the reasons I have mentioned.
There was a study done by Price Waterhouse which listed some considerable research that points to negative impacts which result from minimum-wage increases. I am sure the minister is aware of that study, as well as some of those unintended consequences I just spoke about: the increased labour costs for employers, fewer jobs, job reductions and reduced hours for workers. As a small business person, I can tell you that that is exactly what will happen. When you're faced with these increased costs, you adjust your employees' hours -- and that's the fact; that is exactly what happens. It adds up to higher costs for consumers. It tends to have a domino effect as well. Increases to minimum wages ratchet up wage costs and wage levels throughout the economy. So these are areas that it doesn't look like the minister recognized and understood when he was putting his bill together.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
There are a number of sections in the bill that other members have mentioned and spoken to which I will not. But I want to say that the Small Business, Tourism and Culture minister's latest update of February 1995 talks about the commitment to small business. I'm going to be very interested to hear what the Minister of Small Business says in relation to this bill, because I think he may have some perspective that the Minister of Labour has missed. He talks about a commitment to small business initiatives and a recent example of partnerships that were talked about at the Premier's summit held in Victoria on January 18 and 20. It was titled "A Strong and Secure Economy for British Columbia," and it talked about the need for the opportunity for government, business, labour and education to discuss how to ensure a sustainable economy. The participants agreed that "partnerships based on respect for differences are critical to economic growth and that follow-up activities from the summit will identify government actions in the area of regulatory reform." It goes on to say: "Small business provides more that one-quarter of provincial jobs and about one-third of B.C.'s total business revenue. More than 90 percent of the new jobs created in B.C. reside in the small business sector."
[ Page 14741 ]
Obviously the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture understands what the realities are in the small business sector, but the Minister of Labour doesn't appear to with some of these sections he has included in his bill around regulatory reform. I know that the minister.... If he was listening when the Coalition of B.C. Businesses and all of the other business groups came to speak to him on the few occasions when that was possible, I'm sure they all told him the same thing -- that the single most debilitating task small business has is dealing with regulation and red tape. This bill adds piles more burden onto employers in this regard. The minister is shaking his head no, but I would suggest, hon. minister, that when the organizations came to speak with you, you simply weren't listening.
Interjection.
L. Stephens: The minister says he was listening. Well, the other people involved in this are saying that the product that the minister has tabled does not indicate and does not support the fact that he was listening to what their concerns were.
Section 67(1) is one of those that increases costs, talking about individual and group termination notices. It talks about people on vacation, on leave or on strike automatically getting the benefit of the pay-in-lieu-of-notice requirement. There are lots of areas that I think we need to look at, and in the main debate we will get into those more. There are sections that I think.... At another time, when the minister takes this bill back and fixes it, we can have a discussion around the positive aspects of this bill, which relate to family leave and family-friendly workplaces and to those areas of workplace flexibility and initiatives that allow family members to participate more in family life and to get the kind of flexibility from employers that they need in order to attend to some of these duties.
With that, I will take my place and again urge all members to support this amendment.
F. Garden: I had debated in my own mind whether I would wait until the main motion came back on the floor, or whether I'd talk on the hoist motion on this particular issue. But I felt that I should get up on the hoist motion, simply because it reminds me of a situation that developed in this House about three years ago, and as an important wag once said, it's just like deja vu all over again.
That was the time we brought in the Labour Code amendments and everything that went with them. I can recall the opposition at that time put a hoist motion on the floor, and again that was after we had had extensive dialogue with everybody involved in the changes to the Labour Code. And I can recall that at that time the arguments were exactly the same as I'm hearing now: the sky was falling, people were going to leave this province in droves, we'd be driving business to -- as I recall the argument then -- Washington State. We wouldn't be able to compete with the people down there in Washington State, and they were the ones that we should be competing with. All these terrible things were going to happen. People were going to go out of business, employees were going to lose their jobs, small businesses wouldn't be able to compete, and we'd made things so easy for the working people of this province -- trade unions specifically -- that disaster would befall.
Well, that didn't happen. As a matter of fact, this province, because of its labour laws and the fairness with which employers and employees now sit down and talk to one another.... We have become a model for every other province in this country and the United States of America as being one of the leaders and pioneers of fair labour laws. So I feel that what we're hearing tonight is just a bit more of that scare-mongering that we heard then: that it wasn't going to work.
But it's understandable, because this opposition wouldn't recognize a fair labour law or a fair employment standard if it hit them between the eyes. They've just no idea. That was expressed tonight by one of their speakers when he said that he hadn't even read the act. And almost to a person over on that side of the House, they've no concept of what it's like to be on the wrong end of a working agreement. They've no idea of what it's like to be out there in the workforce and have no protection against what might befall on the job.
Interjection.
F. Garden: There are some remarks being made by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, and he should know better, because he did have a little bit to do with this before he got here. I think I recognize these remarks. And what he should be seeing in these bills that we're bringing forward is an opportunity to bring the working people in this province into a position where they could honestly and fairly share in the wealth of the province. That's all it's about.
You know, union men -- and they're quite correct in their criticism.... Trade unions could generally look after themselves. They've generally got the collective strength to go out and bargain and set out fairly reasonable conditions for themselves. And if you happen to be an executive trying to get a job in the top echelons of a company, you can usually go into these situations.... You've got the skill. Or if you don't have the skill, you certainly have a lawyer that can sit down with you and your employer and come up with conditions of employment that are beneficial to you and the company.
But there are a group of people in this province -- and we met with some of them as a caucus; domestic workers have been mentioned here earlier today.... There are a group of people in this province that don't have the benefits of a trade union, that don't have the benefits of going into an executive position and working out a good contract. There are people that are at the lower end of the scale, and they have every right to expect this government or any other government to come up with fair employment standards so they get a fair share of what has become a very bountiful province.
We're the very best in Canada, right here. We've got the best credit rating, it's been said, I suppose, over and over again. We're growing faster than any other province in Canada. We've got a tremendously increased employment rate. Yet there's a group of people who, if we don't bring in these standards, are going to get left behind. It's as simple as that. I've heard some of the members of the opposition say: "We had relationships with employees that were fine. We worked it out together." That's good; there's no criticism at all about that kind of individual employer who does look after their employees. But for every employer like that, there are two or three who will push it to the limit as far as getting people to work to standards that are less than acceptable in today's
[ Page 14742 ]
climate. We should expect the very best labour laws, the very best business climate and the very best employment standards in this province, because we can afford it.
If I were a business person.... And I was at one time; I did have to supply uniforms to my employees, and I thought that was part of the Employment Standards Act, so we complied. We paid fair wages and had a good rapport, and everything went along fine. But there were situations where it came to giving them time off that were a little dicey. Now we're making sure that if somebody needs time off to do some family business, this Employment Standards Act will take care of that. It doesn't cost the employer any. You might have to bring in somebody for a day or two to cover, but as far as that employee leaving is concerned, it's not really costing you too much, provided you have people on standby.
If I were a small business employer, I wouldn't be so scared about this Employment Standards Act as I would be about the plans of this opposition. They not only plan on cutting back employment in the public sector, but they are also going to give handouts to their corporation friends. That's obviously going to be the cost of social services in this province. I'd be worried about that, because when you start cutting back like that, the effects spread through the whole community.
[7:15]
But this government has a plan. That plan is to not only have the best-skilled workforce in the province, but also to invest money in infrastructure so that other businesses will come into this province and invest. When you do that, small businesses can't help but benefit from it. I don't get questions from people in my riding about this Employment Standards Act, but what I do get asked on a continual basis is, "When are they going to start building the interconnector at Quesnel?" because they know the spinoff to small business is tremendous. They ask me about when the MDF plant is going to be built in Quesnel, because, again, they know the benefits of the spinoff from that. We're saying that if there are benefit spinoffs, then you're going to have to treat your workers in a decent manner and give them decent employment standards, and they're buying into that.
In Likely, a small town in my riding, there is a mine coming out there. It's the small business people who are asking me: "When's the mine going to start, Frank?" The chamber-of-commerce people are asking when that mine is going to get going. They see the benefits of what we are doing to encourage business to come to this province. The infrastructure we're building is going to have spinoff benefits. They see the billboard advertising that our Minister of Tourism is doing, which is going to bring business to small business in this province. What we're saying through this act is that in that climate, in the boom that's going on in this province and in what we're doing about the sustainability of the future through a forest renewal plan, if there are going to be spinoffs -- which there will be -- then you're going to meet these minimum employment standards for your workers. There is nothing wrong with that. I think that in the kind of society we're building here, the very least we can do is make sure that the people who don't have the kind of protection I talked about earlier do have these minimum standards.
Like I said before, this clearly defines the difference, again, between us and the opposition, and I would say that any true Liberal should divorce themselves from the rhetoric I'm hearing from the other side there, because it has truly been anti-labour and anti-worker for the last two or three weeks. In all the time I was involved in politics, that certainly wasn't the Liberal stance, but that's what we're hearing from the right-wing Liberals of the opposition, and it's a shame. It's a real shame.
This act has been well canvassed. We keep hearing that we should put it back again so the coalition of small businesses can take another look at it. But they took another look at it. They looked at what was coming down through Thompson, and they said: "Thank you for the opportunity, but we're still opposed to it." So we could hoist this bill for another 12 months, and we'd be back at the same spot as now, with the same apologists from the opposition still trying to delay this thing so it might die on the order paper. But that's not going to happen.
Our plan, as I said earlier, is that through the initiatives we've taken in infrastructure, we're going to provide benefits for small businesses all through this province. This province is going to continue to boom under this government. When we're re-elected, we'll keep on with the same policies, and that will turn this province into the kind of place where everybody in Canada and North America will want to come and live. They'll know that we have the structures in place that no matter where they're working, whether it's in a trade union or for a big company or on the bottom of the scale, they're going to be protected by fair and reasonable employment standards.
V. Anderson: I rise to speak on the Employment Standards Act and on the hoist motion. Contrary to what we've been hearing so much about, one of the realities of a hoist motion is that it's not to kill a bill. We have acknowledged and will continue to acknowledge that an Employment Standards Act is needed within this province. It needs to be revised periodically, as the minister is attempting to do.
On the other hand, we have felt and do feel that the people of the province should have the opportunity to deal with the finished product before we make a final decision on it. True, some consultation has taken place. Indeed, this government has probably consulted more people on more things than governments have done for many years in this province. The only difficulty, whether it's in health care or education or labour or whatever, is that the people of the province have not discovered that this government has been able to hear what the people are saying and put it back in a form so the people can believe that they have really been heard.
There needs to be testing. What the government has understood and what the people have been heard to say needs to go back out to the people. They need to have a chance to review it for themselves and reflect upon it. We're simply saying that we need six months for this bill to go out to the people so they have an opportunity to review it and give their responses to it, and so that the government and the Legislature can improve it. Then when it goes out, we won't have to have what happens so often the next time: immediate amendments have to be made to correct the errors, but in the meantime, a lot of devastation has been caused.
I would be sorry if what the last speaker said was true: that this government would continue the same policies that have been underway ever since they have been in power. One of the difficulties is that because of their policies -- some of which have been valid, and some haven't -- our debt load has
[ Page 14743 ]
increased to an unconscionable extent. If that were to continue over the next four or five years, I hate to think what the problem would be that we would then face.
We seem to have difficulty. I've been intrigued to listen to this particular debate and the ones that have come before, because what I hear from the government side are totally different approaches than I heard previously from the government side. Previously they seemed to be putting forth a plan and a program that they believed in, and that was the essence of what they were saying. Whether we agreed or disagreed with it, we could listen to what they were saying with some interest and have some dialogue back and forth. But for some reason or other -- and I'm not sure why -- most of the conversation we're hearing from the members of the government is a diatribe against the other members in this Legislature. If we are to sort out the time that they spend talking about others in the Legislature rather than the legislation itself, there would be very little time spent on the legislation, and our Hansard would be much cleaner and much thinner.
Hon. Speaker, I'm trying to imagine why that change has come about from the previous presentations that this government has made to the presentations that they're now making. We all realize that there's an election on the horizon, but that's not what we're supposed to be talking about here. We're supposed to be talking about legislation. We're supposed to be talking about a bill that the government brings forward, rather than a diatribe about their opposition and trying to restate what other members in the Legislature are saying.
I'm concerned that we seem to be operating with different pairs of glasses. I realize that the government are operating with a pair of rose-coloured glasses, and they assume we're operating with a pair of dark sunglasses, and so we see different things. That seems to be a reality for some reason or other. It's not a reality from any side of the House that the people in the province can have any trust in. No wonder they're angry and frustrated and dissatisfied. If it were true, as the government is trying to say, that everything in the province is rosy, that everybody has jobs, that our finances are great, that all our infrastructure is being built, and that everybody is getting exactly what they want and that they consider this to be the best economic climate in the world to live, why are they so angry? Why are they so frustrated? Why are they so distrustful in the province? On any day, listen to a radio or read a newspaper or talk to people on the street or get letters back from people in the community, and they're angry and frustrated. If it were true that everything was as bright and rosy as this government says it is, then we would not have that kind of reaction.
One of the realities in this province is that the government thinks they created the sunshine. The government thinks they created the beauty of the province. The government thinks they created the reason why people like to live here.
An Hon. Member: So we did.
V. Anderson: "So we did," he said. That's exactly what the government is saying: "So we did." They believe that they're the creators of heaven and earth, and I do not believe them. They are not the creators of heaven and earth, and neither are any of the rest of us. None of the rest of us are creators of heaven and earth, either. We need some humility in this household, hon. Speaker. We need some humility and some truth, and that's not what we're getting in the interaction that we're having here within this Legislature. We'll all pay the price for that, not any one side of the House. But, more particularly, it's the people of the province who will pay the price for that and it's our kids who are going to pay the price for that -- they will have to pay the debts and face the uncertainty. My own family has said, quite honestly, that their kids will never have the opportunity that they had, when things are going as they are within this province at the moment. That's not because they're necessarily the same political stripe that I am, because they're not.
An Hon. Member: Where do they fit?
V. Anderson: They fit where the common people fit in this community, trying to find individuals they can trust.
I had a friend -- he's still a friend, by the way; a very able person -- who would take us through a logical discussion to a conclusion that we could agree with. Inevitably, having done that, he would go past that logical decision to the illogical, and we would leave him all the time. This is what's happening in this bill. The valid principles that may be here and may be concerned have been taken to the illogical conclusion.
One of the realities is that when this government gets an idea, they carry it to the illogical conclusion. They think that if girls' clothes should be pink and boys' clothes should be blue, there should be no other clothes but pink and blue for any age, for any group.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: Yes, I agree that you might go on the pink side of it.
One of the realities that has come home to us -- and the illustration is found in our health care at the moment.... With some validity, this government has said that some of our health care institutions should be done away with so that people could live in the community. But they say that if you now want to live in an institution you can't, because we've said you've got to live out in the community, whether you like it or not. That's carrying it to the illogical conclusion. So when people say, "We want to continue to live at Woodlands because we've lived there for 50 years," this government says: "No, you can't do that, because we don't believe you should." If they say, "We want to continue to live at Riverview because we've lived there all our lives," this government says: "No, you can't." For those who want to move out, great; they should have the opportunity to do so. But those who want to stay should have that opportunity as well. But this is what happens again and again in this bill. They take a good part of it and they extend it so they force it upon everybody else.
[7:30]
We talk about child labour, and of course we agree that children shouldn't be forced to work in slave labour any more than they did in generations gone by. Children should have the opportunity to get out and learn to work, and this bill makes that difficult. At 12 years of age I was a delivery boy at a store and worked myself up and gained experience, which has benefited me all my life. This bill does not enable young people to do that. I shouldn't say it doesn't enable them to do that. It enables them to do that if they have an agreement with the person they are going to work for that they want to gain
[ Page 14744 ]
experience; that person sends it to the director, the big boss in the government, and says to that big boss: "Is it okay if I hire Johnny, Jane and Bill, who are 12 and 13 years of age, to do a job that will give them experience in their life?" So we expect to have thousands of requests from children across this province saying: "I want experience." And thousands of requests will come in to the one big boss who sits here in that government office, who will say: "Yes, you can work for this person if you obey these rules that I establish" -- which will have no relevance. Where's our common sense? We've taken the concern that children should not be abused to the extent that children will not have the opportunity or the privilege of having these jobs that are available to them.
We talk about the stupidity of the regulations. We hear that paper-boys and -girls will not be able to work as they would before; but even as we're talking about the bill, we receive in the mail an employment standards update that says it won't affect boys and girls. This stupid bill says you can't do anything except what the big boss there in the government says it will exclude from the bill at some time in some place. They have excluded those who work 15 hours or less, and they can exclude any other category they want to, because there's a line in there that says they can make whatever exemptions in the regulations they wish to make, whether or not they abide by the regulations of the bill.
It's hogwash that this bill is for the benefit of all the people. Sure, there needs to be opportunity for people who do fair work to get fair hours and fair employment, but you don't need to take it to the extreme that you make everyone else suffer because they don't fit into the particular class or group of persons that this government happens to be concerned about.
We have said that what we should be doing in this province is what is for the best interests of children, but the interests in this act are not always in the best interests of children. We need to look at that. We need some common sense. We need an act that doesn't have to have a whole set of regulations to interpret it. We have a Forest Practices Code that we argued about and worked over in this House, and what's come out? Pages and pages in books of regulations that are far larger than the Forest Practices Code, and that's exactly what will have to come as a result of this bill.
So babysitters were threatened, families were threatened and we talk about employment. The young people who have been laid off since these regulations have been put forward are untold in numbers, because companies are laying off young people who used to come in after school and work part-time. They used to work part-time and complement their other activities, but those young people are no longer being hired. In fact, they've been laid off and have been replaced by others.
We have to look at that and be aware of it. According to this bill, it is only when you're in grade 8 or grade 9, depending on what age you are, that you can go out and begin to work honestly and openly, or what you have to do is work under the table. We're teaching our young people to work under the table, to not admit that they're earning money, to not confess. We wonder where they are learning their ethics. Their ethics are being put forth by this government teaching them to go around the rules and the regulations. That's not the way you develop opportunities within this province. And if we're doing so well in this province, how come we have the largest number of unemployed able-bodied persons that we've ever had in this province's history? If we're doing so well and if everything is so good, how come the realities defy the words of the ministers who speak to this?
They talk about initiative, and they talk about people being able to do their own work and make decisions for themselves. This act makes it unlawful. A person might have put in their 40 hours and want to go back at night on their own time when they're relaxed to catch up on a particular piece of activity. They are not asked by their boss to do it; they just want to do it on their own. It's unlawful for them to go back into that office at night and do that work. It's not in jest to say that if we are employees, it's unlawful for us to be doing what we're doing tonight, according to this bill. We have to look at that.
I had a friend one time....
An Hon. Member: You've got lots of friends, Val, lots of friends.
V. Anderson: I've got a couple of friends. Glad to have this one back.
An Hon. Member: You're supposed to say "one of my many friends."
V. Anderson: Okay, I'm supposed to say "one of my many friends." I don't want to brag that there are too many.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: That's their decision.
He went into a store one time, and he bought an article. The clerk asked: Do you have V-I-S-A or C-I-B-C, or what do you have?" And he said "No, I have c-a-s-h." And the clerk said: "Sorry, we don't have that in this store."
One of the things -- and maybe you're doing it on purpose to get at the underground government -- is that there are some people who like to do their transactions in cash. This bill makes it unlawful. You can only pay with cash or credit cards. You cannot pay your employee with cash, according to this bill. That's the kind of thing that's in this bill; you cannot pay them with cash. It's there plain as day for you to look at.
We talk about the special clothing. There's no definition in this bill for special clothing. We think it refers to a uniform. But there are many clerks in stores and coffee shops and everything.... It's been in the news just lately that people have to come to work in certain kinds of clothing. Is that the kind of thing we're talking about -- special clothing? Because there is no definition of special clothing in this act. So you need to look at it and understand that it talks about special clothing, but it doesn't define it.
There's going to be more uncertainty out there -- and I think it's been raised already -- for those who work as volunteer board members in charitable organizations. Quite clearly, if you read this act, you have the understanding that if you're a charitable board member, you are responsible and you're held responsible for every bill and account.
An Hon. Member: That's not new.
[ Page 14745 ]
V. Anderson: I know it's not new, but it's there and it's put forward. They say it's not new, but it's there. If they're bringing forth an act to update it, you don't just carry over the mistakes of the past; you correct them. You don't just say that because it was there before.... The government said they were rewriting and improving it, so where did they take out the mistakes? You don't just carry the mistake over and say that because it was there before, you're going to add on to it and maintain it. If you're rewriting it, you should be overcoming some of those mistakes.
The hoist motion that we put forward.... As our members have been trying to say, there are consequences here that the people of the community need to know about, need to have the opportunity to respond to, need to have the opportunity to have their say on. We have learned time and time again that people today will not accept what's forced upon them without having the opportunity to speak to it. This has been forced upon the community. The government says that they have consulted with some people. But there are thousands of people in this community you have not consulted with. There are thousands of people in this community who are going to be affected by this bill who have had no opportunity to see or respond to it.
That's what the six months would do. It should be common practice to not be doing government at the last minute -- to bring in a bill on Monday and try and pass it on Thursday. It should be common practice to write a bill, send it out to the community, let them deal with it and come back. We should sit spring and fall in order for this kind of thing to happen. This kind of off-the-cuff government is not acceptable to the people of our province. It's not acceptable, and therefore our motion is that there be six months when the people of the province can study and respond to it and corrections can be made.
Hon. D. Miller: I want to respond to some of the individual criticisms made by members opposite with respect to this bill and some of the rationale -- or should I say rhetoric -- that they provided with respect to a hoist motion. I must say that I do respect the member for Delta South and the words he has to say in this chamber. And when he says there is an obligation for people to try to understand this legislation, it seems to me that a corollary might be that if this in fact is the chamber where that rational debate is supposed to take place, there is an obligation imposed on all members of this chamber, first of all, to try to understand what it is you're debating, and secondly, not to use rhetoric, at least intentionally, in a way that is just straight fearmongering.
I am shocked and appalled. I have listened to the worst example in my experience in this Legislature of members who haven't got the faintest idea what's in the legislation at all, and yet they put forward a hoist motion -- not the faintest idea.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, you heard for yourself the kind of rhetoric that's coming out of that member. Perhaps we could have a withdrawal of that statement.
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands would please withdraw it.
C. Tanner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Sorry.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed, minister.
Hon. D. Miller: Now let's retrace some of the steps which led up to this debate today, which I quite frankly find, with some exceptions.... I thought the member from Howe Sound, the leader of the PDA, added to the debate. I'm looking forward to the clause-by-clause debate, because in a bill of this magnitude that really is where we get into substantive issues.
But last November 21, I announced that the government had accepted, in the main, most of the provisions of the Thompson report, Rights and Responsibilities in a Changing Workplace. I announced that clearly and that the government intended to proceed this spring and give legislation. I outlined in fairly specific terms the areas where we would be moving.
The critic for the Liberal opposition sat in the press conference when I made those statements. It appears that he's not taken the time to inform either himself or any members of his caucus about what might be anticipated in this bill.
It is shocking to listen to the member for Matsqui and the member for Vancouver-Langara speaking about the need to dismantle employment standards legislation dealing with child labour, that has been the norm in the province for probably 20 years. The Liberal Party is standing in this House today saying that those child labour laws are an impediment to the small business coalition, which they presumably take all their advice from, and that we need to go into the heart of the bill and tear the guts out of legislation that deals with the issue of child labour.
It is shocking -- and even more shocking that the member for Matsqui, who's a lawyer, professed in this House while he was on his feet that he was completely unaware of any of the provisions of the existing employment standards, let alone the new act that we brought into this House today.
It's shocking that people would talk about dismantling labour legislation that protects child labour in this province and that has been the norm -- not only under this government but under the previous government and the previous incarnation, the government before it -- that governs how we've ruled those child labour issues in this province for probably 20 years. The Liberal opposition is standing in this House today saying we've got to rip the guts out of legislation that deals with child labour. Shame, I say. Shame!
[7:45]
We had speaker after speaker after speaker. I'm not surprised at the speakers from the Reform Party, because I know where they come from. I know they're opposed to minimum-wage laws, to the minimum wage and to any kind of provision in legislation that somehow might have a positive impact on a working person's life. They've said that over and over again, notwithstanding the fact that one of their members today was the Minister of Labour when he was in the last cabinet of the last government. They didn't bring in the changes they're talking about now. Why not?
[ Page 14746 ]
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: We know where the Reform come from. But to have the Liberal Party of British Columbia stand in this House and say, as the critic did, that the minimum wage is too high....
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: He cited study after study that said minimum wages do away with jobs for young people.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: He said that minimum wage does away with jobs for young people. Check the record. He recorded and read into the record a study that he claimed says that minimum wages deprive young people of work.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, you did, hon. member. We'll check Hansard. Of all of these members in the Liberal Party who used to have some values, who stood in this House and opposed a minimum wage of $6.50 an hour, not one of them had the courage to say what they would set the minimum wage at. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is absolutely right: those are the questions that people want answers to. We know they don't like the $6.50; we know they don't like the fact that it's going up to $7; but they won't say how much they are going to cut it. And, rest assured, they are going to cut the minimum wage.
It is appalling. Perhaps if we look at those who advise the Liberal Party now.... There's a certain Mr. Plecas who came along with the coalition, who was standing outside in the hallway when the Premier met with the coalition. He was standing there. I think there were some puppet strings attached to his fingers. The same Mr. Plecas is chief adviser to the Liberal Party right now in British Columbia -- the chief adviser.
Let's go to some of the members who were at the coalition meeting. There's a certain Mr. Hochstein, who clearly.... Every Liberal speaker who got up today quoted the coalition -- and the contribution that Mr. Hochstein makes to the coalition, believe me, is substantive. Let's go back, and perhaps we can research the influence of Mr. Hochstein on the Liberal Party. They, as I say, used to have some values in this province; they used to be able to hold their heads up in this province.
What does Mr. Hochstein say about the minimum wage? He commissioned people to do a study, which he presented to me in my office. By the way, I pointed out to him, when he was quite critical of the Thompson report.... He said: "That's nothing but an academic report." I said: "Well, what about that academic report you gave me that said we should get rid of fair wage?" He said: "Oh well, that's different; that's my report."
But what does Mr. Hochstein's report say? Listen to this. He's borrowing from the new neoconservative agenda in the United States. This is what they have to say; this is the report that Mr. Hochstein gave me in my office. I'm going to quote from it because it's indicative of his thinking and, obviously, the thinking of some of the people he influences. This is the rationale being used right now in the U.S., borrowed by Mr. Hochstein and adopted by the Liberal Party. Listen to this. This is a quote from a study:
"Minority men and women are hurt severely by minimum wage laws, because the set rates restrict their ability to compete. Consider the effects of the mandated minima in general terms. A young black man would most likely win a job shampooing carpets over an older and more experienced white man if the black man would be willing to work for $5 an hour while the white man demanded $8 an hour to do the same job. But if a government body -- federal, state or local -- were to mandate a wage floor of $8 or even $7 an hour for carpet-shampooing, this young black man's ability to compete with the older and more experienced white man would be diminished."
That, my friends, sums up the philosophy of Mr. Hochstein, and it obviously sums up the philosophy of the Liberal Party here in British Columbia.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Do we have to go any farther than to look at the latest NewsLine, the newsletter for employees of ICBA member companies? Mr. Hochstein works for ICBA. Who do we have...? Whose smiling face is on the cover? The leader of the Liberal Party of British Columbia, who has cosied up to the right wing like no other Liberal in the history of this province has ever done. No wonder you left, my friend from the Sunshine Coast. No wonder you had to leave the Liberal Party. No wonder.
What are the realities? Never mind the puffball rhetoric we've heard today -- the stuff they have been spoon-fed by Mr. Hochstein and company, and Mr. Plecas. What are the real statistics in British Columbia? Never mind this doom and gloom that I hear. By the way, I will be bringing forward some further statistics on minimum wage.
You talked about minimum wage and its impact on youth employment. I'm going to be bringing forward some statistics about some of those Deep South states where -- you know what? -- they don't even have a minimum wage. Guess what: their youth unemployment is dramatically higher than it is here in British Columbia. Let's go to other provinces that have a much lower minimum wage, where youth unemployment is dramatically higher than it is here in British Columbia. What a bunch of nonsense.
Let's read into the record the real economic statistics here in British Columbia. Business incorporations.... Oh, the doom and gloom coming from the side opposite: "We've got to get rid of child labour laws; we've got to reduce the minimum wage." Shall I read about business incorporations in British Columbia?
Some Hon. Members: Yes, read it.
Hon. D. Miller: My members, obviously; my caucus.
The annual number of business incorporations rose 50 percent between 1991 and 1994, from 18,528 to 27,774 -- almost 10,000 new businesses. These doom-and-gloom guys say that if we don't scrap the child labour laws and lower the minimum wage, somehow our economy.... If these people were ever in power, don't... The public needs to be alerted to the devastation they would wreak.
On business bankruptcies I've heard: "Whoa, if you raise the minimum wage, business is going down the tube; they can't survive."
[ Page 14747 ]
What's the reality, particularly in the restaurant sector, which has had some quarrels with the minimum wage? What is the real experience of business bankruptcies in British Columbia?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: This is reality. This isn't spoon-fed stuff from Phil Hochstein or Bob Plecas. This is reality; these are statistics. The number of business bankruptcies has been falling since 1991, and by 1994 it was down to 827. This is a 35 percent reduction in business bankruptcies.
These guys think they can run an economy in this province. Employment in the service sector: people who depend on employment standards legislation for some minimum protection, which the member for Matsqui wants to take away.... Employment growth in the service sector of the B.C. economy has been very strong, particularly since 1992. Between 1992 and 1994, 72,000 jobs have been created in the service sector -- an increase of 12 percent.
Restaurant and tavern receipts -- probably many members here contribute....
An Hon. Member: Shame.
Hon. D. Miller: Shame.
Sales growth in the restaurant industry has been very strong over the past several years, increasing almost 20 percent between 1991 and 1994, and almost 50 percent between 1998 and 1994. That is the truth; that is the economic record in British Columbia.
As I say, I'm feeling quite....
An Hon. Member: Upset?
Hon. D. Miller: Not so much upset, but appalled. I am appalled that the Liberal Party in British Columbia has gone so far to the right that they're actually making the Reformers look like Liberals. They come in this House and move a motion to hoist, and they spend their entire time saying that we should dismantle provisions in the Employment Standards Act -- not new provisions that we brought in in this legislation, but provisions that have been the norm in this province for a very long time, since 1980. They stand in this House and cite as the reason for a hoist motion the fact that they want to get in, and they are disappointed that this government didn't gut the Employment Standards Act.
Hon. Speaker, they have displayed today that they have moved to become a party of the extreme right in a way that is clearer than has ever been displayed in this chamber since we all came together after the last election. The differences between the Liberal Party of British Columbia and this governing New Democratic Party have never been more clear, as we proceed and listen to the opening debate on the Employment Standards Act here today.
I hope we can move on. I note that the member for -- I'm not used to place-names, hon. Speaker -- Langley in her rather eloquent hoist speech constantly referred to looking forward to debating the bill clause by clause. I don't know whether that displays a lack of confidence in their own motion -- we'll just chalk that one up to befuddlement. Nonetheless, I do share her sentiment.
I presume that there are others who may wish to speak in second reading on the principles of this Employment Standards Act. Let me remind you that they present a minimum standard for employees in this province. These are reasonable provisions. We have listened. I have sat at meetings with people representative of the business community who said to me: "Mr. Minister, thank you for listening to us. Thank you for not proceeding with making benefits mandatory for part-time workers. Thank you for not including professionals. Thank you for accepting some of our advice in these particular areas; we are pleased about that. We're not saying that we totally embrace the bill, but thank you for doing that, Mr. Minister." We called closure on that debate. After that, I clearly said to them that we would move forward and share legislation so there are no unintended consequences.
I like to think I am an honourable member. When I stand in this House and say that that's what took place, I would hope, hon. members, that you would understand I am speaking as an honourable member. That is indeed what took place. I have lived up to the commitments I made with respect to consultation. This bill is now the property of members who are elected from every constituency in this province. We have known since November, when I announced that we would be dealing with legislation, that this moment would come. It is not satisfactory to have the Liberals stand up and say hoist, because they, I suspect, don't want to be put on the record too much. I suspect they're a bit nervous about this bill. I suspect that in the end they're going to be torn, and may even vote in favour of this legislation. I suspect that is the case. I think they are very nervous indeed at the extreme right-wing position they have now put themselves in. But that's not my problem, hon. Speaker; that is their problem.
So I look forward to a speedy resolution of this particular motion, to a speedy disposition of the balance of second reading, because I think we've canvassed the issues, and to getting on with the clause-by-clause debate. If what I hear from the Liberals today is reflected in their approach to the clause-by-clause debate, it is going to be one of the better debates that I will ever participate in. And, hon. members, I will ensure that the contents of that debate are made known as widely to the public as I possibly can, and I know there are other members who will assist in that endeavour. So, hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to participate in this hoist motion. It is patent nonsense. Let's get on with the business we were elected to do in this House.
[8:00]
Deputy Speaker: Members, the question before us is an amendment to the motion. I don't believe I need to read it. I shall simply call the question on the amendment.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 12 | ||
|
Warnke |
Farrell-Collins |
Gingell |
|
Stephens |
Serwa |
Neufeld |
|
Fox |
de Jong |
K. Jones |
|
Symons |
Anderson |
Tanner |
|
[ Page 14748 ]
| ||
|
NAYS -- 32 | ||
|
Pement |
Priddy |
Edwards |
|
Cashore |
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
|
O'Neill |
Garden |
Perry |
|
Hammell |
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
|
Miller |
Cull |
Gabelmann |
|
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
Evans |
|
Randall |
Beattie |
Doyle |
|
Janssen |
Streifel |
Jackson |
|
Tyabji |
Wilson |
Krog |
|
Copping |
Schreck |
Hartley |
|
Boone |
Chisholm | |
On the main motion.
C. Tanner: I've got to say that I notice the minister who is introducing this bill is about to leave the House, and how disappointed I am. We were good enough to listen to his tirade; I think he should listen to mine. I'm just getting warmed up. Maybe if the Speaker has some influence with the minister who introduced this bill, he can convince him to stay and listen.
I rise today to speak to Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act. Having seen, unfortunately, that the six-month hoist motion has been defeated, I think it's a shame, for the simple reason that I do believe that there is nothing that can be accomplished in the next few days that couldn't be more easily and better accomplished in six months, when we can get people who are interested in this very important piece of legislation to give us their opinions of it. One must naturally be suspicious when a bill is introduced on a day, and three or four days later we've got to debate it. I don't think there has been sufficient consultation, I don't think we've looked at it sufficiently, and I don't think we're going to have time. I'm really concerned that the minister is so forceful in wanting to rush this bill through.
I'd like, if I may, to talk to the general concept of the whole bill, the Employment Standards Act. The business world is staffed -- and I say that word knowingly -- by honest, hard-working, intelligent people who, for the most part, are wanting to make a responsible, reasonable living, enjoy reasonable working conditions and who have interesting and fulfilling work. That is the description of employees; it's what most employees are looking for. In the business world, the people who employ and manage those honest, hard-working employees are very hard-working, intelligent people who, for the most part, are wanting to make a reasonable profit, enjoy a harmonious relationship with their employees and want an even playing field as far as their competition is concerned.
This legislation attempts to define and regulate those 90 to 95 percent of employers and employees in this province that I've just described. Because we all know that there are 5 or 10 percent of both employees and employers who don't abide and who don't want those same things, this government is attempting to bring in -- and I guess they will be successful, since there are a lot more of them than there are of opposition members, for now -- legislation to deal with that 5 or 10 percent. Quite frankly, it's foolish.
As is usual with this government, particularly the class-conscious, sanctimonious, self-righteous ideologues who have overreacted -- and that describes some of them, but not all of the members on the other side.... Because there are a few employers who take advantage of their employees, and because there are a few employees who take advantage of their employers, this government, as usual, has overreacted.
[8:15]
I once had the occasion to buy out a company where the employees, some of whom had been employed for over 20 years and some of whom were in their fifties, were making minimum wage. I was frankly appalled. When I looked into the specific reasons for each of those employees who'd been there all those number of years and were earning those very small wages, in each individual case -- and for the employer -- it made perfectly good sense: they didn't have to work very hard, they more or less came in when they wanted to, they worked when they wanted to and they left when they wanted to. Mostly those salaries were incurred as a second income in households that didn't need the money, and it was a part-time, reasonable way for them to be employed. It worked for both people. Frankly, I couldn't believe that anybody, after that many years of employment, would be prepared to work for minimum wage, but there was a case. To talk about that is another story.
There are employees who take advantage of their employers, and there are employers who take advantage of their employees. Because there are many, many more employees than employers, it's very easy to bring in legislation that only deals with one group of people. This government, as usual, is going to take the simple way out, where the most folks are, and bring in legislation that is going to make it difficult for small-time employers. They will make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to make a living, because they're going to be snowed under with the sort of paperwork that this bill incurs.
I wonder if this government gave their Minister of Small Business any time at all. Did they consult with the Minister of Small Business at any time at all? Did his colleagues talk to him and ask him about the new self-employed entrepreneurs, which this province is attracting by the thousands? Did they listen to him when he told him that these people -- who are coming to this province and offering employment -- are investing their life savings and, by intestinal fortitude and the preparation to take risks, offering work to thousands of people in small businesses which employ less than five employees? There are literally thousands of them. The last thing they need is more paperwork and more imposition by government. What they need is help from government in two or three small ways, none of which are included in this bill.
I wonder if the government asked anybody besides their big union friends about what it takes to maintain the flow of government-sponsored paperwork to run any small business. Do they talk, or do they even begin to understand how much effort must be made by small entrepreneurs to maintain good relationships with their employees? Most entrepreneurs that I know think their most valuable assets are their employees; 95 percent of the business people I know think the first line of their business is represented by their employees, and they work very hard on that relationship. If a business wants to be successful, in the majority of cases their most valuable asset -- their employees -- is those people who chose to work for that employer.
The minister tells us he has consulted, and I assume one of those he claims to have consulted is the Coalition of B.C.
[ Page 14749 ]
Businesses. I'd like to read part of an article that was in today's paper about what they are saying about their so-called consultation with this minister. This is a description of Bill 29.
" 'It's a rat's nest of new rules and paperwork that will drive good employers crazy and drive the rule-breakers underground. This is not a plain-language, user-friendly piece of legislation. Furthermore, it takes away the ability of employers and employees to reach their own flexible working arrangement.'
"In a letter to Premier Mike Harcourt, coalition chair Suromitra Sanatani said Bill 29 entails a huge regulatory burden and asked for it to be withdrawn.
"The coalition, which represents 50,000 small and medium-sized businesses, said its 'biggest objection to Bill 29 is that it is built around an old-fashioned, confrontational model of the relationship between employers and employees....'."
That doesn't sound to me like people talking to the government, who have had any sort of consultation. It sounds more to me like -- and I quote from what I heard from some of those members when they consulted with the minister.... After about 20 minutes in the most recent so-called discussion, he said, "Well, we've obviously got a philosophical difference of opinion," and he walked out in a snit. I don't call that consultation. I call that: "I'm in charge and I'll tell you what you're going to get, and you're going to like it or lump it."
When I met with those same business people, who both individually and collectively met with this government, they told me that the so-called consultation was them being lectured to by that minister as to what he was going to do. I don't call that consultation. Consultation is give-and-take, and finding the mutual ground that we can both live with, and it's to the benefit of both employer and employee. The minister tells us he consulted. I don't call that consultation; I call that arbitrary decision-making on his part and laying down the law, without any recourse to the people who were brought over from Vancouver to listen.
It's no wonder that members from that side of the House have trouble understanding what I'm talking about with regard to business. I can proudly say that I've been a fair employer for 27 years. The majority of those employees have worked for me for as long as they wanted to, and the vast majority of those employees -- my employees; my family's employees -- have been treated with as muc respect, intelligence and ability to make a dollar as we could possibly give them. We maximized the salaries, bonuses and benefits as much as we possibly could. As small business people for all those years, we knew that if we didn't, our employees wouldn't give the service to our customers that we required. I don't think that side of the House understands that. I am speaking as a small business man of 27 years, and I'm speaking for literally thousands of small business people around this province who have had exactly the same experience as I have.
I don't know how many people have been in my employ in the last 27 years, but it probably runs to several hundred, and I can't think of.... In that length of time over that many years, in three different jurisdictions, I suspect there may have been three or four employees who were dissatisfied with me, and there might have been five or six employees who I was dissatisfied with. Most people find the work that they like to do, and most employers hire the people who can best do the work for them.
Most of the members on that side of the House come from backgrounds that are different from mine, and that's fine. There is a place for a large, diverse population to sit in this House. I think it's unfortunate that the majority of those who think differently from me sit on that side of the House, because their backgrounds are different. Frankly, they came from what I would call, in some respects, comfortable government jobs and union and public service jobs. I think they have never, ever had to put it on the line, and it shows up in this legislation. They've never had to take the risks of putting everything they own into an investment and losing sleep at night as to whether they can meet the payroll next month.
I know it's a cliche, but it's something that happens to people in business, particularly in small business. They have never had to know whether their competition was going to get too big and powerful and take them out of business. The employer would suffer, but so would the employees. They have never experienced the worry of having poor suppliers and maybe bad shipments. They've never understood, and they still don't understand, the fact that small business, while they pay lip service to it, is the backbone of this country. It is the backbone particularly of this province.
I seem to have stumbled into one cliche, so I might as well use another. Nothing happens in this province without a sale being made. It doesn't matter whether you cut a tree -- you've got to sell it eventually. It doesn't matter whether you dig something out of the ground -- you've got to sell it eventually. Accountants don't work unless there's a sale being made; lawyers have no work unless a sale has been made. The fundamental motivation of business, and consequently of this province and all provinces, is a sale. The person who makes that sale and the commodity that's exchanged are the things that motivate everything else that happens. It doesn't matter whether it's government, hospitals or roads. Somewhere or other, material has to change hands and a sale has to be made. That is the backbone of this province. It's not government; it's not the Education ministry, the Social Services ministry or the Health ministry. All those things can work only if the sale is made in the first place. A dollar has been created, and the employees who make that happen have received a salary for doing so. That's something that has been missed by this government, and I think it's missed in this legislation.
As a small business person, I suppose I could be accused of having a conflict of interest, because I have a great deal of experience in this field with employees and merchandising. The lack of experience is illustrated in this legislation and in a lot of the legislation that has come from the government in the past three and a half years. This probably best illustrates the fundamental difference between this side of the House and that. We are a middle-of-the-road party composed of a variety of people -- people from the public service and from business. I see no business people over on that side of the House, and they suffer from the lack of it. It's illustrated by the poor piece of legislation we have before us today.
I hope that in some way or another this government will have the intestinal fortitude that small business people have and hold back this legislation until the next sitting of this House. Some way or another, I hope it can be given the intense scrutiny and back-and-forth debate it deserves, not only in this House but among the thousands and thousands of businesses represented by various things like the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. They can have their input, and they can tell this government -- better than we can, perhaps, because they're the people who pay the taxes -- that you've made a mistake; you've gone too far, as usual; you've overreacted.
[ Page 14750 ]
[8:30]
F. Garden: I was on my feet earlier during the hoist motion, and at that time I said I was in a bit of a quandary as to whether I should say what I wanted to say about this bill completely then or to wait for my place. During the time that I did speak, and I'm now rising again, some of the platitudes I heard from the opposition made up my mind very quickly. There's some very clear misconceptions being stated by the opposition in this House on this particular legislation. The individual who just spoke made the intimation that they somehow have the "in" on small business, or they've been business people. It is just totally ridiculous.
I've spent 22 years in the union movement. I've spent 12 years working as an industrial relations supervisor for a major corporation, and during that time, my wife and I were involved in a small business enterprise. It had all the facets of a small business that have been described by the opposition. But what we managed to do during that time was live up to the laws of the Employment Standards Act that were in force, and ensure that, like many of the other sincere people who run businesses, we did all we could to make it as reasonable as possible for those we employed. But having said that, having had the experience in the union and in business, and also in small business, I still come to the conclusion -- and I said it earlier -- that there's a group of workers who are not covered by any particular type of union contract or business contract who need this kind of legislation in a progressive, democratic society.
I heard the other member who just spoke talking about the Liberals being a middle-of-the-road party. Well, you sure could have fooled me, based on the rhetoric we've heard both on the hoist motion and on this motion. They've been so right-wing in their views that to me they're making Attila the Hun look like a Sunday school teacher. I'm appalled. I'm going to say it again, because it's supposed to come from a Liberal opposition. I remember some of the former leaders of this Liberal movement in this country -- the one that got us into so much debt in the first place.... But they did have people in the Liberal movement -- and I can recall one -- who talked about a just society. That individual, I'm sure, would be appalled to hear what's coming out of so-called Liberals in this House on this particular bill. Because his concept of a just society involved making sure there were proper standards, both at federal and provincial levels, that protected those workers who, up to this time in B.C. and up to the time of this government being elected, were unprotected.
I can recall only a short while ago under the previous government, when the Tranquille institution was closed and professionals were released from that institution -- just laid off, because they closed it. The government of the day said: "No, we're going to put these people back into the society they came from, and we're going to ask local handicap societies to take care of them." In those days, there weren't too many unions involved in the handicap societies.
I can recall that government coming to these associations and saying, "Well, here's the equivalent of $6.50 an hour to pay the professionals," who had been employed at Tranquille but were now looking for work -- giving these associations a pittance to try and entice workers to look after the handicapped. Naturally, no professional worth his salt would work for that kind of money. So at that time, with no protection for the workers, the societies were left scrambling around to try and entice people to come and work for them and do a job in that group of handicapped societies around our area, and they couldn't get them. They couldn't get them because, as I said, they could only attract people that didn't have the kind of education they required. The other people that they did attract -- the dedicated ones, the ones that were prepared to come and work with these handicapped people regardless of what the wages were -- put it on the line and went to work. But generally it was a pittance. There was no protection for those workers; they had no union to look after them. We had to go by the employment standards of the day, and it just was not good enough.
This opposition, based on the rhetoric I've heard, is going to vote against this bill -- or is it? Or is it just another one of these situations, as I mentioned the other day, where they'll spend all their time bringing arguments against it, but when the time comes, they'll vote for it? That is hypocritical. Based on the rhetoric alone, there has been a clear difference shown between where that group wants to take this province.... I just want to say this: I'm not lumping in all opposition members, because I know that people with true liberal beliefs are going to stand up in this House and give this legislation a fair shot and a fair debate, and it won't be based on the right-wing philosophies that have been espoused by the others. We're going to be faced with another situation where they'll say one thing in this House and then they'll vote another way.
This debate, more than any other, is going to show the difference between us and them. They would say no to allowing five days' leave for workers to look after their families at particular times of the year. They'd say no to legislated protection for domestic workers. They'd be saying no to statutory holiday provisions for short-term workers, and on and on it goes. The things that we're trying to bring into this province, a progressive province that needs this kind of legislation, they would say no to. They'd get back to the old confrontational days: somebody had to go running to try to find a lawyer to fight their battles for them at the lower end of the scale -- if you were lucky enough to get one willing to work for somebody who wasn't making too much money.
It's just imperative that a caring government and a caring population see the direction that this province is going. As I said earlier in the hoist debate, when we are investing in infrastructure and in the forest renewal plan, for the benefit of all British Columbians, then we should also make sure that minimum protection is there for those workers at the lower end of the scale.
I mentioned this earlier, but it bears repeating: we have a plan for British Columbia. We have a plan that sees us managing our debt. We have a plan, and at least two major investment groups say that we're doing things right. We have a plan that's going to train skilled young men and women for the jobs that we see in the future, where we need to compete with other countries and economies. The economies that I'm talking about competing with are the economies of Japan and eastern and northern Europe, as they develop, and not the ones down south, in Mexico and Chile, where it seems to be a race to the bottom as far as environmental and labour standards are concerned. The Liberals would have us do that. The Libcreds -- I think I heard somebody call them that in the last little while -- would have us do that, but that's not our plan.
Our plan is to continue to raise the investment value of this province and raise the value of each and every British
[ Page 14751 ]
Columbian, so that at the end of a day's work, each one of them can say: "I'm being well treated; my employer treats me well." A fair employer will look at this legislation and say: "I could live with this; there are not too many changes here." The ones we need to guard against are the ones that will have domestic workers sleeping in laundry rooms, taking away their passports and really trying to get the last pound of flesh for the least bit of money they can. All I'm saying, as an MLA on this side of the House, is that in this kind of society, with the kind of economic prosperity that's out there, this is the very least we could do for these people.
Like I say, the next two days of debate are going to be very carefully measured. I'm going to be listening carefully to what comes from the opposition. I heard one talk earlier about how we should do away with child labour laws; they literally said that in this House. I'll be listening carefully; come the next election we'll be spinning out these stories, because people will be asked where they stand. We stand for the ordinary British Columbian; we stand for fairness in business dealings; we stand for fairness in labour laws; and we stand for fairness in employment standards.
R. Neufeld: It's obvious we're in night sittings when you can stand up twice in the matter of an hour and a half or so and talk to the same bill. You can see the process we're in. It's interesting to note that the member opposite said we're going to be here for two days yet discussing this bill in second reading. It will be interesting to see if he's correct.
Bill 29 in its entirety, as I said earlier, has some good sections. It has some parts that are no different -- maybe the language is a little different -- than the previous Employment Standards Act we had in British Columbia. I think that contrary to what a lot of the NDP members are saying -- and specifically some of the remarks from the minister responsible.... I was appalled at some of the things he was saying; obviously he had dreamt them up while he was out in the hallway. I don't think there is a member in this House who doesn't believe in fair employment standards. I don't think there is a member in this House who wouldn't treat an employee well. I think that if you go out to the general public and talk to business people and employees, you will find that same thing happening.
It parallels what we hear about young people. You only hear about the bad ones on the news, for instance; you never hear about the good ones. There are thousands of them out there, and they're tarred much with the same brush that the bad ones tend to be. That's not fair. The parallel here is that there certainly are a few employers who are not what you would call good employers, and there are a few employees who fit in the same bracket; but there's no need to tar all employers and employees with the same brush. If we're going to encourage small business in British Columbia to continue employing people.... Small business is the creator of most of the jobs in British Columbia -- in Canada, in fact. We have to have a system in place that allows small business to grow and flourish. That means that it should not be a sin for someone to make money and make a profit. That should be encouraged; it's part of what makes the whole world go around.
Some of the rhetoric I hear from some of the government members talking about how terrible and awful employers are just amazes me. I watched the member for Mission-Kent mockingly crying his eyes out because somebody said there would be a lot more red tape. It's unbelievable. Of course, maybe that member doesn't realize that when you have a small business, you work way more hours than most people do in your business; you don't have a lot of time for all this red tape. They need less red tape, and in most cases they need fewer regulations; they need a broader scope of regulations. We're going into a totally different world, and I just want to read part of an executive summary from the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living: "Increasingly, British Columbians are working in non-traditional work, including part-time jobs, contract work, self-employment and poorly compensated work." That is increasingly what's happening. I guess that's indicative of a government that has crushed the mining industry, is attacking the forest industry and the oil and gas industry, and is putting up barriers to a lot of those large industries, which create some of the best-paying jobs we have seen or will see in the future in British Columbia. If we can ever get those industries going back to where they should be, there might be some understanding with all those industries on what they can do, where they can do it and how they can do it. They're all running in limbo right now. Those are the kinds of jobs that are needed in British Columbia if we are going to continue to receive the services we presently receive. It's a simple matter of arithmetic.
[8:45]
The minister talks about how great the economy is, how many new businesses were formed and the increase in jobs. If we just look back at what has transpired in the last four years, never in the history of British Columbia has a government spent over $9 billion on infrastructure in four short years. This government has put British Columbia $9 billion further in debt. I know that's a bit more than what shows on the books, but take into account what was in the bank before they came to power and the supposed Columbia downstream benefits. It's phenomenal. Just think about how many jobs even $8 billion, let's say, creates in four years -- but that's all borrowed government money.
The member opposite talks about all the spinoff to small business. Well, I guess there is. There are all kinds of spinoffs to small businesses, but that ends when you can't borrow any more and when you can't go out to the markets and say: "Give me more, because I want to spend more."
The Ministry of Finance is finally getting the message. It's close to the end of this government's mandate, and maybe that's why they're finally getting the message that, no, we can't borrow any more. In the interim, they have borrowed and spent $2 billion extra on average every year that created a tremendous number of jobs, but now there's a cap. This government says we're not going to borrow that kind of money anymore, because we can't afford to. They have finally come to their senses. So what do you think is going to happen in the next four years? The good-paying jobs are on a downcurve like this, and the ones the Premier's forum talks about, the ones that are poorly compensated work, are on the upswing.
If we're talking about poorly compensated work, I can only imagine that they're talking about minimum-wage jobs. So I would think that if we're talking about minimum-wage jobs -- and the minister incorrectly stated that the member for Okanagan-Vernon said we had some problems with the minimum wage.... He was entirely incorrect. I guess he was out in the hallway, dreaming, because I listened to the member speak, and he didn't say anything about the minimum wage.
[ Page 14752 ]
We did talk about the regulations and red tape that are being put forward; whether you like it or not, there's more of it here. It shouldn't be here. If we're going to get into those kinds of jobs, and if that is the future for British Columbia.... Heaven forbid! I hope it's not. I hope we get a government at some point that has some sense and says: "We have to look at the well-paying jobs if we're going to keep surviving and keep doing what we're doing today." But if this NDP government is looking at the poorly compensated jobs, which the Premier's forum obviously says we are, then the last thing we should be doing is putting more shackles on the business that provides those jobs.
We need the flexibility in those small businesses to be able to deal with people who are working part-time, with single moms and maybe even some single dads. We have to be able to do that, but we can't do that with some of the new sections that are in the Employment Standards Act. The flexibility is gone. What we see here is an ideology, a union-type rigidity and a mentality -- that's the difficulty. Like I said earlier, I don't have a lot of problem with unions, and I do believe that there are segments of the workforce who have to be represented by unions. I don't have any problem with that.
But there is a group out there who does not need this rigidity. They have to be able to operate freely and openly and in an honest, forthright manner with their employees. Just like the last member, I believe that most employers treat their people fairly. I'm sure I did, but I can bet that there are a few employees who worked for me who could stand up here and say: "Hey, that guy didn't treat me fairly." But looking over the whole scheme of things, I think all the people who worked for me would say that I was a fair employer. That doesn't make me special or better than anyone else, but it says that most small businesses are that way.
As I said before, you work with small business, you don't work for them. If you don't have them working with you, you don't have a small business. It's just that simple. You're toast; you're gone. Those employees are your most important asset, so somehow you have to be able to work with them in this new age, this new world -- whatever we want to call it, if that's what it is. The old-style rigidity says we have to post on the wall a schedule that has to last for -- what is it? -- 26 days, and it has to be in force and has to be voted on by 65 percent of the employees. That's just absolutely ludicrous. It's crazy and it's unbelievable that we would try to do that. How in the world are young people going to work in that?
I said earlier that my son worked in the restaurant industry. Man, if they needed him, they phoned him and he was down there. He worked maybe four, five or six hours, but he got his time in and I didn't hear him complain. He liked his salary, he liked his tips and he worked hard for them. What's wrong with that? On top of that, when he was going to school and he had an exam or something and so he had to do some extra studying, guess what. He could change shifts just like that -- no problem, he could do that.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Under this process, I'm sorry -- you can't, because you've got to put it on the wall and you've got to have it there and it's got to be in force for 26 days. You talk about rigidity! I'm telling you, it's a union mentality that is driven into this; it's an ideology that's wrong.
Most of the bill is good; most of it is fine. Most of it is what we had before and what we all operated under, although I didn't agree with all of it. I don't think I agreed before and I don't agree now with protective clothing. I can tell you, in the businesses that I've been in, in the north, if you want to go out in the forest industry and work, or you want to go out in the oil patch and work, you need hard-toed shoes, a hardhat, some warm clothes, some underwear and a good pair of coveralls. What's wrong with an employee having to buy them? What's wrong with that? Golly, I did and I'm still here -- it didn't affect me one bit. But before, and even now, you have it written into the Employment Standards Act that the employer is responsible for this -- and actually, it doesn't explain fully what protective clothing is.
An Hon. Member: Read the bill.
R. Neufeld: I did read that part of the bill.
Interjections.
R. Neufeld: It's interesting, eh? Obviously I touched a nerve -- either that or they got to the end of the story they were reading. We had members opposite, from the NDP, talk about everything except the bill, so I guess it's wide-ranging debate.
They talked about what was going on in New Zealand -- one did. They talked about what was going on in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, and how terrible Alberta is: they are were sending all their social assistance recipients over to British Columbia. Well, those people haven't read the findings either. Had they looked, had they read the information put out by the Ministry of Social Services, they would have found that very few are coming from Alberta -- in fact, it's almost minimal.
What's happening in Alberta.... Whether they're doing it right or wrong, people are going back to work. Guess what: there isn't so much red tape or so much b.s. to go through. It isn't so difficult to get a company started. It isn't so difficult just to move around. That's what happens in Alberta. Those people are back to work. The people on our social assistance rolls come from that other socialist haven called Ontario; that's where they're coming from -- and that's the government's own studies -- not from that terrible Alberta.
So this government would be wise maybe not to adopt all the policies of Ralph Klein but maybe to look closely at what's happening there, because it's interesting. Ralph Klein is still high in the polls. Isn't that interesting? Guess where Mike Harcourt is. He's at the bottom of the barrel.
An Hon. Member: You're not allowed to use the member's name. You know that, don't you?
R. Neufeld: Excuse me. The member caught me, and I apologize. I'm not supposed to.... The Premier of British Columbia, the top dog -- he's the lowest. In fact, I don't think anybody's ever been as low as he is. He has done all these things that he says are right: "I spent all the money. I'm looking after everybody. I'm doing everything for British Columbians." Guess where he's at. He's at the bottom of the barrel. But he always points over to Alberta, that little place east of us, and says how terrible those people are and that everything they're doing is wrong -- yet they're still popular.
An Hon. Member: Not the people.
[ Page 14753 ]
R. Neufeld: Obviously, they must be doing some of the things that people want done. I think all people.... Basically, in everyone's heart in this room, everyone knows that we can't continue the way we have continued in these past four years. British Columbia cannot afford to incur those kinds of debts and responsibilities and carry on. Somehow we have to put a whoa on the horses.
We get members opposite talking about the federal Liberals. I'm not going to blast the federal Liberals. I'm not going to say that they're cousins to the Liberals here in this House. But they've got a problem, and that problems is all ours. It's $500 billion worth of debt -- $500 billion. Members opposite keep talking about.... Oh, they want to cut back, and they want to download.
Well, I just wonder, on the flip side, what do they think is going to happen federally? Who is the taxpayer federally? Is that some distant cousin from the east? I guess not. It's all of us. We're all in the pot together. We're all in the glue together.
Somehow we have to deal with it. We can't always blame someone else or say, "That person is wrong," or "The federal government, it's all their fault, and, my goodness, if we had received all the transfers that we should have from the federal government, we wouldn't have a deficit at all" -- all those kind of things. I suppose that would be great. We haven't been able to do that. The federal government has continued spending far more than Canadians could afford. That's why we're in the glue.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: I'm responding to the member from.... You never really hear him in the House other than when he's heckling over in a corner. I think he's from Skeena. He's from Skeena, and he's sitting over there heckling. That's about the only time you hear from him.
An Hon. Member: You stop picking on my friend from Skeena.
R. Neufeld: Are you really not sure what he's saying?
If we don't look closely at good, well-paying jobs in this province, we're in trouble. If this government wants to continue looking at poorly compensated work and tying regulations like this on it, we're not going to have any work at all.
I'm going to relate a little story. This is about regulations in British Columbia compared to Alberta, and how much easier it is in Alberta to get something done compared to British Columbia. They're building an OSB plant in Fort Nelson. It will create 300 full-time IWA jobs. Those are good-paying jobs -- 300 of them. They're all union, all IWA. They're the kind of jobs you need if you're going to continue paying for the things that you do in this province and receiving the kinds of things that you do in this province. Those are the kinds of jobs you need.
They have, interestingly enough, quite a few loads to take to Fort Nelson so they can build this plant. They tried to bring them through the port of Vancouver. Some of the parts for this plant are coming from Germany, and some of them are being built in Edmonton. The red tape, the b.s., the things they had to go through to try to move those 40-some loads off ship, through Vancouver and up through British Columbia.... The truck drivers could have eaten in British Columbia cafes and bought British Columbia fuel. They could have been British Columbia truckers, with all the things that go along with it: pilot cars and you name it.
They incurred so much red tape in British Columbia that do you know what they're doing? Those loads are going to the port of Tacoma, Washington. They're going through the state of Washington, down through the U.S., and they're coming up through Alberta. Some of them are going all the way to Hay River. They're being put on a barge -- if you can believe this -- sent down the McKenzie into the Liard River system, into the Fort Nelson River system and back to Fort Nelson. It has probably cost them $1 million more to move it, but because of the red tape and the b.s. that they would have had to go through in British Columbia, it's cheaper to do it that way. And the members opposite say that they're encouraging business. It's absolutely bizarre that we would do that.
[9:00]
H. Giesbrecht: The best economy in the country.
R. Neufeld: The member talks about the best economy in the country. I just told him why: it's because British Columbia is a further $8 billion in debt; that's why. If you took that out in the last four years, your economy wouldn't be so rosy. But that's how you understand things.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Again the member for Skeena.
If you go onto some of the things in the bill that are going to be a hindrance to small business.... I'm just going to mention one. Section 30 says that it makes farmers jointly liable for wages owed to farm labourers even after a farmer has paid a farm labour contractor. He or she could still be held liable if the contractor failed to pass the wages on. You know, there comes a time when the farmer.... What's he going to do?
H. Giesbrecht: The labour contractor gets his money, and the worker gets diddly-squat. That makes a lot of sense to the right wing, does it?
R. Neufeld: Listen; there we have the member for Skeena just chirping away again. What he says is that every operation that hires out farm labourers is crooked. That's the problem with the union-driven mentality of members like that. It surprises me with the family that that member comes out of. Obviously he should go out and grab a bit of sunshine; it would do him some good.
There comes a time when a person pays for a job that they have received. That should be the end of it. But no, not this group. It will come forward in some of the other bills that I've been told about -- the Motor Vehicle Act and those types of bills -- where we'll see some really interesting things come forward.
It's not in the best interest of small business to be shackled with more regulations. Everybody understands that we need good standards, that we should have good standards; people should be able to make a good living. I don't have any problem with that -- none whatsoever. But we cannot shackle the business or the industry that gives us the
[ Page 14754 ]
most jobs in British Columbia. That's told to us in spades by the B.C. Business Council. The British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, which represents 15,000 businesses, have said: "Look, this isn't going to work. It's not fair, and it should be dealt with again."
In fact, what is interesting is a note that just came in today from the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. I'm going to read just a couple of paragraphs. It says:
"It is totally unreasonable that you would feel you must rush Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act, to second reading. In our meeting with you last week" -- I should clarify this; this is a letter to "Mr. Premier" -- "you promised you'd call me after cabinet had considered sending Bill 29 out as a draft, or expose your legislation, and before you proceeded with the bill in the Legislature.
"Apparently, it seems that your mind was already made up, because your decision to rush ahead with this bill was made before cabinet even met. Last week we were promised an olive branch. Today that promise has turned out to be a hollow one."
That's the difficulty that small business and the Coalition of B.C. Businesses group that represents many of the small businesses in British Columbia have with this government. They talk the consultation route; they do all these things.
[L. Krog in the chair.]
It's like I said before: it's fine to go out and get all those ideas, but don't have a predetermined mind-set before you go out there. Be willing to learn, be willing to listen and be willing to put that down -- not an ideology. Don't just go out there for the sake of going out there, so you can stand in the Legislature and beat the chests and beat the desks and say: "Yes, we went out and consulted with everyone for years, and this is what we've come up with." That's fine. But at least when you get the information, don't be deceitful; be honest enough to bring forward what people have said -- both small employers and employees. That's not what happened here; you didn't bring forward what the people really said. Mark Thompson went out with a preconceived idea; this government had a preconceived idea. That's what we're looking at today, and that's what's wrong with Bill 29.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I rise in second reading debate on Bill 29 to provide the Alliance Party position with respect to this perhaps important piece of legislation.
I think that as we start to get into the philosophical question around this debate, it's important for us to recognize that the document upon which this particular bill and the amendments to the original statute are based -- Rights and Responsibilities in a Changing Workplace, as provided by Mark Thompson -- is largely the philosophical direction provided for the specific detail of the bill. I think that as we are in second reading debate, because we've heard a bit about some of the specifics and questions around it, I'd like to try to link to the bill some of the commentary that was in the original document -- the document that's been around, actually, for many, many months -- and tie that into our concerns with respect to Bill 29: where we have concerns, and where we think that the bill is in fact on the right track.
I'm going to take liberty with the fact that second reading debate is supposed to be a discussion in principle on the larger questions surrounding what it is we're attempting to deal with. I think that's important for those who would be following this debate. Ironic as it might be, one of the strongest unions in the province has already had its employees long gone -- and I refer, of course, to the press gallery. But notwithstanding that comment, let me say that they're very careful to make sure that their hours are not pressed beyond what their employment minimums are.
Let me say that I think one of the issues that is important here.... In fact, I would argue that there are two questions: one is in the definition of employee in a general context as reported in this document, and the other is the definition of what constitutes work. I want to talk about that just a little bit. I think that where we run into some difficulty when we get into debating this kind of legislation is that we tend to focus in on the text of the legislation, which is important for us to do, particularly in committee stage. But we tend to try to advance in a case-by-case scenario how this particular piece of legislation may or may not affect particular kinds of businesses, particular kinds of workers -- whether they're unionized, non-unionized, domestics, farmworkers and so on -- and we often lose sight of the larger, broader picture of what it is we're attempting to do.
Clearly the Employment Standards Act and the provision of this bill is an attempt by government to regulate, to moderate, the workplace in order to protect the employee against the unscrupulous actions of an employer. But more importantly, I think, this bill also provides an opportunity for the government of the day to put forward its philosophical direction with respect to how we should be advancing the notion of employment generally and what we should be doing with respect to the kind of regulatory authority government has.
Clearly you'll find those who will argue that we should have no regulation whatsoever -- let's just completely have a free market; let's not have any regulation with respect to workers; let's deregulate wherever possible. And that is a mood that has been actively formented in the United States, particularly in the kind of thinking of the Republican Party now. And it has, I think, crept across the border because of the kinds of agreements that we have had on a continental basis: the free trade agreement; the talks about harmonization of labour and labour laws; the North American Free Trade Agreement, which brings in Mexican regulation and therefore the attempt to try to moderate working regulations with respect to workers in Canada and to try to blend them into a kind of generally accepted practice in North America.
Then there are those who would argue on the other side, that what we should have is absolute regulation: that we should regulate everything to the fullest amount; that we should be rigid; that we should be direct; and that we should be very specific with respect to what an employer's rights are with respect to the employee and what the employee can seek in terms of government protection within the workplace. And clearly what we have to try to find as legislators here is the balance between absolute regulation and no regulation.
We've heard from some members opposite.... I'm thinking of the member for Cariboo, who talked about some of the early labour difficulties that we had. I know that the member for Mission-Kent talked also about the proposition of a lack of labour laws; one example was the necessity for standardized laws that would protect child labour. He was somewhat shocked at the response that he heard from the member for Matsqui.
But I think that what we have to try to deal with here, as we look at the overall philosophical question on this debate, is
[ Page 14755 ]
the extent to which, the degree to which, government in fact should be involved in the regulatory authority. Quite clearly, when we get down to a definition of work and a definition of employee, I think that we need to broaden the parameters, the horizon that we have in terms of our general acceptance of those definitions. You know, it will come as a shock to some British Columbians and Canadians -- but perhaps not a shock to those who follow in detail the economy of Canada -- who may hear that roughly 52 cents of every dollar that is generated in the Canadian economy is actually generated through unpaid labour. Now, that means that well over half of the actual dollars, the moneys, that circulate in our economy are generated through unpaid labour. That's not to say that that isn't work, because it clearly is work. But it isn't work under the definitions of this act.
If we're dealing with more than half of our economy being generated through what was generally not considered to be regulated labour, then that's an important sector of the population that we need to look at. We need to consider that non-profit organizations -- a very large and growing segment of the population, very active in doing all kinds of work that is necessary with respect to the social contract in Canada and how that social contract is advanced in our communities.... These people are involved on a day-to-day basis with respect to the provision of all kinds of work that doesn't fall under labour regulation or labour legislation but is critically important to the economy of Canada.
Some would argue -- and I think I heard from the member from Langara.... I don't want to put words in that member's mouth, but I think I heard the member talking about the underground economy that has taken place as a result of regulation. To a degree, I think that the member is right. The more the regulation, the greater the degree of regulation and the lack of flexibility that we have with respect to our workplace, the more people are going to try to bypass that regulation or get under that regulation by involving themselves in barter and trade or work-in-kind. There is a myriad of different activities that they will do in order to accomplish their goals and try to bypass what may be seen as restrictive legislation or regulation from government.
In order for us to understand that, we have to attack the notion of work being paid labour, because it is more than that. As we start to look at the changing economic paradigm and how we as a population are going to adjust to that and take advantage of that change, we have to understand that the notion of work versus labour is a concept that we're going to have to grapple with in debate. More and more people are going to find -- as our economy changes and our technology advances, as we become more directed by technological advances in such things as the Internet, the information highway, and the massive move toward our new structure in communication -- that the labour-intensive kind of employment is going to diminish. There will be fewer numbers of us actually involved in a nine-to-five, structured employment workplace. That isn't going to be the norm very soon.
[9:15]
We have to understand that when we put in these regulations, we need to have maximum flexibility to accommodate the change that is inevitable in our society. A good, forward-thinking government with some vision would understand that that's coming down the tube, would understand that we're going to have to adjust to that and would be moving legislation in advance, so that populations would be able to take advantage of those changes without the real strains that happen within our communities and societies through growing unemployment, a lack of retraining and improper skills development in our schools and universities. They would be making sure that we have people that are able to take advantage of the changes when they're here.
One of the problems we have with this bill is that it doesn't have that kind of vision. It tends to think back to.... I take a comment from the member for Peace River North, who was saying that it tends to be union in its mentality. There are clauses in here that are very clearly that. I don't say that as a negative, necessarily; I say that by way of definition -- as defining, as an adjective. That tells us why, for example, in Bill 29 we try to structure work by virtue of the number of hours, and everything that we do has to be brought down to an hourly rate. It doesn't work that way in the modern world.
We have to allow small business the opportunity to have flexibilities that will allow employees the opportunity to work variable hours; to work perhaps for months and then not for months, to be able to work morning and evening shifts, split-shifting, job-sharing -- all of those kinds of creative ways in which we can maximize employment and minimize the rigidity that is being put in place to the small business entrepreneur, to the people who are working in the non-profit organizations, which are a growing segment of our population, and to those people who are first-time entrants into the workplace, who would dearly love to get access to employment of any kind, and who need to build up a portfolio with some experience so that as they take their curriculum vitae to an employer they can demonstrate to that employer that they actually do have some practical work experience.
If I have a concern -- and I said so when Mr. Thompson brought out his original report -- it is that the bill tends to reduce or in some way remove flexibility from the workplace that I think has to be there. We have to have a maximum opportunity for that flexibility, and so where the director and the powers of that director become onerous, I think it becomes onerous around that concept. We need to break away from the traditional thinking about what constitutes work and what constitutes employment.
I would say, also, that we have to recognize that we are entering into a new economic paradigm with respect to the globalization of our economy. If I can speak for a moment about that -- because there's nothing that we'll do in this Legislative Assembly that impacts upon the working people of British Columbia which will not in some way affect our competitiveness with our trading competitors to the south, in the Pacific Rim, and of course in the European bloc.
This is a critically important issue. I heard the member opposite say during the labour bill that there were all kinds of discussions about the flight of capital from British Columbia -- that it was all going to go south and that we were going to lose our competitive advantage, and so on. Notwithstanding the economic statistics of this government.... To give some credit where it's due, British Columbia has a strong economy today. I don't diminish that, and I think that we'd be foolish to try and argue differently, because the statistics are very clear on that question. However, notwithstanding that, we are still incredibly vulnerable in British Columbia because we have not put in place an economic strategy that combines a strategy nationally on the protection of investment, the ownership of
[ Page 14756 ]
that investment and the maintenance of an independent economy within British Columbia and within Canada that is going to resist continental forces, which are going to try and harmonize us to the degree that we are going to have to look at matters with respect to the working conditions of women and men in B.C.
The lack of vision that comes out of Ottawa today is appalling. It's terrible. I had such hope for the government -- in light of the rather bleak shadow that was left from the Mulroney years -- that we might have such vision and such commitment. But the reason that I recoil and press so strongly, and I press again.... It's unfortunate that we didn't hear from the member for Vancouver-Langara, who is a person whom I have some respect for on this issue in particular.... It's unfortunate he didn't come out and say what the Liberal position is with respect to a minimum wage, because we want to know that. The people of British Columbia want to know that. And I'll tell you that the Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly said that if they were in government, they would remove minimum wage legislation.
I'll tell you what that plays into. That plays into the notion that somehow, through the removal of these kinds of regulations with respect to the protection of workers in British Columbia, we move toward harmonization of our working economy in British Columbia with the NAFTA and the FTA agreements and with the movement in the United States now. What he's saying is that we have to divide the wealth-creation sector from the wealth-producing sector so that those people who have control over the economy are able to maximize their advantage at the expense of working people.
That causes me a lot of concern. Clearly the members in the Alliance believe that we should set a minimum wage standard that is going to be a workable minimum wage in the province, which will be $7 and will escalate over the next five years to $8.50. We say it clearly now, and the reason we have to do that is because we have to protect those British Columbians who are working, to allow them an opportunity to continue to work here and invest the money that they get in terms of capital advancement in this province.
I find it ironic, absolutely ironic. The member for Richmond Centre was asking: what is the minimum wage? I've told you what our position is on that. I've put it on the record. I hope the Leader of the Opposition comes in here tomorrow and puts on record what the Liberal Party minimum-wage standard is so that we can find out exactly where they're coming from. And I'll tell you why we do that. Because we are threatened in this province if we do not maximize our capability to own and develop our economy in B.C., to look after the interests of British Columbians first. And if we don't do that -- and we won't with the kind of deregulation we're hearing, which is completely foreign to conventional Liberal thinking both provincially and nationally.... That's coming out of that party now, and that's why I press on it. This isn't to try and score cheap political points; it's because that party pretends to want to be government of British Columbia, and if they're going to be government in B.C., then they had better come forward....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member for Richmond Centre says that it's not pretending, and that they're going to be. Well, if they are indeed going to be the government of British Columbia, and if they have the audacity to determine on behalf of British Columbians who is going to vote for whom -- which is a little arrogant, I must say; I certainly would never pretend to tell the voters how they're going to vote -- then we have to know what their position is on that matter, because it's critically important. Let me say that where small business is shackled in this province -- and there are problems with Bill 29, and we intend to raise them in some detail in committee stage -- is due to the incredible cost, through taxation, of doing business in B.C.
It isn't the attack on the minimum wage that we need to be looking at. It isn't the deregulation of the minimum wage for young people, single mothers, new entrants and immigrant people -- all of the people the Liberals would have work for less money -- that we should be going after. It is the cost of this institution, the cost of taxation, the red tape and regulation, and the fact that we make small business the tax collector in British Columbia. That's what we should be adjusting, because for every dollar we spend on a working woman or man, young or old, in British Columbia, that is money that will be invested in our economy here. It is the most sensible thing we can do.
I find it incredible that we have a political party, which purports to be free enterprise, standing up and saying that they are going to deregulate to provide an advantage to harmonization with the kind of corporate capital that is coming from outside our borders, so that we can harmonize our interests and limit opportunities in British Columbia in terms of employment. We could find ourselves in a situation where we are no longer able to share the wealth of this great province because we've sold our birthright through expedient means to try to gain some political power and authority.
That's why I have said before, and I say again -- not for cheap for political points, but because it is fraudulent not to do so -- that the Leader of the Opposition had better come out and tell us: what is their position on a minimum wage? What is their position with respect to deregulation of the workplace? What is their position with respect to corporate taxation? What is their position with respect to taxation on small business? We know what the government's position is, and I've challenged it; I challenge it openly. The corporate capital tax, I have said over and over again, is theft; it needs to be done away with.
I have gone on record tonight to tell you what the Alliance Party position is with respect to a minimum wage. We've also said how we're going to accommodate small businesses, who may see that they'll be affected by a rising minimum wage, by suggesting that there will be an opportunity through taxation reform, government restructuring and a limitation on the demands we make on small business.
We're prepared to go on record and say what our position is; I would expect that we're going to get that from the Liberal opposition and Reform Party, and I hope that we're going to see in more detail from the minister in committee how he defends some of the sections in this particular bill, which I think are indeed onerous to -- and in some instances, offensive to -- small business.
Let me say that as we look at the philosophy of this report.... I come back again to the notion of what is in the report by Mark Thompson. One of the reasons we didn't support the hoist is that this has been around for a long time for people to study.
[ Page 14757 ]
With the indulgence of the House, I'd like to acknowledge our researcher here, Theresa Newhouse, who is the researcher for the Alliance Party. Notwithstanding answering phones and correspondence, she managed to put together one of the most detailed analyses of this bill in a matter of about one day -- not even a day; half a day.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: She has done an excellent job indeed, and I'm pleased that she's still with us today in order to provide direction and guidance.
Let me say that as we go through this particular report, we also have concerns that with the direction we're taking in the province, we have to make clear the distinction between small business, which is small-small business; and medium-sized business, which is small-big business; and big business. There are very real differences.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The minister is saying that there are different categories, and indeed there are. I think what we have to do -- and what is not really covered very well in this document; it could have been dealt with in considerably more detail -- is look at this bill in light of these distinctions and differences. There has to be flexibility of operation between that which is a small business and that which is a medium-sized or small-big business.
I heard a commentary from the Premier not long ago with respect to the earning capacities of small business, and he was talking in the millions of dollars. That is not small business; that is small-big business. He was also taking about non-union employment and non-union workers in the capacity that paralleled union employment centres. Clearly those two are apples and oranges. The need for regulation in one, the union shop, is covered by collective agreement, and that collective agreement is freely negotiated between an employer and the employees or the representatives of each of those two authorities. People who are working in a non-union shop may in fact opt to be non-union because it provides an opportunity both for individual access to the employer with respect to flexibility in the workplace and it also provides an opportunity for family-run businesses to be able to bring in workers on a seasonal and casual basis.
I'm going to yield to my colleague for Okanagan East on the matter of domestics and some of the matters with respect to women. She will deal with that separately.
It's very clear, as we look at the philosophy of this particular bill, that the government has attempted to lump them all into one pot, to come out with one blueprint, a kind of cookie-cutter that just goes over the top and says: "There you go, one size fits all." I don't think it works.
One of the problems we have this bill, notwithstanding the powers of the director, is in the manner by which the enforcement section, part 2, applies. If we look at the existing act and we look at this new section -- and this is one of the areas, in fact, where we do have some considerably new legislation in place -- we have to understand the implications that this may have on small-small business in relation to what it may have on the larger businesses and the larger corporate sector that may be able to mitigate against some of these enforcement regulations -- because, quite frankly, they have the money and the employees and the lawyers, and so on, to do so.
That's a problem for us, because we are interested in protecting small-small business, and we are concerned that the lack of flexibility that we have in the provisions of this bill and the enforcement regulations in this bill are going to cause some serious consequences and serious difficulties for entrepreneurs who are in the small-small business sector. So I would say that that is true.
[9:30]
Let me comment also with respect to corporate officers' liability, which is essentially much the same as the old act. Under section 19, the old act deals with this matter, notwithstanding what we've heard from some members in the opposition today. But there is one particular aspect of that with respect to the provision of a liability, and that is the director's liability with respect to corporation, that I think we need to be concerned with. Again, it deals with the clear distinction that has to be made between the liability of small-small business -- that is, the officers associated with it -- and the non-profits and societies that may be impacted by this legislation. That is not clearly defined in that particular section of the bill. So we will want to go into that in some detail as well.
I'm going to close my remarks now by saying, in a philosophical direction from a philosophical question, that we think that employment standards legislation is essential. We have to put them in place in order for us to be able to protect the interests of those people who work within the province of British Columbia. We have to recognize, however, that if we are to be able to put in place progressive legislation, we must challenge the notion of what constitutes work and what constitutes labour. If we take exception to the Mark Thompson report, it's because it didn't have the vision to recognize that we are in a changing paradigm economically; that in fact the social contract is now changing fairly significantly; and that if we are to survive as our economy grows and as our population demands new training and access to the economy, we must be flexible in the manner by which we regulate those employees who go forward into that workforce.
Let me say that we believe that a visionary bill, one that would have been more expansive, would have provided far greater flexibility in terms of the division of labour that is provided here between those who are in direct employment, those who are employees and those who develop some flexibility between those two.
We look forward to committee stage. I look forward to the opportunity for us to be able to get into some detail. I think this is important legislation. We have already served notice that we will be filing some amendments with the minister. I hope that the minister will accept those amendments in the spirit that they're offered, which is one of constructive alteration to what is, I think, an important piece of legislation.
D. Symons: I gather that by prior arrangement there was to be a motion to adjourn debate at 9:30 p.m., and I would so move.
Motion approved.
[ Page 14758 ]
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; L. Krog in the chair.
The committee met at 2:44 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 42: minister's office, $461,000 (continued).
L. Reid: I will simply take a moment to introduce my colleague the hon. member for Abbotsford on his first day in committee. I ask the minister to respond in infinite detail to my colleague.
[2:45]
J. van Dongen: I consider it a privilege and a responsibility to be here and pose some questions to the minister. I have about half a dozen general questions or issues with respect to the Ministry of Health. These are things that have come up in my constituency.
I had a phone call from a constituent who is concerned about the cost of drugs under, I assume, the Pharmacare program, where we're talking about the cost of generic pills versus brand-name pills. In this particular case the woman involved had some kind of an allergic reaction or difficulty with the generic product, so she was obligated to buy the more expensive brand. Her concern is that the rules are somewhat unfair in that if she were able to use the generic product, she would be reimbursed for that -- it would be eligible under Pharmacare. Because she has to use the brand-name product, she has to pay the whole cost of those pills. She feels it would be more fair and equitable if she just paid for the incremental cost of the branded product over the generic product. Can the minister comment and explain the rationale behind this approach?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to welcome the member for Abbotsford to the estimates debate and thank him for his question. The low-cost-alternative program that was introduced last year has resulted in a cost savings to the taxpayers of British Columbia of about $17 million while providing effective, chemically identical medication to the people of the province.
The member raises two interesting points that I'd like to clarify for him and for his constituent. First, the low-cost-alternative program provides that Pharmacare will pay the cost of the lowest-priced alternative drug which is chemically equivalent. If the individual wishes to purchase a higher-priced drug, Pharmacare will pay the equivalent of the low-cost alternative, and your constituent can simply seek reimbursement from Pharmacare for that lower-cost equivalent. Once PharmaNet is fully implemented around the province, your constituents and all others in the province will be able to pay only that top-up part of the cost if they wish to purchase the patent drug rather than the generic equivalent at the counter.
The other point that the member raised is about the small number of cases where there may be some allergic reaction not to the chemical, obviously -- the chemicals are identical; they have to be in order for a generic drug to be put on the market -- but to fillers and other additives in the tablets. Where there is a demonstrated reaction or intolerance of the generic or low-cost alternative, the Pharmacare client can have her physician fill out a special authority form for Pharmacare, and Pharmacare will pay the price of the drug to which there is no intolerance.
We recognize there are some clear issues around low-cost alternatives that needed to be addressed, and we have done so. We have not limited choice. If a person wishes to purchase the patent drug, they have every right to do so, and we will reimburse for the cost of the low-cost alternative. We also have brochures available through Pharmacare that we could make available to the member's office so that he can inform his constituents of these features of the program.
J. van Dongen: I'd like to thank the minister for his response to that question, and I'm sure that the constituents will be pleased with the answer.
My next question relates to the Abbotsford hospital. I know the minister has answered a number of questions about the hospital in response to questions from the member for Matsqui. I really only have one question at this point. I understand that a value-for-money audit on the original design of the hospital was done last fall. I would like the minister to confirm whether that understanding is correct. If I am correct, would he commit to providing me with a copy of that audit?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There is a value-for-money analysis being done of the MSA hospital. It has not been completed; it is underway right now. Staff tell me they expect it to be completed within the month. It is a public document. The hospital is fully participating in this analysis. I'll instruct staff to make sure the member receives a copy when it has been completed.
J. van Dongen: A further question to the minister, then: is it correct to say that there was no value-for-money audit done last fall? I want to be clear that there was no announcement made of a value-for-money audit.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to clarify that the member and I are talking about the same thing. A value analysis is being done on the proposed design for the new MSA hospital, but not on the existing operation at Abbotsford. The announcement of this value analysis was made last fall. We are talking about the same analysis. We expect it to be completed shortly. When it is done, I'll ensure that the member receives a copy.
J. van Dongen: Further to that question, then: the decision and the announcement by the government during the
[ Page 14759 ]
Abbotsford by-election were made without the benefit of this value analysis. There was a downsizing of the hospital announced in the proposal. That was done without the benefit of this value-for-money analysis. Is that a correct rendition of the facts?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member might want to review Hansard. The member for Matsqui and I canvassed this at some length. Let me say, briefly, that the decision to redesign MSA at a smaller number of beds was initially made as a result of two things: population estimates for the catchment area for the hospital and, more importantly, increased effectiveness in utilization of hospital beds, both in the Fraser Valley and elsewhere in the province. Hospitals are reducing the average length of stays. Increasingly, they are coordinating their operations with community-based and home-based services so that people do not have to be admitted to hospital to receive needed health services. That has resulted in a change in the underlying assumptions about how large a hospital ought to be to serve a particular catchment area. That's just the straight analysis of what size is needed for a community. The value analysis is to ensure that the government is receiving good value for capital dollars spent in the construction of a facility -- that for this number of beds and those sorts of services, the design is efficient for delivering services and fits within the means of the taxpayers to construct.
J. van Dongen: Then I'd like to ask the minister: will there be a significant redesign of the 500-bed design? Will there be a significant change in the design in terms of going to the proposal for what I think is a 350-bed hospital?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The reduction in size, as the member knows, is on the edges -- from an initial size of 350 to 300 and from a projected top size of 500 to 400. Staff advise me it will take about three months to complete that redesign. It is not contemplated that they have to start from ground zero and build up again.
J. van Dongen: I want to express some concern about the value analysis, and maybe I don't have a complete picture of what's entailed in a value analysis of a capital project. It seems to me that considerations for getting value for money have to be made during the design process. To review the project from a value-for-money perspective after the design is done is kind of like going after the chickens or the horse after the barn door has been left open. It seems to me that the government should have a clear approach to building such considerations into the initial design of the project. Could the minister comment on that view?
Hon. P. Ramsey: One challenge that we and agencies responsible for the design and construction of health services have is that very often the designers of such facilities have their own economic interests at heart at least as much as delivering an effective institution for the delivery of services. Treasury Board has instructed all ministries with extensive capital budgets to do a value analysis of the building systems, materials and other factors that can make the difference between a facility that serves well and one that might be considered a bit elaborate for something constructed with tax dollars.
This is being done across government for all projects in the province. It is an initiative of the Minister of Finance, and I commend her for her work in making sure that we get good value for our capital dollars. I believe the member may know that it is a standard practice in the private sector. We believe that this will allow us to continue to build necessary facilities within the means of the taxpayers of British Columbia.
J. van Dongen: What terms of reference or guidelines does Treasury Board give to designers in respect to the work they do for government, particularly the Ministry of Health? Can the minister refer to a document that sets out terms of reference to architects and designers for hospitals that build in value-for-money considerations up front?
Hon. P. Ramsey: What the ministry provides to those involved in design are standards for space and necessary systems, and the like, for construction of particular types of facilities. The difficulty in the health sector is that almost every design is a one-off, therefore Treasury Board has asked that we do the examination of systems and materials on the one-off basis.
[3:00]
I think that increasingly, in some facilities that are fairly standard -- such as long term care facilities -- we may well, with the cooperation of Treasury Board, be able to build in more common standards for the materials-and-systems end of things as well.
J. van Dongen: I did read some discussion with respect to the Ministry of Education, where the minister talked about standard square-footage costs for one type of building versus another. I'm wondering if there are any such benchmarks in health -- maybe not even nationally, but internationally -- in terms of types of materials and the cost per square foot of the building, for example, that could be built into the terms of reference for architects designing the building.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The Ministry of Health, in the area of hospital construction, does have unit costs for particular types of departments. Frankly, we don't build a lot of brand-new hospitals these days. As you know, the price tags are very, very large, so when we're dealing with a proposal like this, it is very much a one-off proposal. Where the variety of units are configured, the configuration differs slightly from institution to institution, therefore we do a one-off value analysis.
J. van Dongen: The request for a proposal or whatever the terminology is for the set of instructions that would go to the designer of the Abbotsford hospital.... I would be interested in looking at such a document. I would be interested in looking at the instructions that the Ministry of Health gave to the designer of the hospital. If there is a particular document, I wonder if the minister would be willing to produce it for me to peruse at my leisure.
[T. Perry in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be pleased to provide you with the standards that we provide to hospitals. I think the member must recognize that it is the hospital society that actually hires the designer and does the initial work with him as far as approval. The facilities branch in the ministry works with the society, obviously. We want to ensure that we get good value for tax dollars and do appropriate value analysis. I'd be
[ Page 14760 ]
pleased to provide you with those standards. I might also comment, though, hon. member, that there may be more productive uses of time.
J. van Dongen: I want to thank the minister for his good advice. He's competing with a lot of other people who are giving me advice right now. I will talk to our local hospital board and pursue that issue. I appreciate the comments with respect to the hospital.
With respect to the New Directions program, I have a personal thought about it, based on 14 years as a member of the board of directors of Dairyland Foods. I have a perception about it. I want to draw an analogy for the minister and invite his comment on the analogy. Dairyland has ten plants in British Columbia scattered geographically but obviously concentrated in the lower mainland. We have a plant in Courtenay on Vancouver Island. When I say we, I'm speaking as one who is still a member of that cooperative. Dairyland has plants in Armstrong, Vernon, Smithers, Prince George, etc. The operation is governed by a board of directors elected by the people who own the operation. They hire a CEO, and he hires a staff below him. They run those ten plants as one system. The kind of thing they end up doing is specializing -- doing certain things in some plants, certain things in others, trading product between plants, etc. The point is that those plants are running as a system.
When I look at New Directions from a layman's point of view, including whatever discussion I've seen in the newspaper and that sort of thing, I wonder if New Directions isn't like saying to all the farmers who own Dairyland: "Well, we're going to elect a board of directors for each one of those ten plants." I know there are a few members of Dairyland who would like to see that happen, but I submit, from my 14 years as a director, that if Dairyland did something like that and had a locally elected board running each of those plants and attempting to operate in that manner, Dairyland probably wouldn't last six months in terms of being competitive in the marketplace, because the biggest factor in being competitive in the marketplace is controlling costs.
I understand and support that the minister and the Ministry of Health are wanting to control and manage costs and at the same time deliver an effective service. I wonder if the minister could comment on my analogy, because it seems to me that when I talk to members of our local hospital board -- and I haven't talked to them as much as I would have liked, to date -- I hear a fair bit of comment that speaks to parochialism and an inability to cooperate with people in adjoining hospitals to look after service difficulties between hospitals. It seems to me there could be more coordination to get better use of resources -- that sort of thing. I guess a lot of factors could be brought into that discussion, but I just wonder if the minister could comment on the analogy, for my own edification.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, I rather like the member's analogy, and I share some of his views. Right now we are moving in the direction that he proposes. What would the member say to a company that had 700 different boards of 700 different agencies responsible for delivery of health services around the province? That is what we have now, hon. member -- over 700; each of them acting autonomously and independently, each of them doing their best to provide good services within the bounds of their institution, but very often failing to coordinate well with other institutions serving the same community or the same region.
Our goal is to take those 700 boards and replace them with 20 regional authorities which will be responsible for delivering the services through community health councils. This is an amalgamation of boards, not a proliferation of boards, that we are doing in New Directions.
I offer the member another analogy. Let's preface it by saying that whenever people talk to me about the excellent health system that we have in British Columbia, my reply is usually: "We have excellent health services; we have an abysmal health system." One of the challenges we have as governors responsible for the system is to get some systematic planning and management of health care at a community and regional level.
I want to offer him another analogy. I come from Prince George, as he knows. I was recently attending a convention of some of the major forest executives in Prince George, and they were asking me about New Directions and community health councils, and making points similar to the member's. One of the CEOs I was talking to is the local manager responsible for an integrated set of firms in Prince George: one pulp mill, two sawmills, some trucking firms, a value-added plant, which he is currently constructing, and a tree nursery. I said to him: "Imagine if your head plant said, 'We want each element of the Prince George operations to report independently to head office -- the nursery, the pulp mill, the sawmills and the trucking firm,' -- and they each reported independently to head office and didn't look down the street or coordinate their operations on the ground."
That is what we have currently in the health sector. It is nobody's fault; it has grown that way over the years. The Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs said very clearly to us that we needed to change that. We're in the process of doing so to get a community authority that can look broadly at how to integrate and deliver health services in a community and, above that, in a region, where we'll do exactly what the member suggests and coordinate facilities and resources within a broad region. So with those comments about the general thrust and reasons for the New Directions initiative, I'll take my place and ask for further comments from the member.
J. van Dongen: I'm not sure that I understand the total network of the 700 boards that the minister refers to well enough to comment on or respond to with perfect or even adequate knowledge, but I'll think about his answer and take it from there.
My next question is probably connected to the New Directions program. Maybe it's one of these boards that the minister just referred to. I was invited, prior to the election, to meet with people who are involved in providing long term care facilities in Abbotsford. This particular agency -- I guess it's a society, the way they are organized -- operates Maplewood House, I think it is, and MSA Manor.
I guess their concern is -- I am sure the minister knows all about it -- that for the board of that society to make a decision, for example, to replace their existing manager who wants to retire, they now have to have that decision approved by the Ministry of Health staff in the area. I also understand that similar operations that have a religious affiliation of some kind have had some consideration in this area by the minister.
I'm wondering, where you have operations that have a history of good community involvement like this one appears
[ Page 14761 ]
to have.... The municipalities put up the land, and local people with an interest have operated the society. I know that in the case of the newer building, the government has provided financing. But as I understand it, their record of management has been very good. I had a tour of both facilities, and I'm wondering why we would introduce this additional step, which in effect could amount to a veto on any hiring that board might want to do. I'm wondering why we would do something like that. What consideration would there be for this situation?
The Chair: Before the minister takes his place, since the member for Abbotsford is a new member here, I'd like to assure him on behalf of the House that nobody understands the network of 700 health boards in B.C.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think that probably applies also to the two members of the House who have served as Ministers of Health. Every time I think I understand it fully, I discover some new wrinkle and say: "How is that happening?" It is quite a complex organization.
Let me first make a couple of general comments. We've said to long term care providers that they need to work out with their local community health councils and regional health boards how they will be managed in the future. We have said to them that the default position, the expectation, is full amalgamation and integration of services. That board and that society would pass over operational responsibility to the community health council. We have also said -- and actually signed a document with religious organizations that said -- there is an option for them that they can pursue, if they wish, which would allow for an affiliation agreement between a religiously run institution and a community health council or regional health board. But many, many of the decisions around staffing and support and systems that would support a religiously run institution would be under the effective control of the community health council or regional health board.
It is the responsibility of the CHC, and RHBs, to discuss these arrangements with agencies such as the one the member refers to in his riding -- Maplewood House. They are undertaking that work right now.
[3:15]
The reason for the directive from the ministry that CHCs should be involved in decisions about whether or not to fill management positions at institutions like this is that very soon, responsibility for funding those organizations will rest with the regional health board and community health council. They are in the process now of preparing management plans for health services in those areas. It is not at all clear that all administrative personnel currently employed within a community or within a region will be required in a more streamlined management structure. Therefore we've asked community health councils to be very cautious about permanently filling positions that may become vacant. We are in transition, and I think this is an appropriate measure during a time of organizational transition such as we are in in the delivery of health services.
J. van Dongen: My understanding of the particular situation at Maplewood is that it removes, in effect, any amount of flexibility in terms of replacing that manager, in that current commitments or policies with respect to staff, whether or not it's a union position.... I don't know whether it is or not, but my understanding of the situation is that there is very little choice as to who might replace that manager. Considerations like seniority or that sort of thing kick in here such that there will be someone destined for that position. There won't even be any discussion or competition for the position.
I realize this is a little unclear, but I know that was one of the concerns expressed to me three or four months ago. I wonder if the minister could comment on the accusation that this removes all flexibility in terms of staffing and that someone, whether competent or not, is going to end up in that slot by virtue of something like seniority.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I'm unaware of any provision that would lead to seniority being the criterion on which such a position would be filled. Second, I think the member should be cautious about allegations of incompetence about administrators who might be selected to run a particular organization.
I know CHCs and regional health boards take their responsibilities seriously to make sure that competent managers are in place, and I expect it is as true in the member's area as it is in mine in Prince George that they are quite concerned they have competent people running health facilities in their areas. As far as details of the criteria for filling the position, I believe that is something the institution and the CHC are working on. If the member wishes to provide further details perhaps in a letter, I can have staff look into it or talk to the CHC about it.
I think the message we should be sending to Maplewood House and others is that we value the services they provide. We expect their cooperation in the establishment of more rational management and governance structures for health services and we hope they will cooperate with the new decision-makers on the local health scene, the CHCs and RHBs, both in the filling of administrative positions and in plans for amalgamation of administration and support functions.
J. van Dongen: I want to be sure the minister and everyone understand that I wasn't personally making any allegations. Maybe the wording I used was a little strong, but I was reporting something that was expressed to me.
I have one other question with respect to this issue. In respect to this and similar situations, how does the minister respond to suggestions that the regime, if you will, or current management plan that's being put in place through New Directions amounts to an expropriation of assets?
The Chair: Just before the minister takes his place in the debate, I'm going to do what they sometimes do at high school graduations, where they ask people to applaud after all the people have been introduced. You may dispense with thanking the Chair each time you take your place in the debate until the end of the afternoon, when you can thank me if you think I've done a good job.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It is fascinating to watch the different styles that members bring to the chair.
L. Reid: I like this one; this is tasteful.
Hon. P. Ramsey: A few days ago the critic and I were dealing with a Chair who not only required but demanded that every comment go through him.
[ Page 14762 ]
The Chair: The minister will take his place. I've waited six years to have a chance to chair this committee, and I'm going to enjoy it to the hilt. The minister may now resume his place in the debate.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the hon. Chair and promise that I will do my best to ignore him for the rest of the afternoon.
There is no attempt to expropriate, hon. member. Where the assets in question are private assets, we'll be discussing that with the organizations involved. But where the assets have been constructed with public funds, we are saying very clearly that they need to be transferred to another public body. If there are questions around the application of this policy, there is much that has been circulated both to community health councils and to the boards of institutions across the province. I can provide the member with these documents, which outline some of the details of this policy.
J. van Dongen: I just want to say that I've been going for five minutes, and I've just about established a pattern. Now I have to learn something different.
In response to your answer, Mr. Minister, you say that the building was constructed with public funds. That's true, but my understanding was that the form of financing was something akin to a mortgage that was paid down over a period of time. It wouldn't be what the society considered an equity position. If that characterization is correct, then coming in and taking over through a new program may be considered repossessing assets. I'm wondering if you could comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that there may be philosophical differences on this point. I would urge the member to urge boards that are concerned about this to work with their CHCs and find a way around this barrier, rather than use it as an insurmountable obstacle to the integration of services. We have said very clearly to community health councils that we expect there to be an amalgamation. Quite frankly, the issue of assets is sometimes thrown up as a defence from some organizations that wish to see this process stopped. We've said repeatedly that we're not interested in expropriation. We think that facilities that have been constructed with public funds are in the public domain. We'll work with boards and community health councils to find ways around particular issues.
The other thing that I would ask the member to say very clearly to the board of Maplewood House and to other agencies is that we are very interested in seeing if boards of such facilities wish to stay in existence in an advisory role; there is that role. The people who sit on such boards got involved because they cared deeply about delivery of a particular health service for a particular community. That's the sort of volunteerism that we want to preserve. We are urging boards to look seriously at the option of staying involved as advisory to the operations of an institution or, if they wish, involved in fundraising for a particular institution through a foundation or, in the case of many hospital auxiliaries, in the provision of voluntary service within an institution. All those options are there. The regionalization of governance authority and the integration of administration should not threaten those valuable aspects of community advice and involvement in health services.
J. van Dongen: Thank you for your answer, Mr. Minister. I will convey those comments and thoughts to that board in due course. It gives rise to one more question about the regionalization of health delivery: does the ministry have a tracking system in place to measure the cost-effectiveness of this move over time? Is there a set of benchmarks, and is there a tracking system in place to determine whether this is cost-effective or not? A supplementary question may be appropriate: is there a critical path to the transition, with budget considerations built in?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The critic for your party and I have reviewed this -- I was going to say ad nauseam. But at least I hope....
L. Reid: Withdraw. Withdraw.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Ad lumina, perhaps.
L. Reid: That's better.
Hon. P. Ramsey: What I have said repeatedly is that every analysis I've seen suggests that there are rather substantial administrative and support savings to be made. When we announced a scheme for amalgamating the hospital boards in the Vancouver region, the chair of the board relied on some of the initial work they had done and suggested that they expected initial savings of some $30 million a year just in that one region from doing amalgamation of administration. I think that provincewide we should be expecting to save several hundreds of millions of dollars once regionalization is complete. Clearly, part of the proof will be once we see the management structures coming in from regions, and we see their plans for streamlining management and support for health services across British Columbia.
As for your second question, I'm not sure I understood it, and I ask you to clarify it.
The Chair: Before the member for Abbotsford resumes, the Chair would like to clarify that he wasn't clear which lumina the minister was referring to. But, for the member for Richmond East, the term ad nauseam is well within the bounds of parliamentary practice and has frequent currency in this House.
J. van Dongen: To clarify my second question about whether or not there was a critical path in terms of the transition, maybe the term critical path isn't the right phrase. Simply: is a plan with time considerations and budget considerations...? Is there a calculated saving over a certain time frame? Are there those projections, including time and dollars saved? Are there estimates? Are there targets? If there are, could the minister make those available?
I do apologize if some of my questions are repetitious; it's certainly not my intent. I'd like to promise you that this is the last question on that issue.
[3:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The regionalization initiative is one that has effected cost savings in other jurisdictions. We expect to achieve similar or greater savings here. We have not done the sort of rather gross targeting of the "this region has to get to this point in three years" approach. We have asked regional health boards and community health councils to embark with
[ Page 14763 ]
us on a process that involves, first, preparation of a health plan for their region, which is now underway in the Fraser Valley and other places, and second, an administrative and management plan for delivery of services, and to present them to us. As they are approved, contracts will be struck with regional health boards for delivery of services.
What I am fearful of, quite frankly, is setting a target that may be too easy. Last year I set a target for hospitals, saying that I expected them to get 10 percent to 15 percent efficiency in administrative savings in a couple of years. In retrospect, I think some of them are doing better than that, so it might have been too easy a target for them. So I'm reluctant to say that I want a certain amount in a certain time frame.
I can easily provide the member with a variety of studies that have been done on regionalization and that point to inefficiencies in current delivery systems and opportunities for more effective and cost-efficient ways of delivering services.
J. van Dongen: I now have a few questions for the minister about home care. I realize this subject has been well covered.
I have a letter which I just received today from one of my constituents, and I think it's a very good letter. This particular individual is 36 years old. He has ME; I won't give you the whole long name. I've talked to him a couple of times on the phone, and he strikes me as a very responsible and competent individual. Prior to contracting this disease, he worked as a computer manager in one of the largest law firms in B.C. His professionalism comes through in the letter. He and his family were getting four hours a week of home care services. He talks about the strike, how that unfolded and how there was no resumption of services after the strike.
I'll give you the questions, first of all, that he poses. This letter is addressed to me and copied to a number of people, including yourself. He indicates that he was never informed that the home-care services he was getting were to be discontinued. He says: "Why was I never informed that my home-care services would be discontinued, and why did I have to find this information for myself?" That would be my first question.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is: he should have been informed. Policy is for that to be done, and there should be no reassessment or adjustment of home services without direct contact with the client.
J. van Dongen: Thank you for that answer. Having read a lot of material out of the ombudsman's office over the years, I would assume that the ministry would have a procedure in place to give people notification. It's simply proper process. I would ask, then, that the minister check and confirm that all of the individuals whose services were discontinued -- I guess it's the Upper Fraser Valley Health Board that would provide the service there -- did receive notice. Then the question arises: does notice constitute a phone call or a letter? What would the minister consider to be proper notice?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Care managers working either through direct employment with the ministry or through a private agency were asked to follow a procedure in which even the idea that a reassessment was being done before any adjustment would be communicated to the client receiving home services. So there would be a process of contact with the client on reassessment and then notification of any results of that assessment. Case managers work directly both for the ministry and for agencies that are contracted to deliver home support. If the member can make sure that I have a copy of the letter that he received, I'll ensure that staff correspond directly with the individual.
J. van Dongen: His second question is: "Why was I not told of any option for an appeal?" Maybe I could just comment on that. I know the minister did respond in the House to a question posed by the member for Matsqui -- I think it was three weeks ago -- by saying that he had ordered staff to put in place an appeal process. Could the minister confirm how that appeal process was to take place, and whether it was implemented on a broad basis so that everyone who was eligible for an appeal process did in fact become informed of that? I think that's the question here.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, home support clients should have been notified of the appeal process when they were informed of any adjustment to hours. The appeal process would have allowed the client to seek an assessment from another case manager if the client felt that the original assessment was inaccurate or unfair.
Second, even at that point, if there was disagreement with assessments being done, the client has a right of appeal to the administration to take another look at the case. We are very cognizant of the importance of these services to individuals and want to make sure that we get it right. In the case the member is describing for me, clearly expected procedures were not followed, and some people got it wrong.
J. van Dongen: His next question is: "Why is the policy not standard for all cities in B.C.?" He makes the comment, and I would like you to confirm whether this is factual or not: "I am aware that at least three other cities -- Langley, Coquitlam and Chilliwack -- had no change in their home-care services after the strike, while Abbotsford has cut all home-care services while keeping personal care." So his understanding is: no change in Langley, Coquitlam and Chilliwack, while Abbotsford is cutting out the home-care side of it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. member, there is one policy for the province. Some regions may have been adhering more closely to that policy in the past and may not have found it necessary to make adjustments. Others may have. We are doing whatever we can to ensure that there is one policy on this for the province.
In the past, I don't think there was very good adherence to one policy. In spite of an infusion of about a one-third increase in funding for home support over our term of government, and in spite of the provision of an increasing number of home support hours year over year over year, we have found that the demand for services has been growing in excess of the population one could expect to rely on such services. So we have asked staff to look at more close adherence to policy and have attempted to get uniformity of adherence to it across the province.
J. van Dongen: In response to the minister's comment that there's one policy for the province, maybe I could get
[ Page 14764 ]
some clarification. I talked to Gail Clark in our continuing care division. I understood from her that the province issued guidelines for the management of these funds, but there was a certain amount of discretion left to the local units in terms of how they may reappropriate the funds between personal care and home care. Is my understanding of this correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's interesting. During my discussion of this issue with the member for Matsqui, one point revolved around ensuring that case managers had appropriate discretion to vary guidelines in order to meet individual client needs. I think that's what we need to do. We need guidelines, but surely we do not want a cookie-cutter approach that ties the hands of somebody who is assessing a case and seeking to get it right on the number of hours of home support that are required. This is true for housekeeping and personal care. I think that's the limit of the comments I can make. The manager you're talking to says there's discretion. Boy, I hope so. We don't want to tie the individual provider's hands to the extent that there isn't the necessary flexibility to meet needs. On the other hand, we ask all managers to work within the budgets and guidelines that are provided for them.
J. van Dongen: In response, I agree that individual case managers should have some discretion. They're right on the front lines and dealing with individual cases. I think that's different from saying that the unit should have discretion over whether they have a policy to provide housekeeping services exclusively, for example. I think that is probably a different level of discretion. Is the overall provincial policy governing these units such that there are no clients who get housekeeping services exclusively?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm unaware of any interpretation that would lead to the conclusion that you can never provide housekeeping without personal care. The emphasis has been on providing appropriate personal care. The other instruction reflected in the guidelines is that where housekeeping services are clearly required in order for an individual to maintain his or her independence outside an institution or residential facility, they should be provided. I can conceive of cases where that is what is needed rather than personal care. I'm asking staff if there is such a hard-and-fast brick wall between them. We don't think there is. We'll be glad to check and see if we misunderstood the application of this policy. On the face of it, the theory is that that should not be a policy.
[3:45]
J. van Dongen: Probably the appropriate approach here is for me to make sure that you get a copy of this letter, which also includes some constructive ideas and comments. They are all new to me, but probably not to the critic, so I won't venture into these areas. But I think, given the involvement of this individual with two support groups, which include 310 people, it probably would be good for him to get an answer directly from the minister on a number of issues he raises. He certainly raises some very good comments. I'll leave it at that.
I'd like now to ask a series of questions -- and these aren't fine-tuned -- with respect to on-site sewage regulation which, given all the responsibilities you have as minister, is probably a very minor part of your ministry. I can assure you that to many of my constituents and to many people in rural areas, including farmers and non-farmers, the regulation of on-site sewage is a very significant issue in their lives if they're faced with that situation.
I've been involved in this area for about a year. In fact, I think it was exactly a year ago today, if I'm not mistaken, that I brought Dale and Lisa Schmidt over to Victoria. We met your ministerial assistant, Mr. Rick Olding, and a number of other people that day, including people in the ministry. I do want to say that we were well received by all of them.
That was a particular situation that triggered an involvement on my part in reviewing probably about 25 cases all over the Fraser Valley. I started to get more and more interested in the legislation, not only the regulations under that legislation and its accompanying policies, but also the process of how staff handled these applications as they came in for permits and whether they were new construction or replacement fields, etc.
I have a list of the cases I reviewed here. There are names from Mission-Kent, Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Surrey and Delta. I guess I should say, too, that I think one of the ways to measure the performance of government or business is to look at what's coming out of what I call the bottom end. To me, case studies are one way to measure performance in a ministry or an organization and a way for me to help certain individuals. Some of them we were able to help.
Of these 25 cases, I want to focus specifically on six cases where the situation does not involve a decision or an intent to build a house and put in a septic system. It does not involve a decision to put in a toilet or anything else. It involves a procedure whereby someone is applying to do something that is loosely termed a subdivision. For example, they apply to a municipality or maybe the Agricultural Land Commission or a regional district to do something which would be roughly classified as a subdivision. These bodies write a letter of referral -- I guess that would be the term -- to the health unit, and they say: "We've got this subdivision application; we'd like you to comment from a health unit perspective."
Of these six, I'll just mention a few specific examples. One of them in Delta was building a machine shed. He had applied for a building permit to build a machine storage shed. It didn't include a shop; it didn't include a toilet. It was strictly a machine storage shed. His name was Ken Davie.
He applied to the municipality of Delta for a permit for his machine storage shed. They referred the matter to the health unit. The health unit went to the farm. I guess there were a number of houses there. The health unit wanted to review all the existing fields. They wanted a site plan; they wanted a number of things. They also wanted him to go through the process of establishing what they called an alternate reserve site for all the existing fields on the place. This is all triggered by an application for a permit to build a machine shed.
Similarly, in Matsqui -- or what used to be called Matsqui, and in the constituency of Matsqui -- Albert and Jim Floris applied for what they call a subdivision amalgamation under the land commission act, which is handled by the municipality. They were applying to buy 20 acres of bare land from their neighbour....
The Chair: Excuse me, member. Would the member take his seat for one moment. The Chair is having some difficulty relating all the member's comments to the statutory matter of the estimates of the
[ Page 14765 ]
Minister of Health. I realize the general point, but as we go into night sittings this evening, when the sun starts to set around 9 o'clock, we may be looking back, wishing we had proceeded slightly more expeditiously. I'll call on the member to resume his place.
J. van Dongen: Thank you for those comments. Anytime I'm out of line, just say so. I'm trying to save the minister some money, you see. I'm convinced that the minister can save some money here, and I'm trying to do it step by step.
I guess to focus in.... And there are others. I got a phone call last night from someone in Mission-Kent who has 80 acres of land. He's splitting it two ways; he's not building anything. The point of all these situations is that they're not building anything; they don't intend to build anything. If they decide to build something, they have to go through the process of applying for a permit like everybody else.
To put it in the form of a question, when we're in a time of scarce resources, why are we spending a lot of staff time and putting people through incredibly bureaucratic processes on applications like this when they are not even installing a sewage system? From a policy perspective, why are we doing this?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you, hon. Chair, and I thank the Clerk for keeping the Chair attentive. Hon. Chair, maybe you'll regret your opportunity this afternoon.
Hon. member, I recognize your advocacy and your involvement in this issue. I have a variety of correspondence that reflects your contact with individuals in the Fraser Valley who have had at times what I think I could safely characterize as acrimonious relations with members of ministry staff around the issue of sewage disposal.
The requirement for consultation with Ministry of Health personnel is a legislative requirement around the subdivision of land. Ministry of Health staff are therefore consulted. Whether or not a building is contemplated, that is a legislative requirement. It is not meant to be a particularly onerous one, but it is one that I think needs to be done.
As the member knows, the other side of the issue is that I have an equally large file of letters and concerns from residents of the Fraser Valley about sewage disposal, contamination of groundwater and contamination of wells. Given the sometimes very difficult circumstances of sewage disposal on sites that may be very close to a water table, there may be other factors that make this difficult. Ministry of Health staff find themselves facing rather severe pressures at times from one side or another.
I usually try not to comment on particular cases. But in the case of Ken Davie, the information I had is that Boundary health unit staff were looking at his position and his intention to have toilet facilities and running water in that machine shed. That was part of the concern they had around it. I recognize that at times I may receive different correspondence than the member. These are not easy decisions, and I respect the need for certification of safe sewage disposal. But I would also ask the member to recognize the legislative requirement that public health considerations be at least addressed in subdivisions and that the ministry seeks to do its best to address individual needs and approve systems where it can.
J. van Dongen: If I continue to focus on the six cases I mentioned where the people are not building anything or installing a toilet of any kind, I understand that the Ken Davie application was actually withdrawn -- and that's the only one that involves any kind of construction -- and the other five are all subdivision situations.
Why would we go through a whole winter's monitoring procedure? Why ask people to spend, as in the Floris case, $1,000 for interceptor drains and to dig holes all over a field of new seeded grass that incurs further problems? Why would we ask them to do that in a situation where they're not going to build a house or install a system, and when they're not likely to ever build another house there? Why would we put them through all that hassle that spanned a period of about eight months? And why would we hold up a deal between neighbours? It's only because of a good relationship between neighbours that the deal was even maintained, so why would we do that? If he ever did decide to build anything, he'd have to go through the process of applying to the health unit for a permit. The Harry Bryant case in Mission-Kent is exactly the same.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the legal requirement for consultation is there for an excellent reason. First, in the area that the member was talking about, the water table is a great concern, and sewage disposal is a very high level of that table. Second, sewage permits for existing structures are granted based on the area of land that is available at the time. Subdivisions also do involve concerns about future buildings that might be constructed.
[4:00]
I would be willing to share with the member at some time some of my experiences and correspondence I've received from purchasers of such subdivided land. They purchased it in the full expectation that they can build a house and install an on-site sewage disposal system, only to find that such a subdivision was not authorized and the correct procedures were not followed. They are shocked and dismayed when they come to the ministry and say: "The guy I purchased it from said I could build a facility here." They have to be told that, regrettably, it does not qualify. What we are attempting to do is make sure that the potential for future building is well addressed. And that is part of the legal mandate of the ministry.
J. van Dongen: It seems to me that there needs to be a distinction between the uses of the term "subdivision". The case of a developer actually subdividing a large piece of land into, say, one-acre parcels is a very different situation from any of the cases I'm talking about which we find throughout rural areas where you have basically large acreages. There needs to be a distinction there. I would concur with the minister that where you actually have commercial developments -- and I understand that's where some of the problems have arisen for the ministry -- those may well need to be handled differently. But none of these situations are developments in the normal sense of the word. They are realignments of property lines within the ALR, where there is no new construction and no contemplated construction taking place. I think there's a big difference there.
My understanding from my very first meeting with Mr. Hazelwood a year ago was that the cases which had given rise to difficulties were all subdivisions in the sense of a developer going in and cutting a piece of land into little pieces. I think Mr. Hazelwood cited the Brookswood development in Surrey-
[ Page 14766 ]
Langley somewhere, and then more recently I have been informed of a development called Sheridan Hill in Maple Ridge with similar problems. It seems to me that's different from what we're talking about here. Maybe the minister could comment from that perspective.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member and I are discussing different aspects of the same situation. I'm not sure I have a great deal to add to what I said before. I recognize the concern. We may differ on whether there should be a legal requirement -- there clearly is -- to look at what reconfiguration or subdivision means in terms of existing arrangements for sewage disposal, potential future arrangements for on-site sewage disposal and how it will affect existing structures and potential new structures. Those are the things on which our advice is sought by municipalities engaged in approving subdivisions or realignments. And that is what we seek to do. We don't mean to be inflexible about on-site sewage disposals. I think we've made some good progress in seeking ways to be more flexible, acknowledge some technological innovations that have been made and look at some innovative approaches to on-site disposal.
But I would remind the member that if we review the causes of our relative longevity in the late twentieth century compared to a couple of centuries ago, most analysts of health say that we owe at least as much to public health initiatives in the provision of clean water and appropriate sewage disposal as we do to any advances in medical science. So dealing with on-site sewage disposal is a matter that the ministry takes seriously, and I'm not sure we would wish it any other way. We need to be flexible where technology evolves. We need to make sure that unnecessary impositions are not part of regimes that we deal with with landowners. I think that's all I can really say at this time. We have a rather extensive sheaf of correspondence on the cases the member raises, including some over his name.
J. van Dongen: First of all, on the legal requirement for consultation: is that a section in the Health Act that sets that out? If so, could the minister set it out for me?
[L. Krog in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member and I may have to adapt to a new regime here.
Requirements for consultation usually arise out of subdivision bylaws in municipalities. Clearly municipalities wish to avoid chances of being sued for approving subdivisions where health hazards might arise, and therefore they rely extensively on Ministry of Health involvement in assessment.
J. van Dongen: With respect to the six cases I have mentioned, I'm sure the minister is aware of them, because I notified his staff in the letter I wrote originally on December 27. It was a personal letter that I wrote to the committee that was working on some new regulations, including Bob Smith. Subsequently, Jake Janzen, president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, sent that letter to the minister's deputy, Lawrie McFarlane, posing questions about it. That letter was followed up by Mr. McFarlane with a letter dated January 27, indicating that he was going to put the issue out to the two health units involved and seek their response.
I would like to pose the question to the minister that's posed in the letter: does the health unit have the legal authority to prevent the municipality from going ahead with the decision to do the subdivision? Is there a legal basis for holding up the process? If so, what section of the Health Act provides that legal authority? When reading the Health Act, my sense is that it is simply a policy decision between the health unit and the municipality.
Hon. P. Ramsey: My understanding of the intersection of law and regulation here, hon. member, is that assessment of on-site sewage disposal is sought either under municipal bylaws or under subdivision regulations in unorganized areas. A municipality is free to disregard the assessment of an environmental health officer working for the Ministry of Health. I would also advise the member that where that has happened, a municipality has sometimes found itself liable beyond its wildest expectations for site contamination.
J. van Dongen: I was going to mention this later, but I think it is probably appropriate now, given your answer. From the perspective of full information on my part, I would be very interested in reviewing some of those cases and, in particular, cases that have resulted in litigation. I would be very interested in reviewing those, because I know it would give me a fuller understanding of the regulations and the process. So I'm wondering if I could request from the minister copies of some of those cases and in particular the litigation that has taken place. I know there is -- and I was going to get into that in a minute -- the concern about liability by the ministry and the municipalities. If the minister would commit to identifying some of those cases for me, I would be very interested in reviewing those.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We will do what we can to gather some information for the member.
J. van Dongen: With respect to the letter to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, dated January 27, can the minister commit to getting an answer to that letter to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in the near future?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Tracing correspondence can sometimes be tortuous. I do have a copy of a letter to Mr. Janzen, president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, over the signature of Andrew Hazelwood, that's dated April 24. I don't know whether that's among the documents that the member opposite has. It was copied to the health officers in the Boundary and Upper Fraser Valley health units. I cannot provide the member with a copy since it is to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, but the letter has been responded to.
J. van Dongen: Thank you for that information. I will check with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture on that. I know from talking to Mr. Hazelwood, as I said, and from discussions since then that a primary concern of the ministry is the liability problem for government. I agree that it's a serious problem for government generally, but I want to talk about the approach that is taken within the health units to deal with that problem.
I guess one of the things that really bothers applicants is the very, very ambiguous responses they get from public health officers when they talk about different options for
[ Page 14767 ]
raised fields, particularly when you have alternative systems. One person describes it as: "They never say yes and they never say no." In another situation the public health officer asked the farmer to get an outside engineer to design a system. He did so at a cost of $900, and when the design came in, the public health officer said: "Well, we're having some problems with these big square packs of sand; maybe you could go back and ask him to redesign it in a long, narrow configuration like they do in Washington." It seems to me from all the cases I've reviewed -- and this comes up absolutely continually -- that the way the government is handling that is a difficulty.
I'd like to ask, first of all, with respect to the public health issue.... And I realize, again, this is kind of legal. But when I try to understand the problems and I try to understand the situation from the government's point of view, in terms of addressing the problems -- and I think the liability concern is legitimate; I want to say that -- are we concerned about legal responsibility for public health or are we concerned about legal responsibility for the failure of a system? It seems to me that those are two different things. I would like to explore that.
[4:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Failures of systems can lead to hazards to health; therein lies the liability.
The other issue that the member identifies is.... I received similar correspondence from applicants who were concerned because an environmental health officer didn't design a system for them. Ministry of Health officials are engaged in the approval and assessment of systems, but not in the design. I understand that they can say: "Hey, why don't you get a good system designed?" If they designed systems, they would be crossing the boundary between the role of a regulator and the role of a civil engineer doing design work. We do not provide a service to home owners to design systems; we provide a regulatory system to assess systems.
J. van Dongen: This is a complicated legal thing. I'm not a lawyer either, so I want to proceed carefully on this. I guess I still want to distinguish between liability for public health and liability for the design of a system.
If, for example, the ministry is really concerned about public health or other situations where you should be more closely involved than you are.... I think if I was to make an analogy, I would compare the current approach of the ministry to on-site sewage regulation to saying: "Well, we as a ministry are responsible for the public health implications of how a farmer milks his cows, so we'd better park someone there to watch how he does it." Milk being the product that it is, the minister would agree that the need for sanitation and quality is of the utmost importance, yet we don't have government people standing there monitoring milking twice a day and being very closely involved. We leave the responsibility with the individual. I can tell you that the quality of milk is increasing every year. The failure of a system doesn't necessarily result in an immediate public health problem. I would like the minister to expand on the kinds of public health problems we have experienced as a result of sewage failures in recent years.
The Chair: I'm sure the minister will be happy to respond with information garnered from many members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are a number of areas of the province where failures have been quite severe. We can provide the member with information. Anmore comes to mind as an area that experienced quite a few field and system failures, with the result that sites became almost uninhabitable. Other areas include subdivisions within the member for Parksville-Qualicum's riding. He might want to share with the member some hair-raising experiences -- nostril-assailing experiences too -- where essentially open sewage was flowing through drainage ditches. That is health hazard time.
The member might also wish to talk to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. There, an entire subdivision was hooked to one system; that system has now failed. It is an environmental health hazard of the greatest magnitude.
There are many areas of the province -- the Fraser Valley is clearly one -- where, because of high water tables, on-site sewage disposal becomes problematic in many, many sites. There are others. On the east coast of Vancouver Island there is simply not enough soil over the bedrock to do the job. There are similar situations in Anmore.
Those are just three areas of the province where I've received quite a bit of correspondence and concern about failures that have resulted in situations that the public and health offices consider hazardous.
J. van Dongen: I certainly concur that there have been some system failures, but the question I'm asking is: were there actual public health problems that occurred that were proven to be a result of system failures?
I'm drawing a distinction between the responsibility for public health and the responsibility for failures of systems, because I think they're two different things. The reason I think that is that the ministry can't delegate responsibility for public health, but it certainly can delegate responsibility for the failure of systems. My question is: are there proven cases of public health problems as a result of system failures?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure what we're asking for here -- a body count? Outbreaks of typhus? There are clear health hazards to having untreated sewage running in drainage ditches. There's a site in Gibsons which is essentially fenced off because right now it's nothing but an open cesspool where a field used to be. The challenge the people in Gibsons are having is to keep their youngsters from climbing over the fence and playing in it. These are health hazards. People are coping with them the best they can to avoid illness actually resulting from that.
I'm not sure what evidence the member would like. I can provide him with a history of disease caused by inappropriate treatment of sewage -- domestic and otherwise. But I am, I must confess, a bit puzzled by the seeming allegation that we should go back to medieval times and toss our slops out the window and not worry a great deal about where they end up.
We have put regulations in place as a society -- in this country and others -- for very good epidemiological health reasons. The member may have some difficulties with how those are administered, but, quite frankly, I think we've got down to the minutiae of it and now we're going back up to general principles. I would assert that the general principles of clear regulation of domestic sewage and on-site disposal are valuable assets of regulation and public health interests.
J. van Dongen: I agree with the minister that you need clear regulation, and certainly there's a public health purpose.
[ Page 14768 ]
I wanted to distinguish between liability for public health problems, actual problems that occur and failures of systems. It seems to me that you have a system that is designed by a private sector accredited engineer. In any alternative system, the public health officer has the power to ask for a design. Why can't the engineer be responsible for that design? I guess that's my problem.
Hon. P. Ramsey: For the same reason we have mine inspectors for mines, railway inspectors for railways and other regulators to ensure that the designs of facilities meet general public regulations.
J. van Dongen: I now want to ask some questions about, as I understand, the proposed amendments to the regulations for agriculture. A committee was struck in December 1994 including the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, Bob Smith from the ministry, and B.C. Federation of Agriculture staff. The discussions resolved around an approach for Agriculture that would set standards for discharge from alternative systems. I'm wondering about the status of that proposal. I was of the understanding that it could be done by order-in-council, and I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on the status of that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I could say it's a matter of future policy and sit down and be totally in order. But for the sake of being as responsive as possible, I will tell you that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and myself have been working as hard as we can to get some regulations for bona fide exemption for farms for sewage disposal. The member is right; a draft proposal has been signed off by a member of my staff, as well as by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I expect to be reviewing that with my staff and with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the near future.
J. van Dongen: I could ask the minister what "in the near future" means, but I won't. I appreciate his responsive answer, and I appreciate the fact that I know he has already approved in principle the proposal, as has the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that the minister, as well as including this amendment to the regulations for agriculture, would review the procedures and processes from an execution point of view.
I can assure the minister that there have been a number of cases where, procedurally, the staff involved could have been more service-oriented, and we could have had less acrimonious debate. It's certainly not my intent to ever be acrimonious if I can help it, but sometimes in order to get justifiable change, you have to put up an incredible amount of resistance and effort. I hope to continue to work with the minister and the ministry on a cooperative basis to get some resolution to some of these issues.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry has made good progress over the past several years in this area of public health. As the member knows, we now have an appeal board. When an individual landowner feels that regulations have not been administered appropriately.... We are looking at -- and have signed off on -- some both high-tech and new-tech approaches to on-site sewage disposal and, as the member says, we are now looking at exemptions to some parts of those regulations for bona fide farm sites. I think that this ministry, working with others, has made some progress. Members of ministry staff will, I am sure, continue to be responsive to the member, as they are to all members.
K. Jones: I'd like to follow up in the same area of interest, hon. minister. I'd like to ask if the ministry has ever investigated the many complaints from citizens in the Boundary health unit area who have applied for septic field approvals.
[4:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member should know, since I just explained it to his colleague from Abbotsford, we have established an appeal board for landowners who feel that the appropriate decisions have not been taken on a proposal for on-site sewage disposal. We recognize the needs for administrative justice to be done and have established a process for that to occur.
K. Jones: The real question was whether the ministry itself had investigated the complaints as to their validity. The complaints also may have something to do with his staff in that area.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would suggest that the member consult with his colleague from Abbotsford, who, I think, has a good understanding of how the system works and what avenues there are for appeal and for ensuring that public servants carry out their duties within the boundaries of the regulations they are responsible for.
K. Jones: My colleague from Abbotsford is not the minister on the hot seat in these estimates. It is the minister himself, and the minister should have answers to the questions that are put directly to him. Does his ministry have any investigations, either completed or underway, of complaints that have been brought from citizens in the Boundary health area with regard to septic field applications?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The Ministry of Health staff respond daily, weekly and monthly to concerns of citizens around processes and seek to provide good service. Where a final decision does not meet a citizen's perception of what is fair or just administration of the law, avenues are available for appeal of Ministry of Health decisions.
K. Jones: From the responses I've had in attempting to get a simple answer to a simple question, I would think that the answer from the minister is no, he has not done any investigation into complaints that have been brought by people from the Boundary health area. Is that confirmed?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me repeat again: the Ministry of Health staff respond to complaints as they arise. That will continue to be the practice. I really don't want to give a simple-minded answer to a simple-minded question.
K. Jones: The minister probably wants to add a few extra words to the word "simple." Obviously, he has a difficulty answering the question, and seems embarrassed by the fact that there hasn't been any investigation into the complaints brought by many, many citizens in the Boundary health area.
There are serious problems in the administration of the health care inspection process in the areas of Surrey and Langley, and the minister knows about them. Surely the minister has taken some action, has he not?
It's evident the minister is saying no, he has not taken any action. He is showing continuing unwillingness to recognize
[ Page 14769 ]
the concerns of people and the representation being brought before him in these estimates -- the only opportunity the public have to bring their concerns through their elected representatives to him. He is thumbing his nose at the process that is available here. I have great concern about the attitude of the minister.
The Chair: Member, I'm going to caution you about the attitude your last remarks reflected. You are here to ask questions of the minister. They are not to be asked in a derogatory fashion. I would ask you to conduct yourself accordingly.
K. Jones: Also, the minister is expected to give answers.
I would like to ask the minister if he could explain to us why there is a duplication of service requirements in the area of septic field approvals. The ministry insists on having the say over whether a percolation test is approved or not, even though they also demand that an engineering design be made by a professional engineering group or representatives of a professional engineering group at a cost of thousands of dollars. The result is that inspectors have failed to give their approval on designs approved by a competent engineering firm. Can you tell us why inspectors seem to think that they are better than a qualified engineer?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We have environmental health officers who inspect the effectiveness of sewage systems, just as we have building inspectors who inspect the effectiveness of the design and construction of buildings. There is no difference in principle here. We are in the process of regulating, not in the process of designing. As I said to your colleague from Abbotsford, it is our legal responsibility to ensure that the systems work as designed.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if professional engineers are considered to be incompetent when their recommendations are failed by a ministry inspector? Is that a measure of the competency of the engineering company or representative?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No.
K. Jones: If the ministry does not consider the professional engineer's opinion to be incompetent, that means it has accepted it as a competent opinion. People are forced to pay for that opinion. When that opinion says that the field they have designed in a particular location will meet all the standards and requirements of the Ministry of Health, does the ministry then have the right to say that the decision of a competent engineering firm is not valid?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes. And if the engineer disagrees, a technical appeal is available.
K. Jones: It's interesting to see the smugness of the minister in his replies. He is certainly not attempting to be cooperative.
Hon. P. Ramsey: On a point of order, I resent the characterization of my attitude by the member opposite. I think I've been quite responsive in this afternoon's session, even on points which I did not need to respond to because they were clearly matters of future policy. I think the member's comments are inappropriate and derogatory.
The Chair: Member, will you withdraw your remarks? Did you intend to impugn the minister in any way?
K. Jones: I have not impugned the minister, and I have not made any derogatory remarks. I commented on the presentation of the minister in his response to my questions, which were made very honestly.
The Chair: Member, I'm going to ask you again: did you intend to impugn the minister in any way?
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I have already responded to your question, and I did say that I did not intend to impugn the minister.
The Chair: Thank you. The member continues.
K. Jones: I'm really disappointed with the approach to the whole area of how citizens are treated in our community by the Health ministry in some aspects of the services that are supposed to be provided. I have a lot of complaints in my office, and I've heard from many others that they have complaints in their offices, too, with regard to the discriminatory and very dictatorial attitude sometimes exercised by members of the Health ministry.
I make these charges knowing full well the intent of what I'm saying. I have no intention of trying to impugn people unfairly. But over the past few years, through the experiences that we've had, and through the concerns that have been brought by members of my constituency, I do feel that there is some serious problem in the way the ministry operates. Something needs to be done. I urge the minister to do a thorough investigation into the whole process by which his ministry interfaces with the public.
I'd like to go on to another subject, a subject that was canvassed a couple of days ago, I believe. I'm wondering if the minister has had discussions with Mr. Val Pattee in the last three days.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Introducing Mr. Val Pattee, executive director of the B.C. Ambulance Service, who is here.
L. Fox: I just want to get in on the discussion. First, before I do, I want to give a tribute to the member for Abbotsford, who covered a broad number of issues very well in his very first estimates.
I just want to follow up on a couple of things around the approval process for septic fields. I guess I'm somewhat privileged, being in a small caucus and being both Municipal Affairs critic and Health critic, in that I've been petitioned by individuals all around the province. Some are in the Chair's riding -- at least, I believe Black Creek is very near his riding -- and some are from other areas of the province, where individuals have purchased land based on an approval permit that was granted previously. Subsequently we've seen goalposts moved in terms of what's acceptable, and those individuals either have had their lots rendered unbuildable or have had to face enormous costs in terms of meeting the requirements for septic fields. I think we have a responsibility through the approval process to be certain that the goalposts are something which are going to meet the environmental standards for some time.
[ Page 14770 ]
[4:45]
Having been a mayor for eight years and having dealt at some length with the union board of health representatives in Prince George, I can honestly say that I don't share the feelings of the individual from Surrey-Cloverdale. I've had differences of opinion many times with an environmental health officer, but usually, at the end of the day, if you've put a good case forward that's reasonable and has a balanced approach, balancing all values that are being considered, you can come up with some kind of reasonable settlement for your respective constituent.
I understand what the minister was talking about. We can't have environmental health officers designing a system. I recognize that that's accepting a liability and responsibility that these folks aren't trained for. It would be accepting a liability that I don't believe they rightfully should accept.
In saying that, I also recognize that we as a government have a responsibility to set some standards that can somehow be equated by the engineer. That way, he or she knows the obstacles that he or she has to overcome in order to design the mechanism so that at the end of the day there's no going back and forth saying: "No, that design won't work. You have to go back and redo it." That's where a lot of the confusion comes in. I think we have to have more specific guidelines in terms of objectives of the system, what it must do and what it must meet in order to be approved.
With all due respect to the minister, I think we fall short of that in many cases. That really causes a lot of grief to individuals who purchase land in good faith with a budget in mind and perhaps financing in place, and then all of a sudden find that the obstacles are just too great. For example, we see lots up-Island that were purchased for close to $100,000 that are now being assessed down around the $15,000 mark because they are not buildable. In the meantime, these individuals purchased that lot. In the case of one individual I spoke to, the health officer even said: "Yes, you can build on that; here's the requirement." He went back when it was time to build and the policy had changed; he was refused. It's that kind of inconsistency that really causes the property owners a lot of grief and a lot of hardship.
Unfortunately, that poor little environmental health officer who has to be out there selling the policy is the fellow or the gal who takes the brunt of the attack. I wonder if the minister would comment on how we might improve that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for Prince George-Omenica for his thoughtful comments on this rather thorny issue. I must say that rather than calling ministry employees dictatorial, I find most of the ministry folks I've talked to indeed meet this member's description as problem-solvers who want to assist the public in finding a solution.
I think two things need to be said. First, we have to operate in the approval of permits under what we know now: the current knowledge about what is acceptable or unacceptable. It would be inappropriate to say: "In 1920, when this subdivision originally occurred, the standards were thus-and-so; therefore the permit must be granted." We must work on what we currently know, otherwise we will end up with failures.
One of the reasons, hon. member, that sometimes environmental health officers reviewing subdivisions or redistribution of lots may seem inflexible -- as the member from Abbotsford suggested -- is precisely to avoid the sort of situation that you described as occurring on the upper Island. It is, indeed, a balancing act. I think we must apply the best thing we know about current standards.
The second thing we have attempted to do over my tenure as minister is to seek ways to be more flexible with approval of more technologically advanced alternative systems for on-site disposal, whether it's raised beds or a variety of other options. We know more now about how we can do safe on-site disposal. Maybe the standards have to be tightened. We're attempting to be as flexible as possible in the design of systems and in expanding the range of systems that can be considered for on-site disposal. That's a challenge as well.
I think it works both ways. We want to be flexible. If it doesn't work, we also have instituted, as the member knows, the right to appeal, which was not there before. As I'm sure the member knows through his work in municipalities, I don't think anything causes more heartburn at times than saying: "I can't go anywhere with this?" The answer was no, except back to the same person who said no to you.
We have now established an appeal process that can review technical design of systems, and I think that's an important part of fairness in administrative regulation.
L. Fox: I appreciate the minister's comments. I just want to try once more to point out the importance through the subdivision approval process of being sure that we're approving a subdivision on a solid basis so that indeed we don't run into the kinds of hardships that have been brought to me over the course of the last few years. Individuals have virtually been prevented from building their dream home, their retirement home or whatever the case may be.
As we get further into the process, I'm sure the member for Abbotsford, given the way he articulated his concerns earlier, will grasp the importance of the approval process. I'm quite convinced, however, that we've got to somehow have consistent goals. Once we've approved a subdivision based on certain criteria, I have some difficulties when we later go back and say: "No, we goofed. You can't build on that under this, because we didn't approve it, we're having problems today, or whatever the case may be."
I think it's extremely important when we approve a subdivision that the goalposts don't change so that people buying the property and doing the research to find out what the requirements are don't have them changed after they've purchased the property or between the time they've purchased the property and when they wish to build their home.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Just to wrap up this part of the debate, there are indeed some very contentious issues for those who have been denied approval and those who've had one approved that then failed. It is very much a balancing act, and the concerns you raise about making sure we've got it right before subdivisions are approved is sort of the other side of the balance beam from the concerns of the member for Abbotsford. And it is a balance; it's a tough one.
I think it's a credit to people in the ministry and the work they do that they approve some 10,000 on-site sewage disposal permits annually and review some 12,000 lots in subdivisions, and in most cases, I think they are perceived to be
[ Page 14771 ]
doing an excellent job. The only other thing I'd add as far as ministry activity in this area -- the member might be interested as a former municipal politician -- is that we are exploring possibilities for transferring responsibility for on-site sewage assessment to local government.
L. Fox: You won't get anywhere with the municipalities on that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member may be interested to know that one of the sites where this pilot project is going on is the Fraser-Fort George Regional District.
L. Fox: I know.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. member, they asked for it.
K. Jones: I would just like to clarify for the minister with regard to the points that I was talking about regarding large acreages and the concern that septic fields on large acreages were not being properly dealt with. I have several constituents who have been delayed months and months -- as much as a year, almost -- waiting for the heaviest rainfall that could be received in a year. When they attempted to do their work in the summertime -- the best time for doing the construction -- they were informed that they would have to dig their holes and wait until the following January or February to see whether there was any possibility that those holes would hold some water and not percolate properly. That is where the concern was. They were told to move it several times, and ultimately they were told to put it back to the original location and expand the original location. That information was all available the previous summer.
The people involved were absolutely frustrated with their experiences dealing with the ministry staff in regard to that. That is why I am frustrated over this issue -- because there is something wrong. It appears that a certain engineering company -- although recognized as being competent in their field by all of their peers and by others who have worked with them in other communities -- seem to have a serious problem getting their engineering design approvals in this particular area. There seems to be some discrimination occurring in this case.
I seriously ask the minister to look into this. It's not something that is a laughing matter. I'm trying to present to you very rationally my concerns about this. And they're certainly the concerns that I've had from many, many frustrated members of my community.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll take those concerns seriously, as long as the member refrains from slandering ministry employees by calling them discriminatory and dictatorial.
K. Jones: I'll move on to the area of ambulance services. I thank the minister for the written response to the information we requested with regard to the downgrading of ambulance services for the residents of Cloverdale. I have reviewed the letter and find that it seems to be a little confusing, and I wanted to ask the minister if he could clarify it. It says in here: "Minor alterations in the distribution of ambulances in the Surrey-Langley area are due to increasing call volumes in the industrial area of north Surrey and the growing residential areas of north Langley." Granted, there may be increases in the volumes in north Surrey and in north Langley; I don't dispute that. But is there any reason why the very limited staff and equipment that are serving the Cloverdale area -- and also, I would say, the Langley area, because they are also ending up with reduced services -- are being reduced even further?
[5:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try again. There has been no reduction in services to the people of the Cloverdale-Langley area. One ambulance that was housed in the second bay in Cloverdale for transfer use in the entire area is staffed by part-time attendants and has now been relocated to north Langley to serve the entire area for transfer purposes. The Cloverdale car is used primarily for emergency response in the Cloverdale area.
K. Jones: The full-time Cloverdale car has been backed up by the part-time unit quite extensively and is well used in that area, in addition to being able to provide transfer capabilities. Since it was not solely used for transfer capabilities, it means a removal of that extra car from the area, because the main car there is often posted all the way up at the far end of Fleetwood, at 152nd and Fraser Highway, to try to provide support to the Guildford-Whalley area. Therefore we have nothing now and will have nothing in the Cloverdale area to provide any facility. They will have to bring vehicles from White Rock or from Guildford or bring back this vehicle from the far end of Fleetwood to try to meet the requirements of the people in Cloverdale. There's something wrong there, hon. minister.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd like to inform the hon. member that the ambulance services provided through the Cloverdale station are more than adequate to meet the needs of Cloverdale. I might inform him that of calls responded to out of the Cloverdale station, only one-third were from residents in the Cloverdale area; the remainder were for transfers in the entire region. The coverage in Cloverdale is more than adequate.
K. Jones: I'm going to be looking forward to the way the people in our community respond to the type of service they're getting as a result of this improved service that the minister is implementing. I really do not believe they will be very happy with the type of service they're getting. I understand the backup to Peace Arch hospital is considered to be too slow to meet the requirements even on a transfer basis, let alone an emergency basis. Could the minister respond to that factor?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Transfer service provided by the B.C. Ambulance Service is done on a regional basis, not community by community. As far as we are able to ascertain, there has been no change in response time for that. At times it does get slow. This is because, obviously, emergency response must be responded to first.
K. Jones: That is the real crux of it. The emergency response is required and is very great in that area. We have major traffic highways that intersect the Cloverdale area; there are very serious accidents occurring there. We have a young population, a new urban population and the fastest-growing population anywhere in British Columbia, being served from
[ Page 14772 ]
that location. That does not appear to be a situation where you would be moving something away when you had already justified it being there to start with. Obviously it justified having two vehicles there to start with. They were doing a good job there. There are full crews on site there. I think the area deserves better service and better quality staff to make sure there is somebody on standby there.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say it again. Of the calls responded to from the Cloverdale station, something around one-third were for residents of the Cloverdale area. I believe that we are serving the area well. I would also point out that in the last couple of years two new stations have been opened in that broad region: one in North Delta and one in North Langley. I would also point out that what we've done with Cloverdale staff is what some have urged: get more full-time people involved and make sure that that car is run as a full-time car. That is one way of improving response time and making sure that emergency services are available to folks in the Cloverdale area. There's been no reduction in services in that broad region. There's been redeployment of a transfer car, which will serve the needs of the broad community well.
K. Jones: I want to clarify the minister's statement in regard to putting a full-time unit in Cloverdale. The people who work there believe that they have had a full-time staff car for quite some time, and that there has been no change in status. They weren't part-time before, were they?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No. There has been no change of staffing at Cloverdale either. There are 12 full-time EMA-2s, five part-time EMA-2s and three part-time EMA-1s.
K. Jones: Are you saying that the same staffing is going to continue at that station?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if these extra staff are going to be running around with stretchers in their hands in order to get to emergency situations? They only have one vehicle. How are all these people going to operate with one vehicle?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Nine full-time folks are required to operate a car seven days a week. That doesn't account for some of the holiday time. Other staff are used and rostered on the transfer vehicle.
K. Jones: The minister says that they're being used on the transfer vehicle, but I understand that the transfer vehicle is being removed from Cloverdale. It's going up to North Langley.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes. There are no part-time attendants in North Langley. They will be assigned to that centre. The services will be provided.
K. Jones: The minister is saying that there will be no part-time people working out of the Cloverdale centre or the North Langley centre -- the Walnut Grove centre. Which is it?
Hon. P. Ramsey: They'll work where they're needed and roster either at Cloverdale or North Langley. I must say that I think we've probably spent about enough time on this particular ambulance station. There are 190 ambulance stations across the province. I hope the member doesn't intend to poke into the staffing of every ambulance station in the same amount of detail that he's devoted to this one.
K. Jones: No, hon. minister, just when you're trying to cut back the staffing of an area that I have great concern for and that is a growth area. You will certainly hear from me in any further situation where that service is not meeting the requirements of the community. I can assure you of that.
I'd like to have you address some concerns that have been brought to my attention with regard to ambulance construction work. It relates to some contracts that were let this year with regard to the ambulance service. I would like to ask the minister whether he sees a need for some concern or for looking into the situation.
The situation is this. A contract was let that amounted to $4,903.81 per unit, which amounted to a contract for 90 vehicles totalling $425,000. This contract was for doing some work related to assessing.... It's a contract for stainless steel rear ramps and six-inch grab rails for the Ministry of Health. That contract was let to J.B. Sheet Metal. According to the Canadian Welding Bureau, under the contract it required that the company be qualified to the standards that are set out in the contract for the Canadian Welding Bureau standards and the CMVSS certifications, which are quality standards.
The Canadian Welding Bureau has indicated on March 31:
"Please be advised that they are not certified to CSA W47.1 or CSAW 47.2 standards as were required. Certified companies have proven to an independent third party that they have approved welding procedures, qualified supervisors, welders and the equipment to produce quality work. By using certified companies you ensure quality and public safety. This tender, which recently closed, was awarded to a company that does not possess the necessary safety and construction standards as required by Canadian law and is stipulated in the ITQ."
When a company that specializes in furnace ducting is awarded contracts to build ambulances without any sort of certification, the person who sent this letter to the government suggests that something is wrong. Would the minister agree with that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: If the member is interested in seeking an answer, I'd be pleased to have staff review the letter and ascertain the facts behind this tender, whether it was done from this ministry or through the government purchasing department in the Ministry of Government Services. I will seek to advise him on some of the circumstances around it.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if, with regard to contracts that are let through the Purchasing Commission and the Ministry of Government Services, the Ministry of Health provides the specifications?
[5:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
K. Jones: Therefore, if the specifications were not being met, would the ministry have some concern?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
[ Page 14773 ]
K. Jones: Can the minister tell us what action would the ministry take if those were brought to their attention?
Hon. P. Ramsey: That is enough of the hypothetical. If the member wishes to have staff look into the situation that he's received correspondence on, I suggest he provide staff with the correspondence.
K. Jones: This appears to be a fairly substantial contract, and there is a serious question about what's going on when standards are being overlooked for some reason -- and I have no idea what that reason would be. It would appear that some questions need to be asked. This relates to the contract that was let for the last type-2 ambulance in early February. Their company was unable to submit a bid, and "even though our price for this type of vehicle is almost $25,000 less than the prices charged by the successful bidders, we were unable to meet all of the technical specifications within the specified delivery times."
This started off by saying that on certain tenders, because of a shortage of resources or time, they regret that they would be unable to meet tendered specifications. They took that seriously and did not apply on it. They did apply on other jobs, and it is the other jobs that they have concerns about:
"We know that the Ministry of Health paid a premium for these ambulances to purchase a qualified product within the specified period. Why would the Ministry of Health pay a premium of $375,000 on this contract and then turn around on the next contract and purchase substandard work and compromise public safety to save a fraction of this amount? Are the costs of procedure development, documentation, training, testing, licence fees and ongoing monitoring accounting, which are reflected in increased costs to the end user, understood? Why are the standards followed in one contract and not in another?"
I'll just finish this off. There's a further sentence here that relates to it:
"We did not spend huge sums of money and go to the considerable trouble of certifying to these standards to get blown out of the water by fly-by-night companies. In this case, a company whose primary products are heating ducting and commercial sheet metal."
Could the minister tell us why this would be done, and does the minister have some policy that would correct this problem?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Companies that bid on tendered contracts must meet all the specifications at the time the contract is to be awarded, not at some future date. Government policy is to accept the lowest bid. If the member wishes to assume that allegations are facts, he has every right to do so. On the other hand, if he wishes to seek perhaps a more balanced view of the tendering of this particular contract, I'd be glad to receive the correspondence and see that he gets some facts.
K. Jones: I'd be very happy to give the minister the facts. I have given the minister most of the facts as they stand. I'd be happy to discuss with his staff the details of this, which I will also be taking up with the Purchasing Commission, as they seem to have a role in this. Since this is the budget of the Minister of Health, it did seem to be of concern that we should be taking into consideration how the budget was being spent. It appears that there may be some question about the way it's being spent in this regard. That concerns me at least, and I hope it concerns the minister.
Could the minister tell us where the air ambulance dispatch unit is located now?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The air evacuation dispatch centre is located at Victoria airport.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us where it's located at the Victoria airport?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I understand from staff that it's located across the road from the hangar formerly occupied by government air services.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether this is leased property or whether this is owned by the B.C. Buildings Corporation?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's leased property.
K. Jones: In view of the fact that the B.C. Buildings Corporation is still in the position of having to pay the lease on the building that they were previously in, and all of the facilities were in that location and capable of continuing to operate in that location, could the minister tell us why there would be a justification for moving it? Perhaps the minister could tell us that cost to move?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The Purchasing Commission is occupying space at the hangar. They required all the space.
K. Jones: I understand that the Purchasing Commission has only moved into that location for the simple reason that they wanted to justify some use of that space which had been vacated by government air services. They were already working out of government operation facilities at the B.C. Systems Corporation building and therefore had no real requirement to move from that location. What other reason would there be for the air ambulance dispatch to be moved?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I suggest that the member raise questions about decisions made by the Purchasing Commission with the Minister of Government Services.
K. Jones: I'll be only too happy to do that, but I'm asking the Minister of Health a question with regard to the Ministry of Health, not with regard to the Purchasing Commission. The question is: why would the Ministry of Health air ambulance dispatch be moved from the location that it was in for the past year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This is beginning to get Kafkaesque. Because the space was required by the government Purchasing Commission.
K. Jones: But it wasn't required by the Purchasing Commission, and therefore there must have been some other reason for justifying it. Could the minister tell us what it cost to move?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've answered the first question. I don't have the cost of that move at my fingertips. It was a very small amount.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the cost of the lease that the air ambulance service has to pay for the current facility?
[ Page 14774 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll be pleased to get that information provided to the member.
K. Jones: I appreciate that very much. Hopefully we'll have it within a day or two. The minister says yes.
I'd like to find out whether the ministry has any concern with regard to the measure of aviation quality assurance that is provided for the protection of those people in the ambulance service who are flying by contracted air to various parts of this province.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The quality assurance program operates from Government Services, as the member knows, and that program has recently been expanded by four staff. I believe it does the job we need to do in ensuring quality of contracted air evacuation services.
K. Jones: I just want to clarify. Does the minister say that there have been four additional people added to the air quality assurance operations? Since when, and are these FTEs or persons?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The staff was added in the last month or two. It involves some former pilots from government air services and former mechanical maintenance staff. We have an increased volume of contracting, obviously, that we're relying on, and the quality assurance program was beefed up.
K. Jones: A lot of the air ambulance service contracts entail helicopter services that are offered from Victoria, Vancouver and Prince Rupert, I believe. Is the minister satisfied that the quality air assurance capabilities in the helicopter field are in place?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
K. Jones: Could the minister elaborate on how he makes that judgment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The staff of the air quality assurance program for rotary aircraft have been there for some time. They have long, long experience of doing quality assurance with contractors who provide helicopter evacuation. I have received no indication that they do anything other than provide excellent service.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister may want to look more thoroughly into the area that he's just responded to. My research has indicated that there was no rotary-capability staff on quality air assurance until this new addition. Prior to that, there wasn't a rotary-equipped pilot in air quality services.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member's research is faulty. Quality assurance has had staff to do quality assurance on helicopters for quite some time, including an ex-Canadian Forces helicopter pilot, who heads the program.
[5:30]
K. Jones: We'll check into that further. Certainly I'm prepared to accept the minister's assurances at this point. I hope that he recognizes that it is on the record, and that the whole question of quality assurance is of concern. I understand it's of concern to many people in ambulance service. Does the minister have any indication from staff that there is a concern?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The B.C. Ambulance Service has a safety committee. It involves both the paramedics and supervisory personnel. It reviews concerns about safety on a regular basis.
K. Jones: How many complaints has the minister received from the safety committee in the past two years?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The committee receives complaints from paramedics working in the field or other members who have encountered government air evacuation. The number of complaints is quite small -- staff say less than ten in the course of a year.
K. Jones: The committee receives complaints. What does the committee do with them? Do they just absorb them or talk about them? What action occurs from that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: They investigate every complaint thoroughly. Members of the quality assurance program from Government Services are part of the committee. Every concern is taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.
K. Jones: What does the investigation entail? Do they check out the company that is complained about? What method do they use to check out the problem?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Whatever is required to ascertain the circumstances that gave rise to the complaint and its validity.
K. Jones: There's a very serious situation here. Do these reports come to the minister?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, they do not.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why the ministry would not be aware of serious complaints brought by members of the Ambulance Service about their personal safety as well as the operators who might be carrying them through very dangerous circumstances, be they mountain flying, night flying, storm flying on the west coast of British Columbia or through the mountains into the Rockies? And the minister doesn't really care or doesn't have these brought to his attention?
Hon. P. Ramsey: For the second time, I would ask the member to withdraw those comments. I care greatly about the safety of the people who work for the Ministry of Health, and I think this is the sort of scaremongering and abuse of position that this member indulges in far too often. I would ask him to withdraw.
The Chair: Member, do you withdraw the remarks? Do you intend to impugn the minister?
K. Jones: I have not impugned the minister. I have no intention of impugning the minister. There's nothing to withdraw.
The Chair: Member, I'm asking you if you are withdrawing your remarks where you indicated the minister did not care. Are you withdrawing?
[ Page 14775 ]
K. Jones: I have no intention of impugning the minister, hon. Chair.
The Chair: Member, I'm going to ask you one more time: do you withdraw your remarks?
K. Jones: If there's anything that I have said that is impugning the minister, I withdraw it. I have no idea what he would be referring to.
The Chair: Member, are you withdrawing your remarks or not?
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I have already said yes. Did you not hear me.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Given the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later today.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:35 p.m.
The committee met at 6:45 p.m.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 42: minister's office, $461,000 (continued).
K. Jones: I'd like to continue with the minister in the area of ambulance services. I'd like to ask the minister if he could tell us when he received the report on the Masset air crash.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I was notified the day of the crash. I was called at home only a few hours after the event had occurred. The actual investigation report by Transport Canada is still in process. They have not concluded their investigation yet.
K. Jones: Has the minister had any interim report or any indication as to why it is taking so long to get the investigation report?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have had no interim report, hon. member. These investigations routinely take up to a year to complete.
K. Jones: I know it's a very serious topic that concerns us all. It seems to be concerning a lot of people who have to continue working. What changes have been made as a result of that accident within the operations of the B.C. Ambulance Service or the Ministry of Health?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would dispute the suggestion of the member opposite that this remains a matter of high anxiety among B.C. Ambulance Service personnel. They know that we are taking quality assurance in this investigation very seriously. They are involved in the safety committee of which I spoke earlier. I think they have viewed with approbation the beefing up of the quality assurance program of government air services. Failing a complete investigation into the cause of the crash, what we have done with quality assurance is that we are not going to be flying fixed-wing aircraft into airports at night unless they are equipped with permanent lighting, local weather reporting and appropriate safeguards. These changes were based on a recommendation from the quality assurance program. This will impact on Masset and Anahim Lake, as well as Castlegar and Tofino.
K. Jones: The minister is saying that there are no fixed-wing operations at night into airports which have inadequate lighting and are not safe to operate into, yet he says that the staff of the B.C. Ambulance Service, which have to fly on these aircraft, are fully confident. Has there been any change in the auditing process of the contractors, which I think was of concern to members of the paramedic corps?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The new request for proposals from contractors for evacuation has been reviewed by a variety of agencies. It contains beefed-up safety provisions.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what those beefed-up safety provisions are?
Hon. P. Ramsey: They ensure that quality assurance has full access to the records of the company and that pilots flying Airvac are fully rested.
K. Jones: I couldn't hear the minister's last statement. He said that they were fully....?
Hon. P. Ramsey: These are provisions for crew rest time. One concern is that sometimes pilots or others may be asked to fly more hours than is appropriate, or to fly without appropriate rest. The contracts we are issuing tighten up our procedures to ensure that pilots are rested.
K. Jones: If you're tightening up the process for requiring crew rest time, what was the previous situation?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We were going with Transport Canada regulations, which I believe require eight hours of rest every 24 hours. We've tightened that up further.
One thing I would say, hon. member, is that we do not have the investigation, and we do not know the causes of the tragic crash at Masset. We are examining the operational procedures of the air evacuation system as thoroughly as we can. We are doing whatever we can to strengthen what we already believe are very, very stringent requirements for contractors who provide air evacuation.
K. Jones: What is the current rest-time regulation going to be if it's more than eight hours in 24?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The addition is that a crew is required to be physically away from the hangar for that rest period. In other venues, this has been an area where some abuse has been found.
K. Jones: Recognizing that one of the provisions for fast response was that the crews in many of these contract situa-
[ Page 14776 ]
tions were living in hangars in various parts of the province, does this mean that they have to have extra crews on board and that they have to hire additional people to be able to man these callouts on a 24-hour basis?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Crew for these aircraft have traditionally been on duty for 15 hours, available for call. This was an attempt to ensure that they're not doing more than that. We don't believe it requires additional personnel by contractors. If it does, that is the contractor's responsibility to consider as it submits a response to the RFP.
K. Jones: Is that 15 hours of standby time or flying time combined? If that's the case, there's room for nine hours of rest time in 24 hours. Is that the idea?
Hon. P. Ramsey: That is correct.
K. Jones: With that concept, the minister said that time would be spent physically away from the location -- eight or nine hours away from the hangar -- but they could be there for the rest of the 15 hours. Is that the idea?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
K. Jones: Is it the case in all callout contracts that they have to be on site, or is there a time that they have to be within calling distance or a distance that would allow them to be in the air within a certain period of time?
Hon. P. Ramsey: They have to be available on standby, ready to fly.
K. Jones: Is there a set time that they have to be off the ground from the time they receive the dispatch?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is as soon as possible. Obviously that depends on the time of day and the traffic in the airport that they're flying from.
L. Fox: I want to enter into this line of questioning. My understanding from some of the exploratory questions I've asked around the province is that because of the regional scope of the program, we've been able to have a quicker response through privatization than we were able to have when we had a Victoria-based program. Is that not correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, it is. I was very pleased to be involved in opening the Prince George base recently, which will provide a much faster response time than from Victoria for the northern half of the province.
L. Fox: Earlier the minister made a statement which I wasn't aware of. At this time of the year it doesn't cause me great concern, but it would certainly cause me concern during the winter months. There is a new policy that if there isn't adequate lighting the ambulance isn't able to get into that area. As the minister will know, the Vanderhoof airport, for instance, doesn't have lighting, and we've had a very large number of successes where the air ambulances have saved many lives in the Fort St. James-Fraser Lake-Vanderhoof region.
Previously, when we tried to get lighting through the airport assistance program -- which, of course, is under the Ministry of Highways' jurisdiction, not this minister's jurisdiction -- airport lighting wasn't a really high priority, given the limited funds. I guess this causes me a little concern, and perhaps I could ask the minister if he would clarify exactly what adequate lighting is. For instance, we have a volunteer network there that puts out flare pots for night landings. Would that be satisfactory for the air ambulance service, or does it have to be the more traditional type of lighting?
[7:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The only airports I'm aware of right now that were impacted by this were the four I mentioned: Masset, Anahim Lake, Castlegar and Tofino. I will have staff check into the situation at Vanderhoof and get back to the member.
L. Fox: It may very well be in relationship to weather conditions or something along those lines, but I'm sure the minister will be aware, as his staff will be, that a number of small rural airports have had the benefit of the air ambulance. As I've said, during the summer months we only have about four or five hours of darkness, so it's not as great a concern. But in the winter months, when it's not light until after nine in the morning and gets dark at four in the afternoon, it makes a lot longer time frame. I would appreciate the minister getting back to me at a later date so that I could understand the policy.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The only thing I'd add is that part of it is a factor of geography as well. Masset, Anahim, Tofino and Castlegar are all surrounded with circumstances that present hazards in addition to lack of visibility.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether there is currently a contract rotary or helicopter service for air ambulance located in Prince George or in the Okanagan-Kamloops area?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, there's no standing contract for helicopter evacuation in either of those centres.
K. Jones: In view of the large number of communities in those areas and the isolation many of them have from the West Coast capability, is there some reason why a rotary aircraft on contract hasn't been established in those locations?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The normal evacuation in those regions is by fixed-wing. If there is a requirement for a helicopter evacuation, we have people we can contract with on a spot basis.
K. Jones: So there are actually prequalified contract helicopter operations in those areas that are equipped for handling stretchers in an enclosed area? Do the stretchers have to be slung outside the aircraft?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As far as we know, we don't sling people outside aircraft. They ride inside.
L. Fox: Some do.
K. Jones: As my colleague says, some of them do operate with stretchers slung outside. With the smaller helicopters that's the only way you can handle them.
[ Page 14777 ]
Interjection.
K. Jones: In industry situations or emergency situations -- and what we're talking about are emergency situations.
Does the minister have any idea how often these contractors are utilized in British Columbia, outside of the regular schedule of contracts for rotary?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Whenever they are needed.
K. Jones: Well, thanks for the answer. It certainly doesn't give us any idea of how much demand there is. The question was a serious question about how often these are utilized, hon. minister. I know it's nice to give flippant answers, but that's not what we're here for.
The Chair: While waiting to recognize the hon. minister, the Chair would remind all hon. members that the standing orders require comments to be directed through the Chair. Doing so will help maintain the temper of the debate.
Hon. P. Ramsey: A rough estimate would be that approximately 20 percent of helicopter evacuations are done on a spot basis. That might be 100 to 150 a year. I'll be glad to get the exact figure for the hon. member if he requires it.
K. Jones: Yes, the hon. member would be interested in knowing what the demands are and how close they would be to justifying a full, contracted rotary operation in these major centres. There are a lot of people there that are needing fast response, be it a highway accident or a major disaster situation in a community. Since the hospitals in many places are being downgraded, there is a need to get these people to another location which has an orthopedic surgeon, as was the case in Prince George not too long ago. They had to be evacuated by air. I'm sure that's much the case of places like Chetwynd, Vanderhoof, Fraser Lake or the areas around Merritt or Kamloops.
There are lots of places where a helicopter would be a great asset. I understand that there were recommendations brought to the ministry quite a while ago in a study on this issue. They recommended the establishment of rotary facilities throughout the province. Could the minister comment on that report?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is right. There have been a number of reports over the years that suggested that I might expand the number of fixed contracts for rotary evacuation. Those were analyzed and found not to be cost-effective. When rotary evacuation is required, it is provided.
K. Jones: I'm looking forward to those statistics that will show that there is no justification at the present time for rotary aircraft in those areas. If the minister could get that to me shortly, I'd appreciate that so we could analyze that further.
I'd like to ask the minister a few questions about the Health ministry's capability in the area of emergency preparedness. Could the minister tell us what provisions are currently in place for a major earthquake in, say, the Alberni area?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The provincial emergency response program is coordinated through the Ministry of Attorney General. We do have, in the Ambulance Service, a disaster plan, and we sit on the committee that oversees disaster planning for the province.
K. Jones: How much funding is allocated to the area of contingency for dealing with a major disaster such as an earthquake?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Contingency funds for such a disaster are available in the general contingency fund of the government, not in individual ministry budgets.
K. Jones: A series of recommendations have been put forward in some of these reports, and I'd like to ask the minister a few items in regard to them. One of them was with regard to the level of training in British Columbia for all ambulance attendants. Could the minister tell us what level of training is recommended for this type of situation?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member will need to clarify what situation.
K. Jones: A major emergency -- a major earthquake or disaster situation.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The training is the same, whether somebody is training to deal with victims of an earthquake or of a car crash. The training provided to paramedics covers trauma injuries regardless of source.
K. Jones: This report I have in front of me suggests that all ambulance attendants must be upgraded to the emergency medical assistant 2 level -- the EMA-2 level -- with emphasis on trauma management. This would indicate that they are not at that level at the present time. What action is the minister taking to recognize that very solid recommendation?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be interested in seeing this report, the date on it and its source. We are not looking at upgrading all paramedics to EMA-2. It is not cost-effective or necessary for the performance of their duties.
K. Jones: The report was recommended to the Ministry of Health in 1990. Surely the minister is also aware of further reports. Is the minister not familiar with studies that have been done in the ministry to handle trauma? I hope the minister would be familiar with the trauma care report done by the British Columbia Trauma Steering Committee, published May 1990.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not familiar with this report.
K. Jones: What report is the minister familiar with in the area of trauma care?
The Chair: Shall vote 42 pass? The hon. member continues.
K. Jones: The Chair chose to answer the question before the minister had a chance to answer it.
[7:15]
[ Page 14778 ]
The Chair: Order, please. Please take your seat. I hope we can proceed through tonight's debate with due parliamentary decorum. Any remarks of disrespect directed toward the Chair will be acted upon pursuant to standing order 19. I ask all hon. members to continue the debate in a manner that shows due respect for this institution.
K. Jones: In view of the attitude of the Chair, I would let my colleague from Chilliwack take his turn for a few minutes to allow the Chair to....
R. Chisholm: I would like to get back to PEP a little bit. I'm sure you understand the venue I'm coming from -- it's around CFB Chilliwack. All ministries were informed that they were obliged to support PEP in some manner. Of course, yours being Health and hospitals, that would be your area of endeavour. With Housing and Recreation, their responsibility was to get housing for people who might have lost housing during some sort of emergency. I'm just wondering what your ministry is responsible for and what resources you rely on from the federal government, specifically when it comes to CFB Chilliwack and the hospitals they have in storage. I'd like to hear an overview. If the minister could arrange it, I would like to see the policy on the ministry's responsibilities for PEP at some future date.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member's comments might be more appropriately directed to the Attorney General, who is responsible for PEP. This ministry does not rely on the forces stationed at Chilliwack. I understand that they fit in some way into the overall disaster plan for the province. That plan is available through PEP.
R. Chisholm: I realize it is through the Attorney General and the federal government, but there are resources at CFB Chilliwack which your ministry could rely on. When I talked to PEP, it informed me that all ministries had certain responsibilities and that they had to develop a policy for those responsibilities -- for hospitals, hospital beds or whatever the case may be. I'm asking you how much you rely upon federal resources in this province to meet that obligation in times of emergency. I would like to get the policy that your ministry has developed in support of PEP, which they asked for just two years back.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize the member's concern with the continued operations of the base at Chilliwack. I must say, though, that he's asking a part of the plan to ascertain where another part of the plan fits in. We surely coordinate Ministry of Health operations with others, through PEP, for disaster planning, but the plan that we have presented does not rely on the use of federal resources. The resources of the Ambulance Service and existing provincial hospitals are our contribution to that sort of disaster planning.
R. Chisholm: I thank the minister for his answers so far, but if he could oblige me at a future date by giving me a copy of the policy that they use in support of a disaster -- an emergency of some sort -- I'd be most appreciative. I'll leave this one, and we'll talk at a later date on this particular subject. But if you could show me the policy, it would be helpful.
In my next question, I'd like to turn the subject around and talk a bit about Chilliwack. It might be somewhat redundant, because I haven't been here for the last eight or nine days while you've been hammering through this situation. I'd like to ask a few questions, especially as they pertain to the hospital in Chilliwack.
For instance, our hospital in Chilliwack, as the minister knows, is a 125-bed hospital. I have a hard time contemplating why we have an administrator and three vice-presidents -- all earning well over $100,000 apiece -- when we are cutting back on hospital facilities and hospital uses. I'm just wondering what the minister is doing in the area of looking into how much administrative staff we have in these hospitals, especially in this particular hospital where we're looking at almost half a million dollars' worth of wages, yet it's only a 125-bed hospital. This seems rather ludicrous. Maybe the minister could comment on this particular situation.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The decision on administrative structure and salaries paid to hospital administrators rests with the hospital board. I would hope that the member would convey his concerns to the hospital board that is responsible for setting remuneration and designing administrative structures. I must say that I share some of the member's concerns, and, actually, I know the Premier of the province shares them as well. It was just over a year ago that the Premier, the Minister of Finance and I announced a freeze on high-paid personnel in the public service and instructions to the Public Sector Employers' Council to ask all sectors -- health, social services, college, university and public school -- to devise guidelines for executive remuneration to get rid of some of the discrepancies and at times, frankly, abuses of the system that is in place now.
[S. O'Neill in the chair.]
The member may well be aware of some dismissals of folks from hospitals where severance packages were well in excess of what I think the public perceives as acceptable. We are undertaking to make sure we have appropriate guidelines in place as the new community health councils and regional health boards hire their staff. We are working with them to make sure we have guidelines in place which will prevent these potentially excessive administrative costs that the member speaks of.
R. Chisholm: As the minister knows, I'm in the middle of a bit of a tug of war with these particular people about these subjects. I just wanted to get your opinion on paper so when I'm having another tug of war with them, we will debate a little bit stiffer....
L. Fox: Who has the most weight.
R. Chisholm: Exactly.
My next question references hospitals. Chilliwack General Hospital's administrators are engaged in an experiment in hospital management called patient-focused care. I believe you've received a few letters on that particular issue, too. It has created a startling lack of morale among the staff of the local hospital. It seems to have affected the level of health care administered to the patients of Chilliwack General Hospital.
I was under the assumption that Closer to Home was the policy that was to be implemented across the province. I just
[ Page 14779 ]
wonder how Chilliwack General Hospital somehow received the go-ahead from the minister to opt out of that program and start putting in its own program.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, the Closer to Home initiative to get services delivered outside institutions or in cooperation between institutions and community sectors is really a wholly different issue from patient-focused care. The administration and board at Chilliwack General Hospital have the responsibility for delivering quality care. They can arrange delivery of services as they wish, as long as they're meeting standards of delivery of care.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
I too have heard concerns about care being delivered. That is why I have had ministry staff working with representatives of workers at the hospital, with the board, with the community and with the administration to put in place a comprehensive evaluation of patient-focused care so that you and I -- members of the communities, members of staff -- can objectively examine the merits and demerits of this particular delivery system for in-patient care.
R. Chisholm: Then can the minister explain to me how the hospital....? You're saying the hospitals are entitled to do whatever they want within their own jurisdiction, even if the taxpayers' money is being wasted, as far as the taxpayer is concerned. They are entitled to do whatever they please. It's almost the same thing you said to me when it came down to the wages of the administrator and the three vice-presidents for a 125-bed hospital. Does the ministry not have any controls or checks and balances over what this particular board can do?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We are monitoring the situation at Chilliwack very carefully. As I have said, we have heard concerns about quality of care being delivered at Chilliwack. That's why we have put in place an evaluation of staffing arrangements at Chilliwack. We want to ensure that high-quality care is delivered to residents served by the Chilliwack hospital.
In answer to the member's first question, hospital boards have a wide range of powers to employ personnel and run services. They operate with considerable autonomy, far more so than many other public sector institutions.
R. Chisholm: When that report comes back in, I would be most appreciative if you could keep me informed as to the status of the personnel there -- the unions, the administrative staff -- and exactly what is going on, an honest assessment. I have a problem at times, when I discuss it with certain levels in that hospital, in getting the actual truth out. But the patients I talk to have a definite point of view, and the two do not equate.
I would just like to change the subject a little bit again. You may recall that in Agriculture I was pushing a Buy B.C. program. You may recall that a number of years ago.... I'm wondering if your ministry is doing likewise for Canadian companies that supply medical needs. Do you have anything in your ministry that does exactly the same thing?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The great majority of supplies and consumables are purchased by the hospitals, which have a bulk purchase program. Increasingly, they're looking at joint purchasing by groups of hospitals. To my knowledge, none of them have a Buy B.C. or Buy Canadian program. They seek the lowest cost and highest quality for the taxpayers of the province.
R. Chisholm: My suggestion to the ministry would be that they should opt for buying Canadian if at all possible. After all, it does help here at home.
I would like to change the subject to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I'm wondering if the minister is looking to stop their practice of quietly policing themselves. The appointment of an independent complaints officer might alleviate some of the situations we've seen in the last couple of years. We see the same thing when we talk about lawyers. In particular, there have been a few cases in the last couple of years which have brought suspicions concerning the college to the fore. I'm wondering if the minister is looking into adapting the system so that the public has more input.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Over our term of government we have undertaken a number of changes to the legislation governing the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I think the member had a chance to vote on amendments to the legislation. Among them were provisions to increase public membership on the council of the college -- the governing body -- to one-third, as opposed to the previous situation, where I think only two members of the council were members of the public.
Through legislation, we've also put in place the great majority of recommendations contained in the "Crossing the Boundaries" report, which the member may be familiar with. This report was co-chaired by one of the assistant ombudsmen. It recommended a comprehensive set of regulations and structures to deal with complaints of sexual abuse and harassment by physicians. Most of those provisions are now in place.
[7:30]
In addition, I would like to say that I think the college has recognized that it has had a serious problem, in that its legislated role as a protector of the public from unethical or incompetent practitioners was not seen to be its primary concern by some members of the public. It has recognized, I believe, that it has a difficulty. It has been taking steps to ensure that its role as a protector of the public is enhanced and seen more clearly.
Many of the cases that have made the press recently -- the absolutely incredible case of Dr. Charalambous, who killed one of his patients, and other clear cases of abuse by physicians -- date to an era prior to these initiatives. I have urged everyone who deals with this self-regulating profession to give the changes to the college's governing structure and operations a chance to work. The changes to the legislation are really unprecedented since the founding of the college. The college itself is aware of that. I believe they deserve a chance to demonstrate that they have turned over a new leaf and are focusing on the protection of the public.
In closing, I am personally committed to self-regulation in the health professions -- with public involvement. I think it is a model that can work. The alternative of state regulation, which occurs in many states in the United States, I believe is cumbersome and lacks the involvement of the profession. This is not desirable in many cases.
[ Page 14780 ]
R. Chisholm: What the minister has said sounds reassuring. I hope it comes about the way he foresees it, because I'm afraid the public's opinion of the medical profession and the self-policing is not very high at this stage of the game. Hopefully, what you're saying is going to happen will improve that situation, and it will straighten up a little bit.
My next question is for myself. The minister has spoken about the Montreux centre. I wonder if he could bring me up to date from the last meeting we had as to where Montreux is now and what the government's involvement is in this situation and in that whole situation. If he could do that, it would be appreciated.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I will give a relatively short answer and ask the member to review Hansard. The Liberal critic and I engaged in quite an extensive discussion of provincial initiatives in the area of eating disorders.
Since we last met at estimates, a number of things have transpired. First, the residential facility associated with St. Paul's eating disorder centre has been opened -- a ten-bed facility. Another ten-bed unit associated with Children's Hospital is expected to open soon.
There is a provincial eating disorder steering committee, which has been charged with looking broadly at standards for residential care as well as at provincial strategies for dealing with eating disorders. That committee has produced its first draft of regulations to govern residential facilities, be they for profit, as Montreux is, or be they non-profit, as are the ones we've established at Children's and associated with St. Paul's.
That's the current status of it. We are seeking to enhance residential treatment centres for people dealing with very serious eating disorders who are being treated in conjunction with a tertiary facility. We are also seeking to coordinate a dissemination of information about clinical guidelines for treatment so that general practitioners and regional centres and those who are working in the prevention of eating disorders are part of a network dealing with this very serious issue.
R. Chisholm: Like I said, you'll have to indulge me. I haven't been here for the last nine days in this particular committee; other committees have been ongoing.
My last question to you is in regard to the so-called two-tier health system. It would seem that the Leader of the Official Opposition is advocating, and has advocated, the two-tier system at times -- at least this is what it seems to me. I wonder if the minister feels that a two-tier system would be a good thing for British Columbia, as the official opposition leader seems to be implying.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you for that question.
L. Fox: Repetition.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member for Prince George-Omineca is warning me against repetitious debate. Let me say this as clearly as I can. I think the debate on two-tier health, on the establishment in British Columbia of a separate system that allows people with large bank accounts to seek elective treatment rather than wait with the rest of us as medical necessity requires.... I think this would be a great detriment to our health system.
I think the debate on this issue ought to be done looking very clearly at what has happened in other jurisdictions where such a system has arisen. In every area that I'm aware of, particularly in England and Australia, the evolution of a second tier has resulted in diminished service within the public system. It has not meant shorter wait-lists, as some said would occur, but longer in the public system. It has diverted resources of physicians and dollars from the public system to the parallel private system. It has meant -- as it has in the United States most apparently -- an excellent level of care for those with financial resources, a mediocre level of care for those with some resources and, in many cases, no care at all for up to one-third of the population of the United States. I don't think we need to look any further than south of the border to draw some rather striking lessons about what two-tier health means. I think most British Columbians recognize that that is not a route we should follow in this province.
The Chair: The Chair sees many members standing, wishing to enter into the debate and will endeavour to recognize each member as that member first catches the Chair's eye. The Chair first saw the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.
L. Fox: I've got a general question. It comes out of a number of phone calls that I've had over the course of the last week and a half, where the ebola virus has been making headlines.
An Hon. Member: In Vanderhoof?
L. Fox: Not in Vanderhoof, no. But the concerns have come out of some of the articles that we've seen in Canadian newspapers, where there has been a concern about how this virus is spread. There's a lot of debate around that issue. I don't expect the minister to have all the answers on that, but "Ottawa says quarantine not needed despite deadly plague spreading through Kitwit to villages." The other concern was the fact that in another article it was suggested that we didn't have to screen individuals coming into Canada. I have an article here, which I'll have to admit I have great difficulty reading. It's in medical terminology, and many of the words in here have over 20 letters in them. They're extremely long and difficult to understand.
T. Perry: I thought you had trouble with the ones that were more than four letters long.
L. Fox: Well, that too, hon. member. Unlike that member, I don't use those words.
The first question I'd ask the minister is if he's had any discussion with the federal ministry of health around this issue, recognizing that most of the concerns that have been brought to my attention would fall under federal, not provincial, jurisdiction. Has the minister or his ministry explored any of the aspects of this particular virus?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The B.C. Centre for Disease Control and the provincial health officer, Dr. John Millar, are our contacts with the federal government and the federal Department of Health on measures to ensure that this epidemic does not find itself a new home in Canada.
L. Fox: Perhaps then, knowing that, I will contact those agencies and be able to return the calls that have come to my office about it -- which, thank goodness, are not all that plentiful.
[ Page 14781 ]
I have a couple of specific items. Yesterday -- I think it was yesterday; we've sat for a number of days -- we talked about funding and interim funding for local services versus provincial services which are offered by societies or groups. It was brought to my attention that the minister has recently received a letter from the Vernon and District Hospice Society. Among other things -- and I'm not going to go into it in any great detail -- they're concerned because the revenues that have been available to them historically through gaming, some through bingos, are shrinking for various reasons. They are very concerned that they're going to be caught up in the transition time and be without funding. They have suggested to the minister in this letter that in six months' time they will be out of business, given the current cash flow and so on. They're very concerned, because in their view, as they state in the letter, they don't believe that they will be able to approach the community health councils in that short time. At some point down the road they would, but to get organized in that short time.... Among other things, they've requested $50,000 per year for two years from this minister. In case he hasn't seen that letter, I just thought I'd make him aware of that. Once again, it points to the concern that many of these groups have about the transition period.
I think that was partly the reason that I brought that out yesterday. In reviewing Hansard this morning concerning the discussion that we had yesterday, I'm not sure that we really answered the question all that well in terms of the transition and how these groups are going to be funded. The minister, I'm sure, would recognize the good work that groups like the Vernon and District Hospice Society do. It's very cost-effective work. But perhaps he could try once more to explain how groups such as this would be funded through the transitional period.
Hon. P. Ramsey: In the transition period, they'll be funded, as they have been in the past, through the Ministry of Health. The initial handoff to the regional health board would be for payment for services that are now delivered within that region in the budgets for those services.
I'm not aware of the letter from the Vernon hospice. I must say, though, that as the member is aware, in other areas of the province hospice societies have been successful in making their case as a priority community-based service for their community or region and in acquiring Closer to Home funds to enhance the services that they provide. I don't know whether Vernon hospice tried that. I think $2 million or $3 million were available in the Okanagan region for Closer to Home funds, and I would have hoped that, were they facing this sort of concern, they would have been able to approach the steering committees and those reviewing Closer to Home proposals for funding in that region. At this point, I must say that I doubt that I'm going to be able to find available funds to help them this fiscal year.
[7:45]
L. Fox: I see here, in re-reading paragraph three of this letter.... The letter's only dated May 18. I wouldn't expect the minister to be aware of every letter he receives. I have a tough time doing that myself, and I'm sure I don't receive half -- or even a small portion of -- the correspondence the minister does.
They were part of a community partnership service that initially went before the regional health council and were partway through their submission when it broke apart. So now, in fact, they have to go on their own instead of part of a group. I will forward your answer to these folks and suggest that they immediately seek to be funded under the regional system and start their application as an independent.
Have you got the letter?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No.
L. Fox: Oh. Okay. One other issue -- and I don't want to deal with the specifics of this. I'd rather deal with what a process for this would be. I have a letter as well from the Lumby and District Senior Citizens' Housing Society. They wrote a letter to the minister on May 15 in which they report a rather unfortunate incident. I won't go into great detail, but they are very, very concerned about the level of medical treatment that this 91-year-old fellow received in an emergent situation, and they are making the minister aware of it. I've had reports of a similar nature, as I'm sure the minister has, within different areas of the province. I'm always a bit concerned about what process to put these groups through -- how to steer them in order to have their concerns dealt with.
I have another one from another senior citizens' facility. In the past, I've done the appropriate thing, I think, in trying to steer them back to the board. But in many cases they feel a bit less than prepared to do that. It is the board which governs that institution, and they feel -- especially those who have a family member who is a resident within that institution -- that they don't really want to perhaps jeopardize the care of that resident by going before that board in order to make their point.
This particular letter -- and I'll share this with the minister after this -- is one of grave concern to me. What do we do with these folks? Obviously, in my view, we should have some process where we steer these people to be heard, and then an exploratory system would investigate the allegations and perhaps legitimize them before going to the respective boards to be dealt with. Or, in cooperation with the respective boards, perhaps a third party does it without disclosing the identity of the individual who levied the complaint. I don't have the answers, but I've run into a number of these issues where I'm very concerned. The allegations are not being dealt with because the individuals don't want to identify themselves in order to deal with it. Perhaps the minister might have some ideas on how he can guide me, and I can direct the constituents who have brought these concerns to me as to what process they should follow.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is correct. I often receive such correspondence as well, and usually I read it with a fair bit of distress. I think our health system serves hundreds of thousands of British Columbians well every year. But every now and again, things seem to go grossly awry. I also recognize what the member says about the reluctance sometimes of a resident in a facility that's contracted with this ministry to actually approach the administration or board of the facility. Maybe retribution is too strong a word, but they don't want to jeopardize the quality of care that their family member or friend may be receiving. Still, I must say that that is the appropriate first choice. Most facilities do have in place review procedures which look at care for individuals. I have yet to meet many health providers or administrators of such facilities that don't have quality of patient care as a very high priority for them.
[ Page 14782 ]
If they are not comfortable with that, I think the next appropriate place to go would be to continuing-care managers at the health unit for the region. They are employees of the Ministry of Health and have broad responsibilities for quality of care and placement in continuing-care facilities. So that's the appropriate regional route to look at for an investigation of a particular complaint about patient care.
Another avenue is to approach the quality assurance program within the continuing-care division of the ministry, which works with all facilities to address concerns that come to them about staffing levels and the general care of patients or residents in long-term facilities. That is what I would recommend to those who write to the member. Those are recommendations that I make to constituents who write to me.
The only thing I would add is that if there's clearly a concern about a physician -- the prescribing of drugs or care -- then the College of Physicians and Surgeons has a role to play in investigating the care delivered by that physician. This is another avenue that revolves specifically around physician care and decisions. Those are some suggestions that the member might pass on to his correspondents.
L. Fox: I recognize that you or I, hon. minister, would not be hesitant to express our concerns to individuals at that level. Often, though, average.... I shouldn't say average. I don't like that word, because in my view none of us are average. We are all individual selves. But rank-and-file British Columbians don't feel as comfortable. Perhaps something that we should look at in the New Directions initiative is an advocacy role of some kind within the ministry, so that people can feel comfortable around the issue of confidentiality. We should remember that we are talking about things which are very personal to us -- the medical treatment or care that we are receiving. An advocate that would help individuals in dealing with these issues is something that we might consider.
I recognize that that doesn't come without a cost. Perhaps an advocate is what an MLA should be. But I have to tell you that as an ordinary MLA I feel less than qualified when dealing with these kinds of sensitive issues. I'm not trained to deal with them, yet I feel obligated to help these families through these difficult situations. As an MLA, I'm caught between a rock and a hard spot. I know we have these kinds of people in Social Services. We have advocates for other reasons. We have legal aid available when we have legal problems. But in this case it seems like these folks are left out.
I recognize the minister's contribution in his answer, and that's the normal process I would follow. But I still have to say that in some of these sensitive areas -- and both of these, in my view, are sensitive areas -- we really aren't in a position, with the present structure, to help these folks.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize the concerns of the member. Every resident in a long term care facility and every client of the continuing care division of the ministry has had a case manager. The case manager is aware of the needs of the person and has been involved in working with the family or individual in looking for appropriate placement or support services. These are individuals who care deeply about the clients whom they deal with from day to day. They serve as advocates to make sure the person receives the care that he or she requires. I'm not sure whether changing the name on the door from case manager to advocate would lower the barrier. An office in a government building might be the barrier for some individuals seeking to get what they feel are just services for the individual they're concerned about.
The other thing I would suggest.... I've sometimes had people phone my constituency office who are calling me because, as the member says, they feel quite intimidated approaching any official. The continuing care division will respond and deal with anybody that the individual wants to appoint as an advocate for the individual client. If your constituent says, "I'm too scared and worried about doing that, but could my neighbour do it?" the answer is yes. They can do the approach and seek to address whatever the concerns are.
Having said that, I thank the member for his comments and for his concern about these issues and his suggestions that other ways of advocating for individual care should be explored.
T. Perry: I have a brief matter I wanted to raise, but I found I was intrigued by the points of the member for Prince George-Omenica. I thought it was refreshing to hear from a Reform MLA the concern and the concept of the MLA as advocate for little people. I thought that was a nice thing to hear in the House. We don't hear a lot of that.
I want to share my experience in return. It sometimes makes a difference when the MLA does get involved. Expertise doesn't necessarily make it a lot easier. I've been involved in a few where the response of the large institution to a reasonably presented complaint was clearly inadequate. It made my blood boil on occasion, frankly. The MLA's involvement is a rather blunt instrument. It makes one worry about inappropriate influence. Yet it can sometimes be very creative, because it does make people rethink their roles in positions of authority. I'd like to reinforce the member for Prince George-Omenica's point for the minister's consideration.
[8:00]
I share the minister's view and response that simply naming an advocate is not necessarily the most effective response. That approach was tried in Ontario in psychiatric hospitals and ended up pitting the advocates against the professional caregivers. I've heard concerns from my sister and brother-in-law, who trained in that system as psychiatrists, that suddenly someone whose highest ethical training is always to be a patient's advocate has to walk down the hall past an office sign which says "patient advocate's office." It's rather insulting to professional health caregivers and sometimes may be counterproductive in that it can absolve them of their own responsibility.
I just think it's not necessarily unhealthy for the MLA to give people a good kick in the butt once in a while. I don't know if that is antidisestablishmentarianism or not.
The member said he was worried about 20-letter words and I've found a 28-letter word. Perhaps the minister, who's more erudite than I am, can tell me what antidisestablishmentarianism means.
Thanks to the Chair, this is now not only in the Hansard index but out on the Internet for all time -- surfing the Net.
To my main point -- and I'll be very brief, I promise, opposition members, really brief....
The Chair: This committee will stand recessed for the division that has just been called in the main House. We will return to where we are now following the division.
[ Page 14783 ]
The committee recessed from 8:02 p.m. to 8:16 p.m.
[J. Pullinger in the chair.]
The Chair: I call the committee back to order on the estimates of the Ministry of Health. I recognize the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain who, I believe, had the floor when we recessed.
T. Perry: Hon. Chair, my ardour has cooled, and I shall pursue this tomorrow at a saner moment.
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chair.
I'd like to ask the minister a few questions. I think this area is of great concern to a lot of people in our province. It's just a question of whether we can get something effective in this area. I was wondering if the minister could tell us just how many pregnancies go to full term.
The Chair: Is the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain rising to be recognized or stretching his legs?
T. Perry: Only, hon. Chair, to drop my jaw in astonishment at the question.
The Chair: Thank you for your input.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm trying to figure out where to begin to grapple with this question. Let's start with some of the basic principles of biology. About 25 percent of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. Maybe that's a starting point: 25 percent simply never reach term because of spontaneous biological factors.
K. Jones: Does that mean that the rest, the 75 percent, would go on to full term? Is that what you're suggesting?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Obviously not. There are a number of stillbirths in the province, and of course there are a substantial number of therapeutic abortions performed in this province.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how many pregnancies go to full term, then?
Hon. P. Ramsey: In the most recent year that Vital Statistics have published these stats -- and they're available to the member -- there were 46,144 live births and 293 stillbirths.
K. Jones: Based on that information, how many would...? Perhaps you could clarify for me: when you were talking about spontaneous abortions, are you talking about miscarriages?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, I was using the terms interchangeably.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the cause would be of the remainder not going to full term?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's try again. Of every 100 pregnancies, approximately 25 percent are spontaneously aborted. Some women experience a miscarriage in the very early stages of pregnancy, and some later. Of the remaining pregnancies, in 1993 about 46,000 went to term and about 13,000 therapeutic abortions were performed. There were about 300 stillbirths.
K. Jones: What action is the Ministry of Health taking to improve these statistics?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Perhaps the member could be specific about which aspect he feels needs to be improved, and maybe I'll agree with him.
K. Jones: To a person who became pregnant, I would think that every one that didn't go to term would be of concern. This would be of concern to both the male and female who make up the couple. Would you be able to tell us what the ministry is doing to improve the number of pregnancies that go to full term?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are a variety of pregnancy outreach programs throughout the province. Perhaps this is what the member is referring to. These programs seek to provide counselling to pregnant women about appropriate nutrition, appropriate prenatal care and appropriate measures that will ensure the health of themselves and their children. The miscarriages or spontaneous abortions occur for any number of reasons, most of which are well beyond the ability of medical science or a change in a person's diet or habits to influence.
K. Jones: The minister said there were a large number of stillbirths. Could the minister tell us what the ministry is doing to reduce them?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The number that I gave the member was 293. This should be compared with 46,144 live births. That's not a large percentage. I'm sure that all 293 cases represented a very sad time in their lives. I have already mentioned the efforts being made through appropriate prenatal counselling around nutrition, lifestyle and care for pregnant women.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what is being done to reduce the number of therapeutic abortions, then?
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the largest issues that we have concerning the number of therapeutic abortions is the advent of an unwanted pregnancy. Therefore I think that some of the work that the Planned Parenthood Association does in running reproductive health clinics around the province is absolutely vital to the efforts to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. In some areas of the province, we have a particularly large number of unwanted teenage pregnancies, which is at times really personally tragic. At times, it's children having children. I believe that appropriate education and access to reproductive health services are important components in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how much money is being allocated to that program in order to reduce the number of pregnancies that are dealt with as therapeutic abortions?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Could you clarify that, Ken? I'm not sure if you're asking how much we spend on therapeutic abortions.
[ Page 14784 ]
K. Jones: Maybe I didn't put that very clearly. Could you tell us how much money is in your budget to try to reduce the number of therapeutic abortions? I'm sure that therapeutic abortions have a certain dollar cost to the health care system. Could you tell us what moneys are being allocated to trying to reduce the need for therapeutic abortions?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have a way of breaking that out, hon. member. It is an integral part of services that are provided in health units across this province. I don't know the specific programs that the health unit in the member's riding are undertaking. I know that in my riding, for example, the health unit has done a lot of outreach with the public school, addressing the issue of reproductive health and contraception with the adolescent population of the city. They've done a number of outreach initiatives to the aboriginal communities around Prince George. They're a regular feature at health fairs and the like in the city. They do a heck of a lot of work as part of their ordinary jobs. I don't have a way of breaking out and quantifying that effort in dollar terms for the member.
In addition, of course, there is the counselling and education that takes place one on one in physicians' offices across the province and, as staff have reminded me, through the curriculum in schools. So there's a variety of avenues to try to get this information out. There may be other steps that should be taken. Someone suggested that a greater number of clinics run by Planned Parenthood around the province would be a good idea.
I recently was able to attend the official opening of the new clinic in Kelowna, which I think will provide a very valuable service for residents of that region. But I can't quantify it for the member. It's too much a part of public health budgets.
K. Jones: Two years ago your predecessor allocated $300,000 to programs to try to reduce the number of therapeutic abortions, as she stated in her budget at that time. Is that still in your budget or has that gone by the bye? Perhaps the minister could give us some indication of where that money went to.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm trying to figure out where the number came from. We do grants to Planned Parenthood B.C. to run clinics. Perhaps that is the number the member is referring to, but that is only part of the work that is undertaken in health units around the province.
K. Jones: At the time of the establishment of $800,000 for the stand-alone abortion clinics, there was also an allocation of $300,000 for programs to try to reduce the number of abortion requirements. That was two years ago. That is what we are referring to. Could the minister tell us whether that program is continuing and what programs were in place at that time?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've already talked about the programs that are in place.
K. Jones: So there's currently in your budget an equivalent to that sum of money, $300,000, for this purpose? Could you tell us what part of the budget it's located in?
[8:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say again that I assume the amount the member is referring to is a grant to Planned Parenthood B.C. for some of the clinics they run. As I said, the Ministry of Health spends considerable additional dollars through public health unit counselling on reproductive health, making contraceptive information available as a part of routine ministry operations wherever they go. It's also a part of operations in the Ministry of Education. I do not have a way of quantifying that amount of money.
K. Jones: That's fine. Perhaps the minister could tell us, recognizing that there has been some growth in our province.... A certain percentage of growth would suggest probably 3 percent. Is that the general population growth over the past year or two? Could the minister tell us whether there has been an increase or a decrease in the number of therapeutic abortions as a result of spending $300,000 -- or whatever else money was used in the past year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The number of therapeutic abortions has risen in the last several years, which reflects -- at least in part as the member recognizes -- the growing population of the province. I don't know what other conclusions the member wishes to draw.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us the figures for the number of therapeutic abortions over the last five years?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, but I can do the last three: 1991-92, 11,398; 1992-93, 12,328; 1993-94, 13,611. Those were the numbers billed to the Medical Services Commission.
K. Jones: Thank you, hon.minister. I hope the ministry will continue to work towards trying to find ways that will save a lot of anguish for people who are in a situation where they have to make that choice. I hope the ministry will work towards easing the trauma and pain that any couple has to face when they have to face that type of question.
I would like to read into the record this letter with regard to Surrey Memorial Hospital; perhaps the minister could give us his response. This was sent by the chair of the board of trustees:
"We are writing to keep you informed on several issues which are seriously affecting our ability to provide adequate care. Surrey Memorial Hospital serves the population with needs that far exceed the hospital's means. Our hospital acute care beds are full; our long-term beds are full; our psychiatric beds are bursting; our obstetrical beds are spilling over; and our emergency department is overflowing with admitted patients who cannot be moved into patient units because there are no beds for them. Further compounding these problems is a delay in Closer to Home funding. As you know, Surrey Memorial is committed to providing quality health care services in the most efficient and effective manner possible and we have recently undertaken many initiatives to ensure efficient use of our resources. In spite of these efforts, however, we are continuing to face challenges in our ability to meet the health care needs of the patients who are counting on us. Singularly these issues are manageable. However, together they are placing considerable strain on our system. Our most pressing concern is the increase in psychiatric patients in our region. A proposal for the addition of ten in-patient psychiatric beds and enhanced services for this region is being developed and the hospital continues to allocate ten beds from other areas of the hospital to accommodate this increased need."
That means that acute care beds are being utilized for psychiatric needs.
Could the minister tell us what the ministry is doing to try to relieve this very serious problem in the fastest-growing municipality in British Columbia?
[ Page 14785 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry recognizes that the rapid growth in the region south of the Fraser River has placed strains on hospital facilities and others in the region. The member probably knows that Surrey Memorial has received approval to do a plan for a $65 million expansion to services. One of the components they are looking at including in that expansion is an increased number of beds for adolescent psychiatry. We continue to work closely with Surrey Memorial to make sure that their rapidly growing area is recognized and that they have the means to provide health services to the residents of Surrey.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us when that $65 million that's established -- for planning, is it? -- would actually be a constructed product? What would be the total value of the constructed product?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Planning for this expansion has been in progress for approximately a year and a half to two years. We anticipate that construction on the first part of the expansion will begin later this fall or early in 1996, and that work will commence on the second phase of this expansion sometime in the following fiscal year.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the result of this construction would be and what sort of entity would be provided to address needs?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The building project will increase the number of acute beds in the Surrey Memorial facility to 462. It will also greatly expand the ambulatory care capability of the hospital. As the member knows, day surgery is becoming increasingly an option and a practice among hospitals in the province. As I already mentioned, it will look at an expansion of psychiatric beds focusing on adolescent needs.
K. Jones: I think the minister said there would be ten new adolescent psychiatric beds, and acute beds would take the total up to 462 beds? The minister affirms that, just for the record. Thank you, hon. minister.
We appreciate the recognition of our rapid growth. Hopefully, with some of the auxiliary facilities that we've already suggested to you with regard to ambulatory and emergency facilities in Cloverdale and on the Scott Road and 120th area, those areas could give some relief to the central facility in acute and ambulatory areas. Obviously, they would probably be under the same administration. That would be a matter of cost saving.
I'd like to ask the minister one further question with regard to a great concern of emergency services workers, which is their coming into contact with various occupational hazards. This is directly related to specific communicable diseases. They have asked for some means of advance warning, or at least immediate warning after the occurrence, so that they could better equip themselves to deal with those issues. I would like to give you a quick summary of the guidelines they've requested.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Is this the Ontario protocol?
K. Jones: Yes. It states:
"To reduce the concerns of emergency services workers regarding occupational exposure to specified communicable diseases, the medical officer of health shall ensure that individuals providing emergency community care are informed about possible exposure to infectious diseases, according to the protocols for notification of emergency services workers relating to HIV-AIDS, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, infectious tuberculosis and other diseases, as specified in the protocols. The purpose is to ensure that emergency services workers are notified of specific serious communicable disease exposures so that appropriate action may be taken. Universal precautions are a concept in infection control that assumes the potential presence of infectious agents such as hepatitis B virus and HIV in the blood and other specified body fluids of all patients. Universal precautions are basic work practices which emphasize the use of protective barriers such as gloves, aprons, masks and protective goggles when in contact with blood and other body fluids. Other safe work practices include the proper disposal of hypodermic needles to prevent accidental injuries, and the prompt cleaning of blood spills with a disinfectant solution of bleach. It is assumed that all emergency workers are aware of the need for universal precautions and attempt to follow them, even in difficult work situations."
Could the minister tell us whether he has initiated a program to address this desire by fire, ambulance and other emergency services people to have some form of notification?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's good to see that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale received the same lobby material that I think all members of the Legislature received from the firefighters and police officers of the province. I must say it's too bad that the Liberal opposition chose to oppose the other concern of these personnel and to reject their plea for changes to collective bargaining relations. On this side of the House, we're pleased to respond to that thoroughly. We're also going to be responding to the protocol the member just read at length into the record. I have asked the provincial health officer of the province, John Millar, who, as earlier debate has indicated, is responsible for matters of this sort, to review that protocol. He will advise me on whether and how it should be implemented in this province.
[8:45]
K. Jones: I'm very pleased to hear that the minister's going to take some action in regard to this. I did a little more research than just accepting the information that was brought by the members of our professional firefighters' union. I actually went to the legislative library in Ontario to get the text of the protocol in total. I felt it was important to do the research, recognizing the serious problems that they're faced with. I hope that the minister will incorporate the guiding principles for universal precautions in emergency situations, which are also incorporated in this. I would be happy to make a copy of this available to the minister if he doesn't already have all of this information.
Thank you, hon. minister, for your responses this afternoon and this evening. I will defer now to our critic.
L. Reid: I have a number of issues I wish to touch on. I believe I transmitted that earlier to the minister. Perhaps we can start with a quick discussion of one or two questions around patient access to medical records. I'll reference the case specifically. Perhaps it will offer some guidance to the question.
This concerns Elliot Murphy, the young man who's in a coma in Sunny Hill Hospital. His parents have been denied
[ Page 14786 ]
access to his medical records. I understand that is not prudent and should not be happening, but it simply is the case today. If I could have the minister respond to that, perhaps we can conclude the medical record discussion.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've just been engaged in discussion with staff to see if we could figure out any circumstances that might lead to denial of access to records. We're unable to figure out any reason why. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides for access to medical records. That legislation does apply to the hospitals of the province. We're at a loss to explain the action. I'll ask staff to look into it and advise me and you.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments, because my response to the family and to other families who have come to me is that there should not, in my view -- and certainly I will take the minister's wisdom -- be any obstacle to prevent them, as the child's parents, from receiving that information. In this particular case, this individual is in a coma. He is not able to access or even to request that information on his own behalf. It seems to me that those doors should be open. I trust that the minister and I have some common ground on that, so I welcome the answer at some future point.
Again, not to personalize it for just that family, I have two other cases as well where, when their children were in hospital, they had been denied access to that information. I can't imagine that that's the way the ministry wishes to proceed. I look forward to receiving that information.
In terms of the discussion earlier as to where we proceed, I certainly want to spend a little bit of time this evening, and hopefully wrap tomorrow, on regionalized health care. I have a number of questions on the accord.
Perhaps we could start with the regional health boards. I'm interested in some specific costs in terms of seconding agency and government staff to the 20 health boards and in terms of backfilling the positions that these individuals are leaving. Has there been some feedback around that and some numbers discussion that the minister could share with me?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As far as loaned staff that facilities and agencies are providing as transition teams for regional health boards, we have told the regions that they must find those resources within existing budgets. There is no backfilling of budgets provided by this ministry.
L. Reid: Perhaps I can get some clarification on transition teams. It's my understanding that those people will become the new employees. Is that correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The staff from the ministry, hospitals, agencies and long term care facilities that are working on transition teams will indeed become employees of the regional health boards or community health councils -- not necessarily occupying the positions they occupy now. They are assisting the boards and councils in doing the planning for management structures in health plans for the regions.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments in terms of the job description, but I really want to get at the cost of those individuals moving from their current positions. The minister has suggested that there is secondment to a variety of different regions around the province; obviously, there is a cost to that. What I'm hearing the minister say is that the dollars do not follow the people. Those individuals go to the regions, and the regions somehow pick up the costs. Could the minister kindly clarify?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The loan staff and transition teams that are working with regional boards are paid for by the agencies that they work for. We are not providing budgets to the regional boards to fund that staff. I have repeatedly said to them that we're not interested in doing that. There's lots of expertise within regions to carry out the planning that's necessary. The goal here, as the member knows, is to make sure that we are not adding administration, but that we are planning for efficiencies of administration.
L. Reid: A number of individuals have written to me with this very concern, so we are going to spend a couple of minutes on it, and I would ask for the minister's indulgence. There seems to be some confusion. Perhaps we can isolate the first part first, in terms of the 1,400 individuals who are leaving Victoria and going to the regions. Perhaps the minister could comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The 1,400 people will be leaving the employment of the ministry and moving to be employees of regional health boards and community health councils in this fiscal year. The great majority of those individuals are not located in Victoria; they are located in health units and ministry operations around the province. The responsibility for delivering the services that they now deliver as employees of the Ministry of Health is transferred to the regional boards. They will find themselves with a new employer -- the community health council or regional boards. In the coming year, thousands of additional ministry employees will be transferred to the employment of community health councils and regional boards.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification. Perhaps he can tell me what numbers are from Victoria. I understood him to say not everyone, and I can appreciate that, but tell me how many. What percentage of those 1,400 are currently working in Victoria?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm trying to ascertain the direction we're moving here. Let me try, and if I've got it wrong, I'm sure the member will let me know. I think the concern here is with how many staff who are now working for the ministry in Victoria will find themselves transferred to a regional board somewhere in the province or to another ministry assignment.
One of the results of transferring these programs to community health councils is that not only will the ministry divest itself of those employees -- they will become employees of boards and councils -- but also the support functions for ministry staff that are now at headquarters in the ministry office will need to be dispersed to the regions. And that means personnel. The estimates that we have right now and the planning that we have done to date suggest that about 250 employees of the ministry in Victoria....
L. Reid: Of the 1,400.
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, of total ministry staff in Victoria. That's 20 to 25 percent of ministry staff in Victoria. They will
[ Page 14787 ]
find themselves being asked to relocate to a region or to transfer to another area of government service if they wish to remain in Victoria.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. He's probably aware of the correspondence that I have on this issue. It's all been copied to the minister. That clarification does not match the mind-set out there. I'm not clear on how to better communicate that message, but the sense in most of these letters tends to be that a number of folks -- a huge number, probably a good chunk of that 1,400 -- will magically leave Victoria and move to the regions. What I'm hearing the minister say is that approximately 250 bodies will somehow find other employment in other regions of the province. Could the minister expand on that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's try again. There are currently around 4,800 Ministry of Health employees that are FTEs within the ministry. Of those, 1,100 or 1,200 are at headquarters in Victoria. The great majority of Ministry of Health staff work in the regions already, delivering health services. They're case managers, long term care managers or mental health providers. They do a variety of health delivery jobs. So they are already in the regions. Staff have just given me an update. I'm very pleased to see that we have some accurate figures.
K. Jones: Sounds like a first.
Hon. P. Ramsey: And thank you, member for Surrey-Cloverdale, for yet another gratuitous comment.
The point remains that the great majority of Ministry of Health employees do not work in Victoria; they work in health units and facilities around the province. Their employer will change; their place of employment will not.
Of the core staff in Victoria -- we'll say there are 1,200 or so.... There are, perhaps, a few more; I think the number may be closer to 1,500. About half of those perform what I would call the insurance functions of the ministry: Pharmacare and the Medical Services Plan. There's also another large chunk of employees who deliver emergency services -- the ambulance service. Of the remaining support staff, we estimate that about 25 percent will become not necessary to support regional operations, because regional operations will be the responsibility of community health councils and regional health boards. The funding for those positions will be transferred to the regional health boards. Employees will have the option of going to a position in a region or seeking another government appointment within the public service.
L. Reid: I appreciate the elaboration, but it seems that we're still not connecting to the issue. The press release and a number of references from the ministry said that 1,400 people would move to the regions. That was truly the wording in the release, and it had your signature. So in terms of understanding that.... That's the tenor of the questions I have before me this evening. What I understand the minister to be saying is that the term "move" is just semantics. Their employer may be changing, but there isn't a move. Is that his current scenario?
[9:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think there is a bit of ambiguity in the news release. Yes, they will move employers -- absolutely. Some may move physically, but probably not many.
L. Reid: Back to the question of how many. I will take from the minister's previous comments that we're looking at less than 250 who may indeed move physically. That's again what I....
Hon. P. Ramsey: At the end of the day.
L. Reid: At the end of the day. That's what I gleaned from the minister's comments. Superb. In terms of the number of regions in the province now hiring community planners and receiving funding for planning dollars, could the minister provide me with what that sum of money looks like? What kinds of dollars are we looking at in terms of the salary for a community planner? I'd like to know whether or not each of the 20 regions now has one on staff and, again, what that contribution would be.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We are providing two regional boards with a budget of approximately $4.4 million to hire staff and to carry out their administrative functions. This is part of the overall $9 million budget for the New Directions regionalization program this year. The $9 million includes staff in Victoria. The coordinators -- now that regional boards have been set up -- are assisting with transition. There are approximately 47 FTEs in the ministry who work on the New Directions initiative.
L. Reid: In terms of the planning dollars, the community planners.... I know Richmond has a community planner hired by the regional health board. I'm interested to know if that scenario exists across the province. Are there now 20 community planners? Let's start there.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll try again. We're providing some $4.4 million to boards to hire staff to do the planning they need to do in the next year in order to get on with the job of assuming responsibility. Some boards have chosen to hire community planners. Others have hired other titles, but essentially they're all doing similar work: assessing needs, designing health plans, and working on management structures and amalgamation for health services in their region. Most are not hiring community planners.
L. Reid: In terms of the $4.4 million the minister has just indicated, is that across the 20 regional boards? The minister is suggesting that that is the case, which is absolutely fine. In terms of the breakdown, I'd be interested to know how that breaks down across the 20 regions of the province.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We've allocated basically on population, with a couple of other core factors in there. The grants range from about $160,000 to $260,000 per region.
L. Reid: The minister made the reference that $4.4 million is a portion of the overall $9 million. What will the remaining roughly $4.6 million go towards?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Approximately $3 million is for staff employed in Victoria and in the regions who have been working with the boards and with the ministry. The other million is a variety of supplies -- from publications to travel to the usual support functions of ministry operations.
L. Reid: If I might, I'll just continue with this individual's questions. I understood from the minister's earlier comments
[ Page 14788 ]
that the possibility exists that the individuals who are being seconded will move into full-time employment in the regions. Perhaps the minister could comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try again. The staff that had been loaned to regional boards from an existing institution retain their employment with that institution. If that institution is transferred to the region, yes, they'll become an employee of the region. But they won't become an employee of the region by virtue of being loaned to the regional health board on a transition team.
L. Reid: The contention from a number of folks who have written to me is that these individuals -- and perhaps we are using "seconded" and "loaned" in the same context, and that's fine -- have moved to a new bid of employment. The contention is that they will come back. The minister is saying no, that if their agency shifts and comes under the control of the regional health board, they too will stay and continue to provide that service. I don't have any problem with that. This individual has asked me to ascertain what happens if they are not picked up. Do they come back to a ministry job? Do they retain their employment within the Ministry of Health?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is yes. I'll give you an example. For instance, if somebody from a mental health division was loaned to a regional health board to assist its planning, the employee, after the regional board assumes responsibility, would have his or her job with the ministry, but it would now be with the regional board delivering mental health services.
L. Reid: The minister referenced 4,800 FTEs within the Ministry of Health. Can the minister verify that number?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We really should just go to the estimates book, as my ace staff have done, and ascertain that it's really around 5,600.
L. Reid: That's what I thought; I thought I'd just verify it.
I have another question I want to pose to you in terms of regional managers in mental health and alcohol and drug programs. We want to know how many senior people have left existing positions in alcohol and drugs. A number of folks have called me as recently as this evening to tell me that there are dramatic changes in alcohol and drug programming and have said that the senior managers in those programs are no longer employed. Could the minister comment on the status of those programs?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to assure the member that there has been no downsizing of staff in the alcohol and drug area. Staff advise me that a number of administrators have chosen to seek other employment or move, but there is no downsizing of that part of ministry operations.
I also wanted to first figure out for myself, and then explain to the member, why we were dealing with figures of 5,600 and 4,847, which is what the estimates book said. The 5,600 is the approximate FTEs at the end of last fiscal year -- current FTEs. We anticipate that by the end of the year we will be down by 700 FTEs, which takes us to the 4,800 and a bit. But we anticipate that for those 700 FTEs to actually get to that level means that 1,400 individuals will be transferred to a regional health board. An FTE is, of course, one individual for one year. Most of these employees will be transferring to a regional board, we estimate, halfway through the year -- some a little sooner, some a little later. So that's why we are dealing with two different numbers here, hon. member.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's concern about that.
In terms of when that might transpire, I will simply come back to the minister in six months and ask for an update: how many have moved and where they have gone -- all that good stuff.
In terms of getting a handle on the alcohol and drug program, I appreciate the minister's comment that the service may not have changed. The individuals who posed the question to me have simply said that the senior managers in alcohol and drug are not being replaced, and a lot of times they are not being replaced because that responsibility is being shifted to the new regional board that's not yet up and running; it's not in a position to make those decisions, so in fact the positions are vacant. And I believe that's a valid statement. I certainly think the individuals who work in alcohol and drug are presenting the case fairly.
My question to the minister is: what's happening to that kind of service delivery if indeed these management positions are vacant? And if indeed the service delivery is not changing, perhaps we need to have a discussion about the senior management of the alcohol and drug programs.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Neither staff nor I are aware of any systematic plan not to fill vacancies in the alcohol and drug program. I will get back to you if I find there is such a plan. We have asked, in a number of cases, agencies delivering health services to consult with community health councils and regional health boards before they fill management positions, and there may be a couple of regions where that has been going on. But I am not aware of any plan that says we should systematically downsize management in alcohol and drug.
L. Reid: The contention simply was not that there was a plan to downsize service. The question was: what happens to the positions that are currently vacant? And I appreciate the minister's response that when the regions are up and running, they'll make those appointments. The contention for the writer is that service is somehow being hampered at the present time. How best would this minister direct this individual?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, a number of places; this is as good as any. I'll find out what I can about the facts of the case. If you want to provide me with the correspondence, I'll make sure ministry staff get a response to the individual.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments; I'll tell him it's on its way.
In terms of Mr. Dorsey's new position and what he's doing in terms of making some recommendations around rationalizing the union structure -- I believe that's the mandate -- can the minister provide me with the costs of some of those recommendations in terms of the original mandate?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Perhaps the member could clarify which costs she's referring to. Mr. Dorsey is clearly employed
[ Page 14789 ]
by the Minister of Labour to do his work. He's got some staff that are also funded at very minor cost, really. One of his goals is, as the legislation states, to rationalize the number of bargaining units and number of collective agreements that need to be bargained in the health system, and to bring some greater rationality to how union jurisdiction works in the health field.
At the end of the day, I would expect we will have a more cost-efficient way of doing labour relations. There are a couple hundred collective agreements in this province in the health sector. The member may know that 19 different unions represent workers, including some of my favourites: the Steelworkers and the IWA. I've always felt that they played a vital role in health services. Clearly, jurisdiction has grown up, and it doesn't make a lot of sense from a rational model. So Mr. Dorsey is charged with advising the Minister of Labour on these matters and making recommendations to him.
[9:15]
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. I agree that the mandate is to somehow rationalize union jurisdiction as it relates to health care in the province of British Columbia. I have no issue with the mandate. Are there costs that will be borne by the Ministry of Health, as it relates to this process?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We've been trying to figure out if we could identify a cost from the process that Mr. Dorsey is undertaking, which will conclude near the end of June with his recommendations to the minister. We can't identify any cost, more than a few dollars, to this ministry. The process is being funded by the Minister of Labour, and even there it is a relatively minor cost in terms of overall budgets for health services.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for the clarification.
I wanted to touch on the work of Mr. Dorsey as it relates to private care providers. I have a number of pieces of correspondence from individuals who have real questions about the future of privately owned facilities and how that ramps into Mr. Dorsey's recommendations. Even though, as the minister said, this exercise is primarily funded by the Minister of Labour, this is a health question. Could the minister kindly respond? The indications that they have received from Mr. Dorsey are that because some of them receive operating dollars, they somehow fall into his jurisdiction. Is that the intention?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Like the Liberal critic, I have received several messages on this matter -- some of them smoking-hot off the fax machine. Mr. Dorsey has said that as he looks at employees in the broad health field, he is looking at organizations and employers that have a membership in HEABC and fall under the Public Sector Employers Act. Members of Pricare fall under that act. They are part of the broad initiative in the public sector to develop rational employer organizations for purposes of collective bargaining, and Mr. Dorsey has said to them and to the HEABC that he feels that they too should be part of jurisdictional units as he chooses to recommend them to the Minister of Labour.
But be careful: Mr. Dorsey's recommendations deal with unionized employees. Mr. Dorsey has no mandate to say that employees must become unionized, nor does he have any mandate to say that certain terms and conditions of employment absolutely have to be changed during collective bargaining.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment in terms of the minister suggesting that he doesn't have a mandate. The sentiment in the field is that he is going to create a new employment relationship and that looking at current non-unionized facilities is part of his mandate. I enjoyed the minister's comment, but perhaps he could clarify.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Mr. Dorsey does not have the mandate to produce new employment relationships. Let me give you an example. A private long term care facility operating in Richmond, say, that contracts and delivers long term care services for residents will in the future contract with Richmond regional health board. But it will be a contract relationship for the private institutions, and the employer will remain the owner of the facility.
What needs to be rationalized, though, is the broad representational issue of who represents all the workers in the long term care sector, be they in a Pricare facility, in a facility run by a non-profit society or in a facility directly run by a community health council or a regional health board. Mr. Dorsey is charged with looking at those representational issues, regardless of ownership of the facility.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I know the minister appreciates the sentiment around the confusion. It's whether or not privately owned facilities will somehow magically change ownership. That is certainly the theme through all of this correspondence: who becomes the owner of a privately owned facility? Certainly it's the same sentiment -- I'll ask the minister to respond to both at the same time -- around who the employer is. I'm understanding the minister to be saying that we're clarifying the employer relationship; we're not attempting to look at the ownership of the facility. Perhaps the minister could comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought, hon. member, we were reading off the same page until your last comment. Mr. Dorsey is not charged with sorting out employer relationships. He's charged with sorting out jurisdictional and representational relationships: who represents and bargains for workers in the health sector.
L. Reid: Unionized workers.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Unionized workers in the health sector, yes -- not employer or owner relationships.
L. Reid: Again, the correspondence looks at negotiation and whether or not there will be different players at the table as a result of Mr. Dorsey's interventions. Indeed, if they're rationalizing the union jurisdiction, I'm going to assume -- and the minister can kindly correct me -- that who was at the table may change for unionized facilities. That's fine; I don't have any problem with that. Will the folks who are currently non-unionized have impacts or obstacles in terms of how they have previously negotiated, and will their future negotiations be impacted by Mr. Dorsey's recommendations? That's the question they have put to me.
[ Page 14790 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm unaware of the impact on the non-unionized employees. They don't negotiate, by definition, at least not in the formal sense under the B.C. Labour Relations Code.
The other thing I would just alert the member opposite to, reassuring Pricare and some of its members, is that we intend to abide by the clear statement in the Health Authorities Act that our goal is to maintain the private-public balance that currently exists. It has been an ongoing challenge. I think some people within Pricare have overreacted, quite frankly, to the work of Mr. Dorsey and have seen other agendas. Anything you can do to assist them in understanding the intent of this government -- perhaps by sending them a copy of Hansard -- would be appreciated.
L. Reid: I am frankly reassured, so I know they will be as well. I have one last, or maybe two, questions on this topic. The minister may have already alluded to it.
Their other concern was whether or not at some future point there will be a master agreement that everyone falls under. When we talk about rationalizing the jurisdiction, is the inevitable conclusion that there will one day be a master agreement? Their contention has always been -- and they believe, through previous correspondence from the minister and previous conversation -- that indeed they would be treated separately and would have the ability to negotiate their issues separate and distinct from the unionized sector. Are their fears warranted?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would characterize that assertion as quite speculative on the part of these employers. There is nothing that of necessity means that because they participate in a bargaining table which includes a variety of employers, there need be standard agreements for all the employees they're bargaining with. I can point to many, many tables like that where substantial differences exist between collective agreements for various employers that may be part of a common bargaining table, and there are other terms that are the same. For most of the Pricare employers, their agreements with their employees are really at, or very close to, industry standards already in other facilities. There may be some movement towards agreements covering larger or amalgamated groups than they do now, but there's no necessity for that to occur in anything that I've seen of Mr. Dorsey's work with unions and employers to date.
L. Reid: What I would like to do is reference the comment here, because if you can reassure these folks, it would be tremendously helpful to me. "When private facilities and agencies became members of the HEABC, they were given assurances by government that they could continue to negotiate independently, or as a group, and would not be forced into one master agreement." That is their rendering of the discussions. The recommendations in Mr. Dorsey's report state: "Separate negotiations and agreements for proprietary care providers is not required in the new sectoral bargaining structure." I appreciate the notion at this point that it is simply a recommendation. But what he is saying is absolutely contrary to what the minister has recently uttered.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Read it again.
L. Reid: The report states that separate negotiations and agreements for proprietary care providers is not required in the sectoral bargaining structure. I appreciate your assurances that they indeed can continue to operate as they have in the past, but Mr. Dorsey is simply not reassuring them in the same vein. Perhaps the minister could comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Not required does not mean forbidden, and I would just repeat from my earlier comments that I think there's some starting at shadows here by some of the members of this group. I recognize their sensitivities, but I also recognize the necessity for reducing the amount of duplicate effort that goes into really unnecessary collective bargaining activities in the health sector. If we can get 200 collective agreements and the negotiations that go into preserving 200 collective agreements down to ten or eight or four, I think we would achieve some significant savings that could be put into patient care.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I know these folks will, as well.
Noting the presence of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, I would move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 9:30 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]