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)
THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 15
[ Page 14791 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.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. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Election Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Bill 28, Election Act. This bill repeals and replaces the current Election Act, which had its last comprehensive revision in 1920. The current act is extremely outdated and required extensive revising and updating to better serve the needs and expectations of British Columbians.
With the introduction of this bill, government is fulfilling its commitment to modernize the electoral process and to make it more fair, open and accessible to all voters. Under the new law, the electoral process will be made more accessible by expanding voter registration and voting opportunities. By introducing British Columbia's first election financing rules, this legislation is a milestone in B.C.'s history of electoral reform.
The introduction of these financing rules will bring this province in line with standards set across the country. Voters will now be able to learn who is financing the political process in B.C. Registered political parties, constituency associations, candidates and leadership contestants will be required to disclose contributions and expenses. The openness of the electoral process is also enhanced by new disclosure requirements for election advertising and election opinion surveys. This legislation will increase fairness in the electoral process by introducing spending limits for parties and candidates. To maintain the integrity of these spending limits, and to ensure a level playing field for all participants in the election, third-party advertising will also be restricted.
Under this legislation, the autonomy and impartiality of election administration is strengthened. The legislation makes the CEO an officer of the Legislative Assembly and requires that all key election officials not engage in partisan activities.
Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 28 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. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, in Committee of Supply in Section A, I call the estimates of the Minister of Health; and in the House I call continued debate on Bill 29.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT
(second reading continued)
S. O'Neill: I request leave, hon. Speaker, to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
S. O'Neill: We've just been joined by a group of 45 visitors, grades 6 and 7 students from the Len W. Wood Elementary School in Armstrong, B.C. Will the House please make them welcome.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act. It's probably a mistake for us to try and isolate this piece of legislation from the others that have preceded it that impact heavily on small and medium-sized business in British Columbia.
As I was preparing for the debate in the House, I had occasion to go back to the government's 48-point election platform of 1991. It seems like a long time ago, but the memories are still fresh. Item 6 relates: "We want small business to grow." That's what the government said in 1991. It's important to read into the record what the government said they would do for small business during the election campaign in 1991. They said: "Small business is a vital part of B.C.'s free enterprise economy. It creates most of our new jobs and is the backbone of every community in the province." So far so good. "A New Democrat government will help small and medium-sized businesses grow. We will work with business to achieve regulatory reform" -- and here's the one I love -- "and reduce the paperwork burden."
[10:15]
The key issue of the debate on the Employment Standards Act is the complexity of the paperwork for small and medium-sized business. As I said at the outset of my remarks, you can't isolate the Employment Standards Act that we're dealing with today from the other pieces of legislation that we have passed in this House that affect small business.
As we know, certifications affecting small business are up dramatically in the province. We know that the accounting load on small business in the province, the goods and services tax and the taxes that have to be remitted to the provincial government on a regular basis, the fact that small business is now covered in its entirety by the Workers' Compensation Board and is responsible for maintaining records and dealing with that agency on a full-time basis.... Never in the history of this province have we seen so much regulation and paperwork introduced into the small-business sector as we have in the last three and a half years, and Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act, continues that trend.
As we know, under Bill 29 there are requirements for a small business to keep impeccable records, with the possibility that they could be hauled before a commissioner to explain some of the issues that have gone on in the workplace. Obviously, there is now going to be a requirement for a much more detailed system of recordkeeping, even when the government has not really introduced any sort of statistical idea of how widespread the problem is in the small business sector. I really hope that during committee stage on this bill, we'll have an opportunity to get into some of those questions, those specific questions, where I hope the minister and his staff will
[ Page 14792 ]
be able to come up with some statistical information about how widespread the problem was, to justify some of the changes that have been proposed in this bill.
How many incidents is the ministry aware of? What are the specific examples that can be cited? Because if it's as I suspect -- and the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour in introducing this legislation has indicated as much -- we may be dealing with a very limited number of cases. The minister has acknowledged that many employers, without the heavy hand of this legislation, have dealt fairly and equitably with their employees -- many have. My concern is the impact that this particular piece of legislation will have on employment in the small business and medium-sized business sector in our province.
I would recommend that the members opposite spend some time, some legitimate time, with the small business sector in British Columbia, to find out what they go through on a day-to-day basis. People who enter business are in many cases required to pledge all they own. It isn't easy to get financing in the small business sector anymore. You have to pledge your home, your assets; in many cases you've got your life savings riding on a business venture. As a government and as a society, given the fact that small business creates 90 percent of the jobs in the province -- it's a statistic the government puts out all the time -- it makes no sense for the government not to be doing all it can to streamline the load, to make things easier for people in our society who are going to make that kind of commitment to the economy, to their community and to generating employment.
As we look at Bill 29, as we look at the labour bill that preceded it two years ago, as we look at the extension of the Workers' Compensation Board into every facet of working life in British Columbia, as we look at all these bills and the tax increases stacked up one after the other.... You talk to people in small business, and they say: "I'm working full-time for the government, struggling to maintain the overhead, and at the end of the day there is nothing left for me."
This is an issue that I think is really starting to discourage people in small business in British Columbia. I know that the government consulted widely with small business on this bill, but at the end of the day I think the government clearly has a philosophy that when the end of the debate comes they will make a decision to bring forward a bill which has obviously concerned a great many small business owners. I would have preferred to have seen more time available to those people to come forward with the kind of practical examples that I talked about in my remarks, the kind of specific incidents where.... There are examples where workers in some professions need to be protected, but there is another side to the story.
For example, there may be a reason that people may only work three hours. I was struck by the comments of the circulation manager at the Times Colonist newspaper who, upon examination of the legislation, wasn't sure if he could afford to retain any paper-boys in the province anymore. He wasn't sure whether he could guarantee them enough hours under the part-time provisions of this act. The opposition critic for Skills, Training and Labour, the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, pointed out the effect on the restaurant industry, where many waiters and people employed in that service sector are required to be called in at various points in an evening, and it's a form of employment that they prefer.
It is so hard now to find people. Let's talk about that issue for moment. The turnover rate in many small businesses in the province is becoming a huge concern to business owners. People are trained, they decide to leave, and the investment that small business has to make in this continual retraining and continual turnover of staff is an important consideration. I know the government would say that the reason people leave their employment is that they are dissatisfied with the employer, but that isn't true. In many cases they change residences, change communities, and the level of turnover in small business tends to be rather high, particularly in some service areas.
Again, I just see a trend with Bill 29. I see a trend with the changes to the Labour Code, a trend of a government that simply doesn't understand the challenges that small and medium-sized businesses face every day. These are not large corporations we're talking about; they're not the Bonneville Power administrations that we were debating in the House last week. They're people who in many cases have two employees or two full-time managers, maybe one or two employees. They're people who in many cases have left a stable employment relationship or employment themselves and decided to start up a small business.
I ask the members opposite, if they are in a discussion with small business owners in their ridings.... They're going to have to do it sooner or later; they're going to have to talk to small business owners. It's an election year, after all. They've ignored their concerns for three and a half years. We're into the last half-year. They've got to break down; they've got to actually talk to small business owners. I ask them to ask some basic questions. As a result of everything we've done in this assembly over the last three and a half years, is your life simpler? Is your relationship with government more productive, positive? Is the burden of paperwork and regulation that you face less?
The unequivocal answer is that it is not. People have enough difficulties in the business climate that we're in simply keeping the business viable, the payroll coming. Do they really have the resources to deal with the kinds of demands that are being placed on them by this government? The business owners I've talked to say, without any vacillation or equivocation, that the answer to that question is no. They simply don't have the resources to adequately deal with this.
In reviewing Hansard, I thought the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi made a valid comment. He expressed a concern that this type of legislation may lead to an expansion of the underground economy in our province. Business owners, in the continual and ongoing battle to try to maintain the viability of their businesses, are simply going to throw up their hands at some of these regulations, and non-compliance may be what, in fact, happens. And we know that with the introduction of some of the federal taxes, when the regulatory system becomes too complex, business owners who have a struggle maintaining their small business find that more and more of their time is going towards satisfying the insatiable demands for government paperwork, and that less and less time is spent on the good or service that is being sold to make the business viable. What tends to happen is non-compliance. It's a matter of survival.
I think this bill is a continuation, as I said, of a line that has resulted in more regulation, more penalties and more of a burden for small business in our province; yet at the same time, the government, in its 1991 election platform, said they were going to work to reduce the regulatory system and
[ Page 14793 ]
reduce the amount of paperwork." Where's the beef? But then, I suppose, given what's happened to some of the other 48 points in the election platform, we shouldn't be too surprised that item 6, "We want small business to grow," didn't last too long.
When you do talk to small business owners prior to and during the election, and you tell them, as they did in item 6, that we're going to help small and medium-sized business grow and we're going to achieve regulatory reform and reduce paperwork, then I think there's an expectation that the government is going to deliver. And they have delivered; they've delivered lots of regulatory reform. Unfortunately, all the regulations have been one-sided, and reform in the way of helping small business cope with it has been almost non-existent.
Again, I think it's important for a government to talk to every segment of society; not just the B.C. Federation of Labour but also the people who have to grapple with this regulation every day. It isn't the employees of a company who have to deal with this legislation. This is legislation aimed at employers; it is aimed at people who have already taken a substantial risk in our society in starting up a small business. The failure rate of small business continues, I think, to be one of the great concerns of governments across our country. The fact that people continue to come forward -- and I admire their optimism -- and risk all to create employment, to create a small business, to add value to goods and services.... When they take that kind of risk, they have a reasonable expectation that the government will be there to help them. But the government, which claims to recognize the important role that small business plays in job creation and to understand the need for regulatory reform and reducing the amount of paperwork -- they say it right here -- delivers the exact opposite when it comes time to really deal with the nuts and bolts of the employment situation and employment landscape in our province.
Given what's come before, given the paperwork and the regulatory increase, at least with this bill you would have thought, it being an election year, that the government would have taken the opportunity to step back and perhaps hold some sort of major conference with small business in the province to find out, if things have not gone as well as we'd hoped the last three and a half years, what we need to do to change it. What kind of universal consultation has the government undertaken with small and medium-size business? The only time I've ever seen them here in the Legislature and the only time they've come in is to deal with another piece of legislation from the government that affects the viability of their business.
I know that the B.C. Federation of Labour, which I would assume is a major proponent of this legislation, has had no trouble getting the ear of government on reforms. But what about the small business sector? Have they had a real opportunity with this government, now that we're three and half or four years into its mandate, with an election looming? Have they really had the same opportunity with this government to get their message across? The answer, I don't think, is even one that can be debated. The fact is that it is no. It's a message I receive from small and medium-size business owners throughout the province.
[10:30]
This particular Bill 29.... Whereas the government claims it will correct some of the gross injustices that occur in the workplace, the government has, I believe, no idea of how widespread the problems are. This is an ideological bill, as it always is with the government. They bring forth an example.... I know that the Minister of Labour was quoting out of the newspaper again; that's where his research comes from. I can't understand it, really. Given the size of his ministry and the number of experts he has, I'm surprised that he couldn't bring forth a single statistic on how widespread he thought the problems were with respect to Bill 29. That leads me to conclude that maybe the statistics weren't as bad as he had hoped they would be, and maybe that's why they didn't come forward. But we'll never know, hon. Speaker, because the minister chose to quote from a story out of a newspaper when he was introducing the bill during second reading debate.
I see Bill 29 as a continuation of an anti-business bias by the government. It displays a lack of understanding by the government of what it is to risk your own capital instead of taxpayers' money, and to actually have to deal with financial institutions. Surely the members opposite have some grasp of the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized businesses, which are the ones who are obviously going to bear the burden of this legislation.
I try and sit down with business people in my riding and talk about the problems they face. Look at the problems in doing business in the lower mainland, irrespective of Bill 29 and the Labour Relations Code and every other piece of legislation the government has brought down. We're dealing with soaring costs for commercial rents. We're dealing with continued difficulties....
Interjection.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'm being heckled by the former Minister of Labour and former Minister of Environment -- we're not sure what he is now, but he's...
An Hon. Member: Soon to be a former member.
W. Hurd: ...soon to be a former member, as my colleague from the opposition points out. He's on a slippery slope, and we're not sure where it's going to end up, but I don't want to digress.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, could we perhaps allow the member for Surrey-White Rock to continue without too many interruptions.
W. Hurd: Thank you for that timely intervention, hon. Speaker.
As I was saying earlier, I really recommend that the members opposite go back to their ridings on the weekend and sit down with a circle of small business owners. Hey, it's an election year. Why not? Why not do something that many members have probably never done in the last three and a half years? Why not sit down with a group of small business owners and have a meaningful discussion about what they face?
Getting back to commercial rents, the government claims it has no responsibility for them. I agree. It's the marketplace that dictates that, just as financial institutions decide during a
[ Page 14794 ]
recession that they're not going to loan money. I agree that that's the marketplace talking. But the issue is that you can't isolate these challenges of doing business from the other burdens that government introduces. These are all factors that have to be taken into consideration when a person decides to put up their home and to risk everything in developing a small or medium-sized business in our province. They're all factors that you put together on a debit and credit sheet, and you say to yourself: do I want to do this? Do I want to enter into a small business in our province? Do I want to leave the relative sanctuary of employment?
It may even be a government employee, though I can't imagine under this government anybody would leave the sanctuary of public sector employment, because there's no safer place to be these days. But let's assume that it's someone who realizes that their job in the forest industry or some other sector is in jeopardy or even gone, and their alternative to pursuing a career path is to open a small business.
Well, statistics show us that is what's happening in the new economy. Increasingly, British Columbians and others are making decisions to go into business for themselves -- to be their own boss, to be their own master -- and that carries with it grave risks. They face the potential loss of the family home if the thing goes wrong, the fact that they may be sued by an employee for wrongful dismissal and all the other issues that have to be dealt with, and the fact that they could be certified -- that's much easier now under the Labour Code, thanks to the current NDP government. You look at all these factors when you start a business. So is it any wonder that British Columbians who would normally be interested in doing that kind of thing are having a sober second thought? As I pointed out during the onset of my remarks, life is getting tougher and tougher for small business owners, and while commercial rents, the problem of financing, the difficulties of liability insurance and the soaring costs of business licences -- all those factors -- are beyond the limits of the government, and I understand that, it's nevertheless a truism that the government hasn't helped. They've done nothing in the last three and a half years to recognize or alleviate the problems that small business owners face.
Many, many small business owners, contrary to the beliefs of those members opposite, are not political people. They don't spend every waking hour deciding that the opposition party is good or that the government is bad. They're too busy trying to survive. That's what it's all about in small business today: trying to survive. At the end of the day, at the end of the year, I'm sure they take stock of their business, like everyone else takes stock of their life and tries to decide whether they're up, down or even. "Is my life simpler?" "Is my business going better?" "Is it easier to deal with the government?" Basic questions, commonsense questions, that anybody asks when they're choosing a career path.
The bottom line for this government -- and something they should be concerned about during this year, which is going to be an election year -- is that small business owners, by an overwhelming margin, are telling all members of the assembly that their dealings with the government, this government, have made their lives more difficult. That's not something that they are going to forget at election time, not because they're ideologically driven beings but simply because they are out there every day in the marketplace trying to survive: trying to meet their payroll, trying to pay the GST, the provincial sales tax, their premiums to the WCB -- the myriad of accounting functions and regulatory functions that they face.
The Minister of Environment was fond of throwing new regulations.... I stand corrected, hon. Speaker: the former Minister of Environment was fond of throwing new regulations at small business, a myriad of new regulations in the environmental field. Look at.... I wonder how many new regulations this government has passed in the last four years. Now, that's a statistic that I'd like to see come forward. You know, there are parts of the world where they actually hold courts of revision on regulation. They actually have a court in which.... They bring regulations before the court, and the government has to justify them. Imagine that! They have to actually prove the regulation makes sense. They actually have to rationalize it. In this province, once a regulation goes on the books, it stays there forever. It never comes off. Over the last three and a half years, thanks to bills like Bill 29, we've seen the amount of regulation in this province go off like a mushroom cloud, and the people who have to deal with it are the people who operate small and medium-sized businesses in our province. They are the ones that have to do the paperwork. They are the ones that have to deal with the inspectors and pay the fee increases.
Just to give you an idea, I talked the other day to a dry-cleaning operator in my riding, who told me that under this government the price of inspections for the boiler that he has in his operation have gone up 150 percent in the last year and a half. But you know, the thing that really got me is that for that....
An Hon. Member: Do you think they should be for free, Wilf? Is that what you want: a subsidy?
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker....
Interjections.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'm getting to that.
The rest of the story was fascinating, because the dry-cleaning operator told me: "You know, Mr. Member" -- I won't name my name -- "nobody has ever inspected my boiler for $150 or $200 a year." Apparently what happens is that they inspect a limited number of boilers in the province and charge everybody else the same amount of money. That's what we have with the current government. The fact is they're not inspecting any more boilers in dry-cleaning operations than they ever were, but the price has gone up. That dry-cleaning operator who works 14 hours a day probably takes home less money than his employee in many cases, and there are lots of examples of small business owners who earn less money. I talked with a glass operator the other day who did $1.8 million in business in the province and took home $30,000.
That's exactly what's happening in small business. You can't expect people facing legislation like Bill 29 and the regulation that it produces to sit back and say: "Well, hey, it's just the price of doing business." They're not saying that anymore, and I continue to be concerned about the plight of small and medium-sized business in the province and the difficulties they face. The fact is that the current government has not made things easier for their lives. I wonder if the government of the day really values the contribution they
[ Page 14795 ]
make and really understands the risks involved in borrowing money.
I assume that there are members of the government who own their homes outright. Believe it or not, there are people starting small businesses who are leveraging their homes again. They are borrowing $150,000 against their house, which is clear title, because they can't get financing. That's a risk; that's commitment. When they make that kind of commitment and then hire two or three British Columbians who contribute to the economy and pay taxes to this government, you'd think they could at least expect an understanding from the government of the day that they are making a worthwhile contribution. As a government, we should be doing something to assist those people who are taking that kind of risk. What has the government done in the last three and a half to four years to recognize that fact?
What is there in Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act, that would lead somebody in business to conclude: "Yes, this government understands my problems"?
Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, member, but I must advise you that your time has expired.
According to my list, the member for Okanagan East is next, if she wishes to assume her place.
J. Tyabji: If the member for Abbotsford would like to go ahead, that's fine. I have to go into Health estimates, anyway.
J. van Dongen: I am pleased to make a few general comments on behalf of my constituency, the large and small businesses in my constituency and the agricultural industry in this province. My view is that this bill is another in a long parade of more regulation, more cost, more paperwork and more frustration which will have to be borne by the employers of British Columbia -- part of a constant parade of frustration from at least three levels of government and the agencies that they have created.
Having been both an employer and employee myself in a number of different settings, I want to say that I'm very concerned about the further impact of this bill. I am very concerned for all British Columbians about the cumulative impact of this bill and all the other rules and regulations that we have in place. I know what it's like to face declining prices in agricultural production, direct competition from all over the world, and extremely competitive local and national markets for small and medium-sized business. I know what it's like to experience the cost and endless hassle of paperwork, a lot of which is unnecessary.
[10:45]
I am also concerned about the potential problems of an antagonistic employee, unfairly using the law against you, and I have certainly heard of examples of that in my own constituency. Nowhere do I see anything about employers' rights; they don't count. Their job seems to be to write cheques not only to employees but also to the government. Nowhere do I see anything that remotely resembles an attempt to address critical issues such as productivity and cost competitiveness. Nowhere do I see any reflection of the need for cost control in our business and government. I am concerned that the government doesn't understand or doesn't care.
When I look around my constituency, I see farmers, small business men, individual tradesmen and entrepreneurs, professionals in the service sector and in agribusinesses such as equipment dealerships, feed companies and food processing, and many other large and small businesses that employ people. The one common denominator that has struck me loud and clear in recent years is that they have to be extremely effective, professional, efficient and cost-competitive just to survive and stay in business.
They also have to have progressive human resources practices, and I've personally observed dramatic improvement in this aspect of the business world in the last ten years, certainly in the private sector. There has been some improvement in government, but the gap is still far too wide, and it is widening. Notice that I said human resources practices -- not policies or laws but actual, real-life human resources practices. The labour bill strikes me as an attempt to legislate perfection. It is a bill that will punish the 95 percent of people who do a good job of human resources practices, but it will still not solve the problems created by the 5 percent or so who do not do so.
I have one further specific comment regarding section 30 and the definition of farm labour contractor. The research that has been done by the B.C. Horticultural Council suggests that there is no legal basis for what the government is attempting to do here, which is to make the farmer legally responsible for paying the cost of a service twice. The farm community strongly protests the intent of section 30, and I suggest that there will be plenty of legal, practical and enforcement difficulties with a section that is totally unfair to farm operators who hire the services of an independent supplier, namely a farm labour contractor.
In summary, my concerns can be summarized as: (1) a lack of consultation, particularly on section 30; (2) an unfair bias against employers; and (3) a variety of concerns for agriculture, including section 30 and a number of others.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise and talk to the philosophies and principles of Bill 29. In doing so, I first want to point out that I don't believe that this is an us-and-them situation. Sometimes we should try to put aside those kinds of thoughts and look at what small business means and at what the legislation means, and how it's going to affect a particular sector of British Columbia. We should see whether the initiative taken under this legislation is going to create a more positive climate than what exists today for 500,000 jobs in British Columbia. That's what small business contributes, and we should really give some serious consideration to how this particular legislation is going to affect the small business community either positively or negatively.
I've heard a number of comments, some shouted across the floor as well as some by various speakers. It seems to me that there's an assumption in those comments that because you have a small business or are a small business person, you are wealthy, and that somehow it's wrong if you are wealthy. But really, when we affect the costs to small business, what we do is increase the costs to consumers. Those are the individuals who pay at the end of the day. Look at the myriad of initiatives and the various regulatory practices that have been put forward in the past three and a half years, and not only by this government but by different levels of government -- including the federal government. The number of fees and cost measures that have an effect on businesses through initiatives such as the GST, PST on labour, Workers' Compensation fees, UI premium increases, increased municipal taxes, increased school taxes on commercial businesses....
[ Page 14796 ]
When you look at all of these, at the end of the day, who has paid? To a degree, the investor in the business has paid. We see, across the province and across Canada, that the margin of profit at the end of the day for almost all small business sectors has decreased substantially. In fact, the industry that I am in right now has a margin of profit.... The average profit across Canada is 4 percent. When you look at the investment and the kinds of sales that are made in that industry, you would recognize that that industry is indeed at risk -- as are many small businesses at risk today -- because the margin of profit has decreased substantially.
When we talk about meeting standards of employment.... The member for Abbotsford made a good point, in that when we develop standards to address the very small percentage that don't understand the need to have a well-trained, well-paid staff, and that do not respect their employees' rights as well as they should, we should take action that specifically targets those, rather than try to develop legislation that affects the other 98 or 99 percent -- whatever that percentage may be -- who really do make an investment in their employees and understand the need to have well-trained, well-paid employees. The more successful businesses today have well-developed training programs, profit-sharing programs and programs where employees contribute to the management of those respective companies on a daily basis. That's the norm out there. That is not the exception; that is the norm.
Why we have seen a growth in business in British Columbia today -- in spite of the increase in regulations and in spite of the increase in costs -- is primarily due to the recognition of a number of factors. The first indicator has been growth in British Columbia in the last number of years. We have seen the population increase substantially; therefore there is an opportunity to create businesses that provide services for that. As well, we have become far more proactive in terms of how we manage our businesses and how we recognize opportunities for investment. To a degree, the banks have been a little more receptive over the course of the last ten years than they were prior to that in terms of making investments in small business.
When we first looked at this legislation, there were a number of concerns that came to our attention. The major issue here, and the reason there is so much emotion around this, is that the government is saying that it had a consultation process. We understand that; we all know how the process unfolded. But when legislation such as this comes forward, I think we should table it for a substantial time and allow the stakeholders to give us some input. I think there would be a lot more understanding as to what the major concerns are, and perhaps an opportunity for government to alleviate some of those concerns through good, open and honest dialogue.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
For instance, the coalition indicated in the article in the Vancouver Sun that section 37 requires agreement of 65 percent of the employees to adopt flexible schedules. Let's just look at that for a moment. Presently, under the Employment Standards Act, 100 percent is required; federally, under the federal act, 70 percent is required. Now we're amending the Employment Standards Act to require 65 percent. On the surface that would appear to be a good initiative, but in reality, the requirement of 100 percent that was previously in the Employment Standards Act was never needed and never utilized. But with the fact that you are now lowering it and providing a new prominence -- and, perhaps, some realistic numbers that are achievable -- it could very well be utilized, whereas in the past it wasn't.
My experience with these issues is that most of the flexibility around employee hours comes at the request of employees, not at the request of business. In fact, in my 20 years of being in business I cannot think of where it was my initiative as an employer to institute a policy which would require an employee to do something in terms of flexible hours that they really didn't want to do. That gets right back to the fact that if I'm going to be successful in business, then I have to have happy employees. If they are unhappy at home, or they are not able to have flexible enough work hours so they can accommodate their family concerns -- whether it be to pick up their child from school, or to be home at lunch to make dinner at the same time as the child or whatever -- I'm not going to have a happy employee, and therefore my business will be affected because of it. The primary point I make here is that the employee is the one who normally asks for the flexible hours, and a good employer will indeed work around it, as best they can, within the structure of their business to accommodate that employee.
Let's look at some of the other issues that have been identified by the coalition. Employers are required to maintain their records for seven years. I did a little homework and pulled up the federal regulations on this, and one thing I want to point out -- and now I don't know what I did with my notes -- is that under the Income Tax Act, businesses are required to maintain their records for six years. So why seven years? Why couldn't we be accommodating and unify this so that business people would understand that there's one time frame for all levels of government? It seems to make sense to me.
[11:00]
I know that up until now, in the businesses that I've been in, we have huge rooms of records, and you move one year out as you move the other year in. That will no longer be a total opportunity now, because payroll records will have to be held for seven years. Common sense would say that an ideal approach, as we are rewriting this anyway, would be to make the employment standards conform with what is required under the Income Tax Act.
Our next concern is notice of start and end of shifts and meal breaks in work settings where it's unrealistic because customer service is crucial. I've been in a real small business where oftentimes I was down to one or two employees, perhaps fewer, when all of a sudden -- and it could be seasonal, could be around Christmas, particularly in the retail business -- you have a rush of business. It's very important that you're in a position to take advantage of that. Oftentimes employees voluntarily will say: "Look, I won't go for dinner or lunch now. I will wait until the rush is over and take my turn later." I hope this does not prevent those kinds of spontaneous decisions from being made between the employer and an employee at a particular time when business is brisk.
If you've ever been in a small business -- if any members have ever been in a small business -- you'll know that small business is not something that's consistent. Small business is something where you have your rushes and you have your slow times. Oftentimes people give good employees.... Well-
[ Page 14797 ]
trained employees or well-paid employees will give you extra effort at the rush time, recognizing that when it's slow and they want to go get a haircut, go to the dentist or whatever it is they want to do, that permission will be given and given freely and in the spirit in which it's requested.
I think most of the dialogue that'll take place about this legislation will be at the committee stage. It will be interesting to see what the minister is going to discuss in the clause-by-clause debate, because out of that we'll get some idea what the regulations will be that will follow this. As all members know, the regulations are sometimes more important than the act itself, because the flexibility and common sense can, in fact, apply in regulation form. I'm hoping that the minister and this government have the good sense to reflect those kinds of attitudes in the drafting of the regulations.
I guess I'm concerned, because I firmly believe that it's government's obligation to create a climate which is conducive to allowing British Columbians to invest their net worth with some confidence. As members have said.... I differ with the one Liberal member when he talked about business people who own their own homes. I want to say that from my experience very few small business people -- certainly in the early years of a small business when these kinds of regulatory issues are so important -- who do own their own homes.... I've seen many of them remortgage -- take second mortgages, indeed -- in order to start their business. They've done that because they felt confident in their own abilities. They recognize the challenges and the hard work. In most cases, small business people couldn't tell you what their work hours are as individuals, but they can certainly tell you what risks they take in terms of their investments and their family holdings. At times they've risked their homes, their cars -- whatever equity they could put together -- in order to create jobs, create commercial opportunity and net wealth to the province. I really hope that the members on the government side truly do understand that -- I'm sure they do -- and recognize that this is not an us-and-them situation. We should recognize that unless business does well and can indeed make a profit, we will affect the 500,000 jobs that are presently in that sector within British Columbia.
M. Sihota: It has been interesting. I have been sitting here listening. Of course, there's only one member of the Liberal Party in the House right now, and he may leave as well. I suspect there is some second thinking on the part of their party with regard to this legislation, because they probably recognize that they have overreacted.
In any event, I was reflecting last night on the comments from members of the Liberal Party -- "agents of doom," as I like to refer to them -- with regard to this legislation. If you listen to what they have to say, they take the view during the course of their commentary that for some reason this government has an anti-small business bias. That's not true, and we'll get to that in a few minutes. They say this legislation is going to increase costs for small business. That's not true, and we'll get to that in a few minutes as well. They are saying this legislation is going to increase paperwork, but it isn't true, and they are beginning to realize this now in the scurrying around they're doing in their research offices. They also say that it is going to result in a loss of jobs, and that it will be disastrous for the economy. That's the case being put forward by the Liberal opposition.
It reminds me of the debate around the B.C. Labour Relations Code in October 1992. The Liberal opposition was making the same types of claims at that time about the Labour Code, fair and balanced as it was, that we put forward in front of this House. We put it forward as part of our economic plan as a government, to be able to say that employers must respect the rights of employees. To ensure that investment flows to this province, we must have fair and balanced labour legislation in B.C. This legislation -- the Employment Standards Act -- is also part of our plan, a plan that the Premier reiterated in a speech he gave on May 9, earlier this year. It really is deja vu all over again.
I took the time to take a look at some of the Liberal opposition quotes back then in 1992, during the time we engaged in the Labour Code debate. The opposition, particularly the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who is still the critic for these areas for the opposition, said, and I'm going to quote with regard to the Labour Code: "It's going to be disastrous for this province in the long run. It's going to put people out of business; it's going to put employers out of work." On October 28, 1992, the member went on to say: "It's disastrous legislation. It's going in the wrong direction...they're not going to draw any more investment into this province with this type of legislation...It's important that the people involve themselves for the sake of jobs in this province and for the sake of the economy." He pushed for people to oppose the legislation we brought forward at that time.
I listened a few minutes ago to the representative for Surrey-White Rock, who said, when speaking of that legislation: "This is a bill that the economy of the province cannot sustain at this point in time. We're going to find that out. In the next few months we're going to find that out, in terms of lost job opportunities, loss of investments and lack of confidence in the investment climate of British Columbia." That was said by the member for Surrey-White Rock.
All these agents of doom from the opposition and all the rhetoric they have been spewing since 1992 has been proven to be wrong. The Liberals in this province will never acknowledge the robust economy we're having in this province. They will never give credit to this government for having established the most prosperous economy in Canada. We have in this province the most buoyant economy in Canada, because this government came forward with a plan, and the plan is working.
We see that last year alone the economy in British Columbia grew by 4.3 percent. We have seen that small business incorporations in British Columbia have increased over the last year by 12 percent. Over the last year we've seen that exports in British Columbia have increased by 20 percent. We've seen that investor confidence in British Columbia has gone up by 6 percent, that retail sales are up by 9.4 percent and that one-third of all new jobs created in Canada since October 1991 have been created right here in British Columbia.
The plan that this government brought forward in 1991, the 48-point plan that we were all a part of, has been successful. The plan that the Premier laid out on May 9 says that this is the direction our government is going to go in, and it has and will continue to be successful.
I know that in this chamber there are things that are said by people on this side of the House because we have an interest in pointing these things out; and there are things that are said by the Liberal opposition because they have an inter-
[ Page 14798 ]
est, a self-serving interest, to be these agents of doom and gloom. They're the only people in British Columbia -- the 17 or 18 who are over there -- who don't have the kind of confidence in British Columbia that the investment community and small business have and that those who are investing from all over the world in British Columbia have. So we can make the different political points we want to, but they cannot deny what independent third parties have to say about the success of the economic plan put forward by this government and the Premier. Despite all the rhetoric from the opposite side, particularly from the Liberals, that our budget was not going to continue the kind of prosperity that we've had, Moody's just last month announced that our highest credit rating in Canada would stand -- independent, third-party validation.
An Hon. Member: Who's that again?
M. Sihota: Moody's said the highest credit rating in Canada belongs to the people in British Columbia. They gave a thumbs-up to the economic track record of this administration, this province and the philosophy put forward by the Premier of the province.
Then the opposition said: "Oh, but there's this $250 million you're not going to get from Bonneville Power, and you don't have a balanced budget." It was all rhetoric. Again, the purveyors of doom and gloom, those negative Nellies on the opposite side in the Liberal Party, sat up and tried to sort of wash this House in their tears about this $250 million. Well, the Canadian Bond Rating Service, a third party -- a validator, independent of any of the rhetoric that flows in this House -- took a look not only at that issue of Bonnevile Power but at the economic reforms of this government and the fiscal plan that was laid out by the Minister of Finance. What did the Canadian Bond Rating Service say? They said that British Columbia deserved to maintain its highest credit rating in this country -- highest credit rating, hon. Speaker.
You could take a look at any economic forecast. The Conference Board of Canada earlier this year, after the budget, said British Columbia would maintain its status as one of the strongest-performing economies, along with the NDP provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan. It would maintain its status as being the best performer in Canada. The only people who didn't catch that were those agents of doom sitting on the opposite side, particularly the Liberals.
There are two options or plans being put forward in front of the people of British Columbia right now as we speak: the plan put forward by our government and the plan put forward by the opposition Liberals. There are those who suggest that in order to succeed in the global economy we should compete with the least-developed countries. That's the Liberal plan, hon. Speaker. They -- the Liberals, that is -- say that we cannot afford our labour laws, which provide safety and security to working people. They say that we cannot afford decent minimum wages. They say that we can't afford to invest in new schools and universities, that we can't afford our environmental standards and that we can't even afford medicare.
During the course of this debate they said that they stand opposed to employment standards legislation, which provides minimum coverage for nannies or domestic workers and for immigrants, and which says to working families in British Columbia that they're entitled to five unpaid days so as to attend to family matters. They say in 1995 that they're opposed to legislation that says women ought to be able to decide when they want to take time off work for maternity leave. They're opposed to that.
On this side of the House we say that someone has to speak for those people who sometimes feel intimidated by their employers, and who deserve basic protections in law and basic rights. We say that there's a value to having a government that has a public conscience that speaks volumes for the public interest. The Liberals say that government has no place in the lives of people. They say that instead of investing in our future, government ought to leave that future to others.
[11:15]
There's a different plan. The plan that's put forward by our government is different than theirs, where they reject the minimum wage, employment standards and even coverage to farmworkers, which we didn't even have in this province until 1992. On this side of the House we believe in fairness to working people. We say that there are three basic rules for business in this province: they must pay their fair share of taxes and they must respect the environment.... I know that the opposition -- the Leader of the Opposition in particular -- has said that his first priority would be to get rid of the corporation capital tax that says that it is wrong for a bank teller to be paying more taxes than the bank and a gas jockey to be paying more taxes than the oil company. That Leader of the Opposition wishes to lead this province back to the old days, where there were massive tax breaks for large corporations. We say that corporations have to pay their fair share of taxes.
He says that his second priority would be to get rid of environmental standards. We say that we can create an economy, as we have in British Columbia, where environmental protection and economic development go hand in hand. We have the highest credit rating in the country, and we have the highest environmental rating of any province in Canada.
Third, we say that you must treat your employees fairly. Our plan, on this side of the House, seeks to strengthen B.C.'s economy, which builds on the natural strengths of British Columbians. Our plan says that we as a government believe that we ought to be investing in our people; providing them with the Skills Now program that we provided as an administration; providing them with opportunities to make the transition from welfare to work, opportunities to get work experience -- to the credit of the Minister of Education -- prior to getting their graduation certificate from high school, and the opportunity to be able to make the transition from home to work for women in this province; expanding apprenticeship opportunities. Investing in people -- that's our plan. That's what the opposition rejects. We believe that we ought to be investing in the infrastructure of this province. I know that last night there was a chamber of commerce meeting in my constituency where this government was being applauded for the commitment it had made to expand sewers, to expand the highway system and to establish a university, as we have all over the province -- to pave and make the foundation for economic prosperity in British Columbia. That's part of our plan. We believe in investing in our resources, be it the initiatives we've brought forward forestry or in the environment.
Our plan is a plan which invests in British Columbia. The Liberal plan is a plan which seeks to divest the people,
[ Page 14799 ]
resources and infrastructure of this province. Our plan says that we will protect medicare; their plan says we should reject medicare. Our plan seeks to hire and protect the integrity of working people in this province -- ordinary working people trying to make it from paycheque to paycheque; their plan seeks to fire workers, be it private sector or public sector workers in this province. Our plan is about working and earning, and theirs is about slashing and burning. Ours is a plan that speaks volumes about the needs of ordinary British Columbians, speaks to the needs of people; theirs is a plan, led by the Leader of the Opposition, which speaks to corporate greed.
As we stand here on the floor of this chamber, the choice is very clear in terms of what is going to be faced by British Columbians in the next election. It's our plan versus their plan, and there is no greater embodiment of the differences in philosophical values than this legislation, which protects ordinary working people and which we support -- legislation which they will vote against and which they believe ought not to protect the interests of ordinary working people.
B. Simpson: I seek leave to introduce my daughter's school class....
Deputy Speaker: We need to ask for approval before you proceed.
Leave granted.
B. Simpson: I am delighted today to introduce the 6A and 6B classes of Vancouver Talmud Torah School and their teachers: Eric Lee, Sari Weintraub, Fred Cohen, Nancy Zipursky and Larry Bauer. I'm particularly pleased to make this introduction today because my daughter Samantha is part of this very important delegation. I ask all members to welcome the 6A and 6B classes of the Vancouver Talmud Torah School to this Legislature.
R. Chisholm: I rise this morning to speak on Bill 29, and I have to take some exception to what I hear coming out of the government. There are some things in this bill which you can substantiate, and there are other areas where I have to question whether you can.
First, I think Bill 29 is based on the Mark Thompson report, and that isn't even based in reality, so there's a problem right from the start. We have to take a look at exactly where we're trying to go with this bill. If we take a look at the economy in Canada and British Columbia, it is 90 percent small business. We should be doing everything within our power to ensure that these entrepreneurs survive and that we are inviting more entrepreneurs into the business world. That is the mainstay of our economy, whether we're talking about Canada or British Columbia. In British Columbia, we do need jobs; so it behooves us to ensure that small business does survive, and that the small business climate is there to develop and prosper. If it isn't, we will just hurt our own economy; eventually it will catch up with us.
What I see in this province at this stage of the game is that we are putting hindrances out there, whether you call it UI, employment standards or interprovincial barriers. If you talk abut interprovincial barriers between Alberta and British Columbia in the agricultural area, for instance, there's a 14 percent difference. We're not enhancing small business, and farms are small business. We haven't even tried to talk about that situation; I've brought it up for three years. Why aren't we talking about helping small business in that manner, and creating more jobs?
Instead, we want to put in guidelines for how small business will operate. I have to question whether we are helping or hindering. As I went through the bill, I would have to say that we're hindering. If you take a look at section 30, it does hinder. After all, if somebody is contracting workers out for a farm and the farm goes bankrupt, they're subject to those wages. If you are starting up a small business, you have advisers and that business goes bankrupt, those people could be held responsible for the wages of the employees of that business. Is anybody going to get involved in that kind of scenario? Why would they? Why would they subject themselves to that? We have now taken away professionals who can help small businesses to start up and prosper.
When we take a look at this, it's going to create a bigger underground economy. If you don't think we have an underground economy already from the laws and restrictions we put on small business, just ask Revenue Canada. It's astounding what the underground economy in this province is. We stand up and brag about how well we're doing as a province economically. If there wasn't an underground economy, just think what we'd be doing then. I'm afraid this bill is going to force a much larger underground economy.
We talked about how the government went around and discussed it with various business groups, and this is good. I have to commend this government; they have tried to do this on various bills. I know that on the agricultural bill, Bill 22, they have done that; they've consulted. I know of other bills they have consulted on. I think they tried to consult here. I'm just wondering what they accomplished, especially when you pick up this morning's Times Colonist -- and I'll quote from it. They report:
"Coalition of B.C. Businesses leaders were bitter Wednesday after Premier Harcourt sent the bill on to the Legislature unchanged, despite their pleas at a meeting last week to modify the bill.
"Harcourt had promised to discuss the legislation with his cabinet at Wednesday's meeting. And he did, but the bill was introduced for second reading hours later, leaving business leaders fuming.
" 'They can't talk right now,' said a coalition official. 'They're just sputtering, they're so angry'."
What went wrong here? If this coalition is this angry and they can report it in the paper, then obviously there's something there. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Obviously the people that the government talked to weren't exactly happy. We're never going to get any bill in this House to work unless we can get a consensus, unless we can get people to agree that this is the best way to go -- or to accept the differences that are there, or that they can live with it. When we have bills coming across like that and it is being reported that they were consulted but then disregarded, the coalition, for instance, obviously is not going to support this bill. I have to ask the government: what went wrong? Why did they not go to cabinet and discuss it? If they did, why didn't they go back to the coalition before going ahead with it?
Take a look at item 6 in the 48 promises. That was to ensure that small business grows. I don't think this is a climate that's going to enhance that promise. I think that we have got to take a look at this bill, and take a look at a few of these
[ Page 14800 ]
clauses. If we are going to put those kinds of hindrances in front of business, business is not going to develop here. And when small business stops growing, our growth as a province stops; our growth as a country stops. After all, like I said before, it's 90 percent: it's the backbone of this country and this province, and when it stops developing, we are in real big trouble.
I heard from the previous speaker that we have such a great economy. I have to say that this economy is in spite of this government, not because of this government. During the recession the rest of the country went through, we had an umbrella over this province, as everyone well knows. We had money coming in from the east, and it buoyed up our economy when everybody else was taking a nosedive. So this economy is in spite of this government, not because of it. Again, another reason why our economy is so good is the dollar. We didn't set the dollar; the federal government did. We are gaining the benefits of it. Our exports are very valuable to us now because of it. So let's not get too haughty about exactly where we are. Yes, we've got a good credit rating, but it is somewhat in spite of ourselves.
When I take a look at this bill, I have to ask that question once more: what in this bill states to you that you would like to start a small business in this province? When they start small businesses, they utilize every resource they have. They mortgage their homes. They have confidence in themselves. They will go to the banks and get the loans, and they will be subject to this for many years to come. Why would anybody do that? Like I've shown you before, why would anybody come in and advise them when they're subject to the debts of that company afterwards? This is not the climate we need to ensure that there's growth in our economy.
When you take another look at areas in this bill, and you're talking about lunch hours and coffee breaks, they're very restricted and regimented and all the rest of it. Just think about your LA in this House. This House would shut down if they went into a regimented system. After all, we sit from ten to six. The LAs sit from ten to six. What are the working hours in the day? It doesn't work out, yet our LAs cooperate and go along with it. They react to the issues as they're happening. Workers do want to try to make something work, whether it be a business or this parliament. Technically, we're breaking the law. But that's all right for government.
[11:30]
Maybe we should be allowing a little more freedom, so that when businesses have a rush of customers and the employee is willing to stay to ensure that everything runs smoothly, it's allowed to happen. If you go by this piece of legislation, that's not in. Well, if you're going to go by this regulation, we have to apply it to this House. And guess what: we're in trouble. Yet our people are loyal enough to us to do that, to be here until 6 o'clock at night and to maybe take extra hours in the summertime in lieu of it. That is a pretty free-flowing situation or system. It works -- and works well -- for this House.
Maybe we should be taking a look at it when we talk about business, too. I don't believe that all businessmen are out there trying to harm the employees; that is not in their best interest. There are some bad actors out there -- some very bad actors -- and they have to be controlled. There are no doubts about that.
But this pendulum shouldn't go too far. That's the problem with governments: they seem to overreact to situations. Instead of trying to get to the middle, with something that everybody -- the coalition -- can live with, they go too far to either the left or the right. Then we have to work back towards the middle again, so that everybody is happy and we become economically viable. I'm going to have more to say about this bill when we come to the committee stage. Those are just a few thoughts I wanted to get out onto the floor.
I hope the minister is listening. I hope he will take a look at some of the things we're talking about, because if we go ahead with it, who is going to take that chance and end up supporting a small business if they might be liable for the wages if that small business goes bankrupt? Who is going to contract the workers out to the farms? What happens with the cooperation in business to ensure that business operates during the off-hours, because of cooperating between the employee and the employer? What happens in these scenarios?
If we want to see our economy continue to grow -- and this government wants to continue to crow about our standard here and who is giving us pats on the back for our economy -- then they'd better have another look at this, because if we do not take down some of the barriers and enhance the climate for small business to develop, our economy will end up faltering.
And the last point: everything that happens to small business ends up in the consumers' hands. It's the consumer, at the bottom line, who will hurt over this. When the consumers see that they're being gouged or that they're paying for too much, they stop buying. When the consumer stops buying, hon. members, your economy takes a nosedive. These are a few basic lessons we've learned in the last few years. It's time we started heeding them when we make legislation.
R. Kasper: We've heard from the opposition that there's been little or no consultation in coming to this stage with this bill. I just want set the record straight. When Prof. Mark Thompson went through his review and completed his report, in conducting the review and arriving at his recommendations, Professor Thompson held 14 public hearings across the province. Over 400 organizations appeared at these hearings, as well as an advisory committee made up of two representatives of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, two from the Business Council of B.C., two from labour and one from equity groups. They had a series of some 30 meetings to discuss issues raised by the review and the results of those 14 public hearings. In addition, between May 1994 and March 1995, the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour met with the following groups to discuss this new act. The B.C. horticultural society met once, the restaurant coalition met twice, the Coalition of B.C. Businesses met three times, the Restaurant and Foodservices Association of B.C. met once and the Business Council of B.C. met once. The agricultural groups, such as the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the B.C. tree fruits association and the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, also met. It's absolutely astounding to hear from the opposition that there was little or no consultation.
Certain representatives from the business community in British Columbia who, quite frankly, have their own agenda.... Their agenda is not representing the small businesses within this province. They definitely have a clearly defined political agenda in concert with the opposition, and you can see it. From what you hear from the opposition in this House.... Yesterday the opposition was trying desperately to win favour with that group. It's obvious that they're looking
[ Page 14801 ]
to sweeten the pot and to win favour, and to try to woo as many people as possible to show that they are supposedly going to represent small business.
Well, that's not quite the case. When I hear and see that there have been huge levels of consultation on this legislation and the fact that -- and I'll quote here.... The spokesperson for the Coalition of B.C. Businesses had written a letter on March 9, 1995. The chair of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses wrote to the minister regarding a meeting held March 6, 1995. Miss Sanatani stated:
"I believe the meeting was a good opportunity to discuss with you the challenges being faced by small and medium-sized businesses on labour and employment policy questions. Our members appreciated being able to express directly to you their concerns. We also value the opportunity we had yesterday to be briefed by your deputy minister."
Now, again that's an example of where we have people speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They're saying one thing to our government; they're saying yes, they appreciate the consultation. And in the next breath, when the minister tables the legislation, they say there was no consultation, no input and no dialogue. It's absolutely ridiculous. There they are, the opposition, leaping on that bandwagon to win political favour in hopes of broadening their interests for the next election.
But let's also talk about what they -- certain B.C. business leaders, the Liberals and the Reformers -- are saying no to. They're saying no to such things as five days of leave to allow workers to handle their family responsibilities. We're not talking about paid leave; this is unpaid leave. They're saying no to legislative protection for domestic workers. Gee whiz, that's what they're saying no to! They're saying no to pay for statutory holidays for short-term employees.
They're saying no to job protection for workers who are doing their obligation, as citizens in this country and this province, to perform jury duty. They're saying no to job protection for workers who are required to perform their duties on a jury in this province. Can you believe it? That's what they're saying no to.
They're also saying no to an effective and timely appeal mechanism if there are disputes or problems between an employer and an employee. They're saying no to educational programs, to reduce unintentional violations of the act. They're also saying no to worker approval or discussion of major changes in work schedules and overtime. They're saying no to people who work at home. Quite frankly, they're saying no to workers, and we on this side of the House and this government are saying yes to workers. We're saying yes to workers in a way that's based on consultation, input from the business community and input from workers across this province.
I want to touch on some comments that I've heard and just react to statements in the House with regard to this side of the House not having any understanding of small business. I'm a tradesperson, and I started a small business in 1981. Just after the 1991 election, I put my business in a position where I couldn't do both, but for approximately ten years I ran a small business. I was out there collecting the wages, working for a living, employing people and collecting money to pay the bills to do all the things that small business does. During that time I was also an elected representative at the local government level, actively working and assisting and being involved with the chamber of commerce.
Last night I had the opportunity to attend the Juan de Fuca Chamber of Commerce annual general meeting. They are a fairly substantial organization. They have some 303 members within their chamber. We had a great opportunity to meet with those business representatives and discuss a number of issues. The Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture was the guest speaker. As you can appreciate, ministers take the time to answer questions about any issues that are on the minds of small businesses. There was one question about this piece of legislation -- one question.
Throughout the evening, the outgoing president and the incoming president applauded this government's efforts and initiatives in working with the business community, with the Juan de Fuca Chamber of Commerce, with small businesses and with the entrepreneurs who are the backbone of this province. They identified a number of key issues, which quite frankly relate to what this side of the House's plan and this government's plan is. Contrary to what we hear from the other side of this House, they recognize the fact that this government is willing to make substantial investments in the local economy: $152 million for highway improvements in the Western Communities, the establishment of Royal Roads as a freestanding university, the construction of schools where previous governments failed miserably. I know that in the Langford area there hadn't been a school built for 14 years -- a growing community, a growing municipality, part of the western region of the Capital Regional District. And that chamber recognized what this government has done, what our plan is all about.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
They also talked about the establishment of the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail and the Gowlland Range park on Saanich Inlet. They said that this government has made a substantial commitment, a substantial investment, in the local economy. I might add that the tone coming out of that meeting was more than welcoming, because the business community recognized that there is a partnership between this government and what the entrepreneurs in the Western Communities have been doing, and doing quite well, for many years.
[11:45]
There was one question -- only one question -- about this piece of legislation at that well-attended meeting; it was a non-issue. But what we hear from that side of the House is doom and gloom, doom and gloom -- the same kind of doom and gloom that we heard....
An Hon. Member: There's doom and there's gloom. R. Kasper: Yes, there's doom and gloom. There they are: doom and gloom. What we heard in 1992 when we brought in amendments to the Labour Code, changes that reflect the vision that this government has for this province.... We heard the same doom and gloom.
But what's going on now? We have probably the best economy in North America. We have growth in our retail sales -- last year retail sales went up 9 percent from the previous year; growth in the export sector -- a 20 percent increase last year over the previous year. The stats are coming in, and we see continued growth. The doom and gloom that the opposition predicted are not coming home. That's the difference between us and them: attitude. The business community in this province has a good attitude. They can see that there is
[ Page 14802 ]
economic prosperity, growth and development taking place in this province. This is a good place to live, and our plan is to make sure that it remains a good place to live, unlike what we hear from the other side.
We want to make sure that our health care system is the best in the country. Not like the other side: they want to bring in a two-tier health care system; they want to bring it down and make people pay. The money that they would have to pay is actually taken out of the hands of small business. There was a reference to that last night. The reference was that if we went to an American-style health care system and eroded it -- just like the Liberals want to do by bringing in a user-pay, two-tier health care system -- the money that would normally go into the hands of small business would go into the insurance companies that insure medical health care, like in the United States. That would go to Zurich or Boston or some other corporate interest, and it wouldn't be in the hands of small businesses or spent in the local economy.
That's the difference between us and them. They want to take away what we have; our plan is to make sure that we treat workers fairly and that we work with business. We will make sure that the common interests that affect all of us are maintained. On that side of the House, they want to erode and take away. That's the difference between our plan and their plan. We're going to invest in this community. The voters can see the difference.
An Hon. Member: They don't like doom and gloom.
R. Kasper: No, voters do not want to see negativism; they don't want to see the doom-and-gloom predictions. They want to make sure that there's a vision and a healthy attitude, just like the business community expressed to me last night. There's a healthy attitude there. They're optimistic, because the growth is there.
C. Serwa: Maybe you could get a letter to verify your statement.
R. Kasper: Gee whiz! I don't have it with me, but if the hon. member would like to read Hansard, I know that I spoke on the budget, and I made reference to a letter from the Juan de Fuca Chamber of Commerce praising this government's efforts. Actually, it drove the Liberals out of this chamber. They left in droves when I made reference to a letter from the past president, Les Wansbrough -- actually, his last meeting was last night -- who happens to be a CGA. He praised my efforts as an elected member and this government's efforts in making sure that infrastructure was being invested in our community and the Western Communities. He made reference to highway construction, Royal Roads as a freestanding university, the establishment of the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail and sewers for the Western Communities, all to make sure that there was growth and prosperity. He even made references that those investments represent over $350 million in economic prosperity for the community that I represent.
Once again, at the meeting last night of a chamber that has over 300 members, there was only one question about this piece of legislation. It's a non-issue, but there are certain people who want to make it an issue. That's fine, because we'll stand proud for what we believe in. We know that it's the right way to go, rather than what this side wants to do. That side of the House can go ahead and vote against this, and we'll all know who's on the side of working people and who's on the side of business. They want to look after big Howe Street business.
Anyway, noting the hour, I will take my seat and allow a member opposite, one of my colleagues, to have their opportunity to speak.
L. Boone: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Boone: I'm not sure if this school is in the Legislature right now or if they're in the precincts. Regardless of where they are in our wonderful building or around the grounds, I would like the House to give a warm welcome to Ms. K. Dean, who is a teacher from Horse Heaven Middle School -- I think some of us might like to be in horse heaven at some point in time -- in Kennawick, Washington. She is here with 28 grade 6 students and 11 adults. I would bid the House to please make them welcome.
J. Tyabji: We see how dangerous it is to give up one's place in debate.
I rise to speak on the Employment Standards Act. I've listened to the debates from the other parties. I think that to do justice to this, first of all we have to dispense with the rhetoric. We've heard a lot of rhetoric, and as far as I'm concerned, if we're not speaking to what's in the bill, I'm not really interested in the debate. I had to sit through a lot of it.
Having said that, there are really two different sections of the bill. It breaks down very clearly into the first section, which is a revision of the existing Employment Standards Act.... And I would have to say that on that aspect I would give the government almost top marks in terms of fine-tuning the existing act. That's the first section.
The second section of the Employment Standards Act that's before us -- which the Progressive Democratic Alliance has a fundamental problem with -- is with respect to the tribunal, the determination of the directors, and the provisions for judicial authority that are given to the tribunal. I will obviously need more than the time allocated to me to go into that, but I'd like to mention a couple of quick points on the first part of the bill before we get into the afternoon debate.
The act that's in front of us.... I have to say that as an MLA, I have encountered many people who have come to me with cases that they've taken to Employment Standards because there's been an employer who owes them wages. There's money owing to them, and they have had a very, very difficult time getting resolution. I should say that it has not been the people at the top level of Employment Standards who have been a problem -- they've been very easy to deal with -- but somewhere in the middle, without the time limits, without the specific requirements of the act, people have fallen through the cracks. So I note that in this bill there are some very specific requirements for obligations of employers -- with time limits, with the potential for liens, with liens taking precedence. All of these things are long overdue. I'm really happy to see that, because as an MLA I can tell you this will make the job a lot easier -- and certainly will make my job a lot easier -- of chasing around those few employers who choose to abuse the system and leave employees without any kind of safety net.
[ Page 14803 ]
The leader of the Alliance took some time to talk about the changing paradigm that we're in, and how that gives us some difficulty with the provision for regular wages and wages. This government has chosen to define labour in this province on the basis of a cumulative amount of money -- whether that's on an hourly, weekly, monthly or annual basis -- over a fixed period of time, broken down by hour. We have a problem with that, because we do think that we're entering a very nebulous time where many people will have offices in their home, where they will be hired for their brainpower -- where you may have someone whose area of expertise is what is sought, and that may be because they're a computer whiz or a legal consultant or an agricultural consultant or someone who basically.... It's what they have in their head that's of value, and in that respect the hourly reference is not relevant. I do recognize that the regulations will be exempting certain sectors of the economy, so hopefully when we get to committee stage, we'll find out more about who's covered and who's exempted. But that's where we have a bit of a problem with the change in reference to an hourly wage.
We have a problem with the review of the act being under the auspices of the minister's office. I say that because the continuing review of the act is a good idea, but there are so many experts out in the field who have encountered the act in its current state, who are lobbying for changes, and who I think would be excellent people to have on a committee reviewing the act -- and because that would be possible. Perhaps there could be an all-party committee of the House to make recommendations to a committee to review the legislation, with the government or the party with the majority of seats having the majority of seats on that committee. That would be, I think, a constructive change to the bill.
The member for Chilliwack, I think, covered off some of the concerns about agriculture. I'd just like to say that we will discuss in committee stage some specific amendments that we'd like to make, so that farmers do not end up on the hook if there has been an unscrupulous employment agency or farm labour contractor; that a farmer who pays that person to pay the employees doesn't end up having to be personally liable if the employees do not receive payment; and that there is some safety for the farmer.
D. Streifel: Perhaps a bond.
J. Tyabji: Perhaps a bond. The member for Mission-Kent is recommending that. I think that would be a very good idea.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I don't know that a million dollars is a good idea. But, hon. Speaker, we can talk about that in committee stage.
We have some constructive comment with respect to the wage statements and the payroll records. We think that we can save a lot of time and money for the taxpayers, the people working in Employment Standards and the employees, if in committee stage we go over in detail how we can standardize the forms and formats that are being prescribed in the bill.
Hon. Speaker, when we get to the afternoon session, I'll go into the judicial aspects. But I'd like to say that we have some concerns. On the one hand, we want to commend the government for the provisions for domestic workers. That's something that is so long overdue, and obviously that's primarily a women's issue. That's going to be something where we have domestic help who have been subject to not having contracts, not having any paper trail and not having any avenue of recourse if they're not treated well. On the flip side, we have employers who get into a casual relationship with a domestic worker, who themselves are then vulnerable. So that's a good provision.
We would like to talk at some length about the pregnancy leave problems. There are problems in the act with the way it's written. Particularly, I would note, in the provisions for parental leave, the father of the child has more leeway in determining his parental leave after birth than the mother does. The mother is tied to immediately after the birth of the child, whereas the father can take leave within a 52-week period. We're going to bring that up with some amendments, so I'd like to flag that.
Many things in this act are an improvement. For that the government should be commended, and I would not like to hold that up. But the second part of the act, which I'll leave for the afternoon, is on judicial powers, and I believe that a constitutional challenge to the provisions in this act would be successful. I'll bring in some of the legal precedents that we have in Canada from other provinces, where similar models have been successfully challenged in court.
I would hope that the government does not continue the trend it has begun in this bill and in other bills -- we saw that last summer and the year before -- of moving away from an open arena, with a public debate of problems between two individuals. Whether that's the state and an employee or employer, or whether it's family law, labour law or workers' compensation, we've seen it again and again, and we see it again here. In this bill, I think the government has taken it a step further than they've ever taken it before. They may not realize the implications of what they've done. We are strongly opposed to this model in principle and hope that we can introduce some amendments in committee stage so that we can vote in favour of the bill.
[12:00]
With that, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the house.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Edwards moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.
[ Page 14804 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; L. Krog in the chair.
The committee met at 10:15 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 42: minister's office, $461,000 (continued).
The Chair: I'm delighted to recognize the member for Richmond East this morning.
L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'm delighted to be recognized. In terms of conversation in the last number of days around Alzheimer's treatment in the province, I simply want to reference a number of questions for the minister, and perhaps his staff could supply me with the answers at a future time. That would be absolutely fine.
One of the questions came this morning around a new drug: Cognex is its trade name, and I believe tacrine is its drug name. The question relates to whether there is some kind of discussion in the ministry on whether it can be considered an investigative new drug protocol. I simply want to put that on the record. Apparently there are a number of instances where similar situations have occurred around AZT -- that in fact it was funded under that type of precedent before it became more widely established as a product.
I understand, from a very succinct briefing this morning on this particular product, that it has been licensed for use in France and a number of other countries. So I'm asking the minister and the ministry to address the likelihood of this product coming into usage in British Columbia and what that time line might be.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Authorization for use of drugs in Canada is, of course, the responsibility of Health Canada, and without their approval, it is unavailable. I will ascertain current discussions at Health Canada and with the Pharmacare branch of my ministry and get back to the member.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. In terms of the ongoing discussion around Alzheimer's facilities -- and certainly the Delta View Habilitation Centre has come up a number of times in the last number of days -- the question posed to me this morning was: is there a similar facility on Vancouver Island? Could the minister kindly respond?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've visited at least two long term care facilities on the Island that make treatment of seniors suffering from dementia a priority. I'm trying desperately to remember the names of those facilities, and I can't come up with them right now. Increasingly, though, long term care facilities are converting space to treatment of dementia, looking at arrangements for the wandering resident -- physical security of the individual becomes an issue -- and also education of staff. In mid-May, I announced about $1.3 million in grants for the training and education of caregivers who are dealing with Alzheimer's patients -- psychogeriatric funding to look at programs around providing better care for psychogeriatric patients. I'd be glad to provide the member with the news release and the list of those who received those grants.
L. Reid: I thank the minister most sincerely for his comments. I know both he and I have received calls in the last number of days. I think no one at this stage is looking for a cure. They are simply looking for ways to improve quality of life around Alzheimer's. If we can work together on that, I'd be delighted.
Returning to some questions from yesterday in terms of the accord, we didn't really have the report card, if you will -- the status report -- on the number of transfers. When it was first introduced, we talked about 4,800 individuals moving from the acute care sector into the community. Can the minister provide me with an update as to how many have currently been repositioned?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The only correction I would make to the member's initial response is that we are looking at downsizing the staff in the acute sector by about 10 percent -- around 4,800. Not all those would, of course, be transfers. Some would take retraining and move to other lines of work; some would take early retirement. There are a variety of options presented to workers.
The last comprehensive report card I have, hon. member, is the report of the Labour Adjustment Agency last fall, reporting through the end of October. They've been doing biannual reports. In December they reported that as of that date, the reduction of some 1,700 FTEs had been achieved. When they measured the number of acute hours paid, which I asked my own ministry staff to do as of last October, the reduction from the start of the accord a year and a half earlier was 4.6 percent.
L. Reid: Could the minister clarify for the record the actual time line? My understanding was 4,800 positions by, I believe, March 1996. Are we on target?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As of last October, I would say that we were close to target -- slightly behind. One of the reasons for it is that we are looking at the size of the acute sector, and as the member knows there is some debate about whether targets that were originally set with the accord have actually been met already in terms of beds per thousand.
The work will go on this year doing some of the shift from acute to community. We'll be assessing that again, as I say, this spring once we have the report for the first two years of the work of the accord.
The other thing I'd say is that the accord, in a way, is not the vehicle that makes the reduction; the reduction is a product of the ministry working with hospitals and with community groups to shift venues for delivery of service. The process for dealing respectfully with workers who are displaced as the venue for shifting services changes is through the accord and the Labour Adjustment Agency.
L. Reid: Certainly for my information, we're agreeing that March 1996 was the target for 4,800 individuals, and I appreciate the minister's comments about the percentage reduction in hours. Can the minister tell me, in real numbers,
[ Page 14805 ]
where we sit in terms of the 4,700? There was some discussion yesterday about 1,100 or 1,600.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm just getting warmed up here; I thought I'd given you the number. The Labour Adjustment Agency reports biannually. As of October 6, 1994, they achieved a reduction of 1,697 FTEs; they reported that to me in late 1994.
We also did measurements in the ministry to see just how many hours there were of paid staff and what the reduction had been -- almost like a check. The check found we had a reduction of 4.59 percent of acute care paid hours.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for the clarification. So we're looking at roughly 3,100 additional FTEs to be reduced by October 1996, if indeed the original target was 4,800. Basically that's less than 18 months for the largest share of that reduction. I submit that I don't believe we're on target. I certainly think that's a huge accomplishment, if indeed that's going to achieve the target in the next 17 to 18 months. What's the fallback plan? What's plan B? Is there an additional strategy around that? If indeed at the end of October, 1996, the number is 2,000, is there some discussion about the other 2,800 in terms of the overall plan and cost of the accord?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me just make a couple of points. One of the reasons the numbers are perhaps a little smaller as of halfway through, which was last October, than one might wish is that these don't show up. An FTE is an annualized position. For example, in the first year of the accord, essentially almost no reductions were achieved until halfway through the year. Therefore the targets for the first year were undershot considerably.
I think if we took a snapshot of the actual number of full-time bodies employed in the health sector now, it would show a greater reduction than approximately 1,700. It's working its way through. This is part of the issue, so some of this will show up. Let's just say you can't take the average of the first 18 months and say that is what's going to happen in the second 18 months. I think there will be more because it did start slow, and the full FTE reduction won't show up until sometime later.
The other thing I would say, though, is that I think this accord, this employment security agreement, is a mechanism for achieving respect for health workers as dislocation and redistribution goes on; it's a vehicle. The target of 4,800 that the member quotes was, as the member knows, taken from the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, which said: "In general terms, what does a 10 percent reduction in acute services look like?" While I recognize the need to track the number of FTE hours, and we have done so consistently, I don't think we should get locked into a mind-set that says: "Failure looms if 4,800 is not the number." If we have an appropriately sized FTE component in the acute sector to deliver health services, I'll be satisfied.
I think progress to date has been good. There are a number of things we've done around the accord to enhance its efficiency. The member and I have discussed -- or I think I may have discussed this with other members of her caucus -- some of the stresses and strains that individual hospital administrators are feeling as they implement reductions. On balance, I think it has been a success. It has served workers and the province well in this time of restructuring the delivery of health services.
L. Reid: I was simply trying to encapsulate the discussion by asking the minister if the target of 4,800 FTEs being reduced in the system was realistic.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe it was realistic initially. As I said, I think we'll show a greater number in the second half of the accord than we did in the first half, because we had to wrap it up and get it fully operational. If we come close to that objective, I'll be happy. As the member knows, the other thing that is going on is that hospitals have made excellent progress in reducing average length of stay and developing Closer to Home community-based services. Much of that work is well advanced now, so some of the initial obstacles are being overcome. Hospitals are becoming more effective and efficient at delivering services. Increased activity around shared services goes on.
Just in passing, for example, I think the work in Vancouver around the shared services organization has the potential for incredible efficiencies. It will mean displacement of staff. Therefore the accord -- the employment security agreement -- will have a vital role to play in making sure that the careers of workers are respected as Vancouver goes through a major restructuring of administrative and support services for health delivery.
[10:30]
L. Reid: In reference to the accord, there have been a number of discussions around early retirement incentive packages to assist in the strategy of creating reductions in staff. Could the minister comment on the cost of those incentives? And if I could pose a second question at the same time, could he comment on the overall cost of implementing the accord to date?
Hon. P. Ramsey: During the first fiscal year in which the accord was in place, we devoted about $5 million to early retirement. Near the end of the 1993-94 fiscal year we enhanced that with an additional $15 million. The Labour Adjustment Agency is still working off of those funds and offering early retirement incentive packages. The total budget for early retirement has been around $20 million.
L. Reid: To go back to the previous question of the overall cost of the accord, where are we today in terms of actual dollars expended, and what is the likelihood of new expenditure?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As we look at this, we still believe that the reduction in staff hours will be significant. We will end up with a lower wage bill for the acute care sector of the health system at the end of these three years than we would have at the beginning. The expenses for early retirement and retraining, as well as the expenses of the agency and its administration and programs, are a small part of that. They're factored into that. Based on the work we've seen in the first 18 months, and looking at what we could anticipate during the last 18 months, at the end of the day -- March 31, 1996 -- we think we will have a lower wage bill for the acute sector than we did at the beginning of the accord.
Excluding the early retirement program, the administration and work of the Labour Adjustment Agency in every
[ Page 14806 ]
program I've mentioned -- job-sharing initiatives, retraining initiatives and placement services -- will cost about $2 million over the length of the accord. So the total cost of them actually doing their work is $22 million to $23 million.
L. Reid: The minister is probably aware that there is a tremendous range of opinion in terms of the actual cost of the accord, ranging from $50 million to $125 million, and as recently as today I read $300 million. If the minister could attempt to suggest why those differences in opinion exist, that would be helpful, and also if he could give me some indication as to the overall cost of implementing that accord. What I'm hearing the minister say is that the $22 million to $23 million is the administrative portion of that. What was negotiated as part of the accord obviously has a cost attachment to that as well. Could the minister kindly enlighten us?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The cost of the accord is a fascinating -- almost, I might say, theological -- debate. Let's look at some of the assumptions that some folks make when they talk about the huge cost of this accord. Somehow, it seems to be based on the assumption that in the absence of an employment security agreement, which constitutes the accord, there would have been no wage increases in the health sector. Well, that's simply nonsense. The accord, as the member knows, was negotiated after there was some clear indication of what wage and benefit increases would be in the health sector. It doesn't take a lot of initiative to put those together and figure out what wage costs would have been.
The Ministry of Finance recently did a Treasury Board analysis of what those costs would have been: with no accord and no employment security agreement, what would have happened under existing contracts and arbitrated levels of wage increases in the acute sector? And roughly, there would have been a wage increase of 4.53 percent in the first year, 3.21 in the second, and 3.87 in the third. The total bill, assuming that there is no reduction in staff and everybody got the increases, would have been $246 million and change -- call it $247 million.
If you take the wage increases under the accord, the expense of running the Labour Adjustment Agency, the costs of early retirement incentive programs and if you also take into account the reduction in staff, the wage bill for the acute sector over the three years is currently estimated by Treasury Board staff at $189 million.
The conclusion is that being able to do this downsizing, the appropriate retraining, early retirement and other ways of helping workers adjust to this, will not cost the province money. Because of fewer staff working in the acute sector, the resulting savings will be $58 million.
L. Reid: It is my understanding from the minister's comments that there is no doubt that the existing union agreements were definitely upgraded under the accord. There was an hourly lift, even though the number of hours worked was reduced; that's part of the package. Our contention has always been to understand why the decision would be taken to put in place a richer package when the existing package may have accomplished the same objectives. It's always been an interesting discussion; it's never been one that's particularly factual. I do believe that a lot of this discussion is speculative -- no question about that.
I appreciate where we are today, but I have difficulties convincing people that this is the way to proceed. I appreciate the minister's comments -- the difference between $247 million and $189 million -- but there are many, many folks in the public who believe they'd have been better served if this accord had not come into being. Could the minister kindly comment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to return to my earlier comments. Those who project figures of $300 million or $0.5 billion dollars as the cost of the accord seem to assume that there have been no wage increases for any worker in the acute sector for those three years. That's simply nonsense. There were arbitrations and collective agreements in place providing for, among other things, the reduction in the workweek that the member references. That happens with or without the accord. There are wage increases in place that would have occurred with or without the accord.
The analysis that we believe is accurate -- and I think the member is right -- is that there were some enhancements to some aspects of pay and benefits under the accord, an exchange for which is a labour adjustment plan that I think represents cutting-edge labour relations in the last part of the twentieth century, where the representatives of workers agreed to participate in a considerable downsizing of their staff.
Hon. member, I would ask those who approach you and say, "This is not the way to go," to look at what actually happens in both private sector corporations and other jurisdictions when readjustments of this magnitude are contemplated. The federal government is currently undertaking a considerable downsizing. The collective agreement under which the public service works for the federal government has many of the provisions for relocation and adjustment that the accord does. Private sector companies that engage in massive redistribution of workforces put in place terms and conditions not unlike those in the accord.
The alternative proposed to the accord by some critics -- mainly those from what I would call the neo-conservative right wing -- is that employees deserve no security, no adjustment, no retraining and no consideration as restructuring goes on. I think that is a fringe view, even within the private sector of this country and the rest of North America.
If you look at the major restructurings that have gone on in private sector companies, they have adjustment programs in place not unlike the accord in terms of what can they do to retrain or relocate people for jobs they will have or help them adjust to work in another sector. Those who say that the accord costs money ignore the immense human cost of not having the accord in place. The immense cost of letting every employer in the province fight out every readjustment, every bumping of cross-union, every shift in the way that services are delivered in front of the Labour Relations Board for three years would be a recipe, I submit, for labour relations chaos in the acute sector.
Therefore I think the accord has accomplished the two important tasks we needed to accomplish. It allowed the shift in how we deliver services; it allowed workers a role in making that shift happen. It was respectful of workers and their contribution over the years to health care in this province.
L. Reid: The minister will make the case that somehow these individuals did not believe that the existing agreements
[ Page 14807 ]
had wage increases and benefit increases in them. That is simply not true. We are both aware that those individuals understood the nature of those collective agreements. I would differ with the minister on this point. They made no assumptions about that. Their contention, and our contention, has been that this is an enhanced agreement. It put more on the table than was originally in the negotiated agreements. The question that I continually come back to is whether this was the best arrangement that could be made.
Obviously it's been made, but there are some issues around the dollars that the minister suggests will be a cost saving -- the $58 million. In terms of where we go from here, what is the plan? Earlier in his remarks, the minister suggested that if we get close to 4,800, he will consider that a success. What happens in March 1996? What is the plan? I'm not convinced we will be anywhere near 4,800 reductions. If the minister has a stronger sense of that pending success, fabulous. But I think there are some unexplored issues. When the agreement expires, I'm not convinced it will have solved the problems. I'm wondering if it will have flung open the barn door to a whole myriad of demands on the system that are simply not affordable. I would ask the minister to comment.
[10:45]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The accord will be evaluated by workers' representatives and employers over the next year as they prepare for bargaining over collective agreements, which will take effect after April 1, 1996. On balance, I must say that for all the difficulties that have at times been experienced by employers and representatives of workers, I expect there will be a grudging recognition that the employment security provisions and labour adjustment provisions of the accord are preferable to the alternative. As I have said, the alternative -- and I need the member to hear me clearly on this -- is that there is no simple way of doing the massive restructuring in health delivery that we are looking at in the absence of the accord.
First, you have arbitration and labour relation hearings continually, as workers' representatives quite rightly assert that every provision of collective agreements must be adhered to as layoffs or redistribution of the labour force occurs. I submit that there would be no hospital-based labour adjustment committees that bring together employer and employee at a site level to suggest how it could be done. It would be labour relations war, institution by institution, all across this province.
Second, I believe that is destructive of the quality of care delivered to people who are in hospitals around this province in the 123 acute facilities that we fund. I think the conclusion at the end of the day will be that labour adjustment provisions of some sort are valuable as we go through this restructuring and that both sides will look at what parts of that adjustment strategy need to be ongoing. But that, hon. member, is primarily the responsibility of the bargaining agents for both sides in this accord. Their lead-up to bargaining for the next round is just now beginning. I know both sides are looking carefully at this issue and examining what the alternatives actually are.
Is the alternative which the Liberal leader proposed of time off without pay, wage rollbacks and other adjustments that seem to be advocated by the Liberal opposition -- and not only advocated but endorsed and enhanced by the Reform Party -- the way to go, without the sort of accord that we have reached between government and employers and health unions? I submit not. I think the transition to a different form of delivery of health care in this province has been smoother. It has served the patients of the province better, and it has served the workers better than the alternative.
L. Reid: I just want to verify one last time that the minister can provide today the cost of the accord and the cost at the end of March 1996.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have the year-by-year breakdown. I gave you the latest Treasury Board analysis for the entire three years of the accord: wage costs over that period will be approximately $188 million; without the accord, looking at the arbitration of Kelleher and Munroe and the wage increases that I quoted to the member, costs would have been $247 million. Current projected cost savings as a result of the accord are $58 million.
L. Reid: So on top of the $189 million, there's $23 million additional for administrative costs? Or is that included in the $189 million?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm working from memory here of the extensive evaluation that was done. My recollection is that the figure of $188 million included the cost of running the Labour Adjustment Agency, and we were looking at trying to do it as best we could, an accurate comparison of wage costs without wage costs and adjustment costs in determining the savings to the people of British Columbia.
J. Tyabji: I'm not sure if he requires different staff to be providing support, but I'd like to talk about the Medical Services Plan. On April 4 of this year, I sent a letter to the minister with respect to the difficulty that has been occurring with people who drive trucks for a living who are British Columbia residents -- they have homes and families in B.C., and they are Canadian citizens. However, there has been a change in the interpretation of provision of services that has affected them recently. I have in front of me a letter from Mr. Gary MacKenzie which was sent to John Mochrie -- and the minister was sent a copy -- about how this is impacting the members of the Teamsters union, who are obviously drivers who often spend a lot of the week out of the province. I would read into the record one issue that he brings up:
"We suspect that the position confirmed by MSP is a recently adopted one. We understand that the wording of the act and regulations has not changed, and since this issue has not previously been raised in the many years since MSP was established, we must assume that it is recent. We further suspect that it is an interpretative issue and that correction may not require amendment to the actt or regulations. This issue does not only affect members of our union, but it could also affect the airline, shipping and fishing industries, as well as many sales representatives and businessmen and women who regularly work for short, but numerous, periods out of the province."
I would like to bring that forward because in the minister's response to my letter of April 4, he indicated that there were ongoing discussions and a review. I would like to know what the status of that is. Has there been any resolution? Is there any good news for the Teamsters?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The question the Medical Services Commission is grappling with is the what categories of employ-
[ Page 14808 ]
ment requiring absence from the province and whether they should be captured by provisions such that those employees are "deemed to be residents of the province" for the purposes of the Medical Services Commission and the benefits of the Medical Services Plan, even though they don't meet the residency requirements. This is not an easy matter, as the member knows. Sometimes it's difficult to separate somebody who voluntary absents himself or herself from the province to pursue business in other countries, and who is clearly not a resident of the province, though a residence is maintained within the province.
I really appreciated the letter that the member forwarded to me. I think this is a real issue. Medical Services staff are preparing an options paper for my consideration and approval. It will require an amendment to regulations. The only thing that I think is inaccurate in the correspondence the member refers to is the allegation that there has been a change in regulation or interpretation. There has not. This sometimes comes up.
I must say that I'm almost afraid of putting the following comment on the record, but I'm going to do it anyway. In a way, it's those who are being honest who are being caught. The trucker who in total is gone seven months out of the year and simply doesn't tell the Medical Services Commission will probably not get caught. It is those who are honest and report that they are absent from the province for more than six months in a year who find themselves having difficulty gaining access to the Medical Services Plan. Within ten days, staff will have a draft options paper ready for me to consider. I hope we can address this so that people are not penalized for their honesty.
J. Tyabji: It was a constituent who brought this to my attention. In the way that the minister has described, he had disclosed that his employment took him out of the province, I think, for an average of four or five days a week.
As we sit here debating the Health estimates, the Employment Standards Act is up for debate in the other House. There are very specific definitions in it about what is deemed to be employment and how schedules of employment, in terms of the breakdown of days and the amount of days worked, are constituted. I believe that we currently have definitions in the law that give the minister the necessary tools to decide which people in the province are constrained by employment to leave four or five days a week -- more than 50 percent in a year cumulatively -- and which choose to be snowbirds, for example, and go down to Arizona. If you choose to do that....
An Hon. Member: It's your choice.
J. Tyabji: Yes, it's your choice. However, these people don't have a lot of choice. They are employees. They are feeling the results of not having medical services. In the case of my constituent, it is ironic that he is able to pay his family's premiums, but in earning the money to pay them, he himself does not qualify. Perhaps if we look at the provisions for where you pay income tax and how your tax is structured....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Well, the minister is saying that that's not working. I would like a copy of the discussion paper when the minister feels comfortable releasing it. I would be happy to provide any kind of constructive input if that is requested. I would circulate it to constituents if that is what the minister would like. I would like to see this result sooner rather than later. I know how things work in all our offices -- a two-month turnaround is the speed of light. But keep in mind that these people on a daily basis are feeling the impact of not having the Medical Services Plan. This is obviously something that can benefit a lot of people very quickly if we can resolve it within the next six weeks or so. I don't hold out a lot of hope for that, but it would be nice to at least have an interim definition. Perhaps the minister would like to respond.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member makes some excellent points. I'm not sure whether the actual terms of employment standards are of much benefit. The staff has looked at that. They have looked at residency provisions for income tax and a variety of ways to pin this down; it's quite difficult. The question is how you distinguish somebody who keeps a residence here -- who may be an employee on a cruise ship which is outside Canadian waters for seven months of the year but really has a residence here -- from somebody who keeps a residence here but carries on his or her business in San Francisco and is down there for four days a week by choice. In the one case, I think that we can make a case for residency, and in the other case, it's a little harder to say that they are deemed to be residents of the province.
I think the timetable the member proposes is appropriate. Let's see if we can get this done in the next six weeks.
L. Reid: What I'd like to do in the next few moments -- and I fully appreciate if the minister doesn't have the opportunity to respond to these questions -- is ask a set of questions that pertain to each of the programs. I would simply like to put them on the record and would be delighted to receive the answers at his leisure.
I'll give you a list of the programs -- there's a great number of them: office of the provincial health officer, the Medical Advisory Committee, the Emergency Health Services Commission, the Emergency Medical Assistants' Licensing Board, the Medical Services Commission, the division of vital statistics, the women's health bureau, the nursing respite program, the at-home program and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. Then there are a number of offices for injury prevention, risk communication, tobacco and radiation exposure control -- ones we've never, ever dealt with in estimates. I simply would like a breakdown at some future point as to my set of questions, which I'm more than happy to put on the record momentarily.
The questions that we were particularly interested in, because we've had some difficulties trying to pull together this information -- again, with the minister's indulgence -- involved the number of FTEs employed in each of those programs. We're also looking for performance measurement around those programs. They're funded annually -- work goes on and things transpire -- but it's difficult to know if the dollars are being expended most wisely. We would certainly be interested in that kind of information. We're basically looking for a measurement of effectiveness of the program. That would be most helpful to us.
[11:00]
As the objectives are listed in this document, they are fairly open-ended. If there is any way to acquire information
[ Page 14809 ]
that looks at specific mandates for some of these agencies, that would be helpful, as would whether we're looking at a shift in mandate, a transition. Certainly we know that that's happening to a lot of different agencies in the province. They were initially funded and put in place, but what do we now expect of them? Something similar or something completely different?
Talking to a number of different people about some of these programs, the comment that typically comes back to me is: "Well, we're in transition." I appreciate that, but I would be really interested to know what it is that we intend to achieve while we're in the transition stage, with particular interest in the number of full-time-equivalents and people on contract.
That would be my set of questions. If I could have the information for the programs I listed, I will not ask the minister to respond individually to each of them at this very moment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: That's a deal I just can't refuse. You shall have the information.
J. Dalton: I was just glancing through the Election Act -- this little document -- while I was listening to my partner.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, now you've dispensed with that, and your analysis is complete, Jeremy.
J. Dalton: Yes. However, as I will be discussing when that bill comes up, we tabled a major part of that bill two years ago but didn't get around to it, of course.
I have some questions dealing with the financing of private hospitals, in particular the disclosure of financial information pertaining to private hospitals. This was precipitated more than two years ago by a request of a constituent of mine for financial information -- and I guess I can disclose the hospital because it's in the records anyway. It was Inglewood hospital in West Vancouver. His mother was a patient in that hospital -- unfortunately she's now deceased -- and he had some concerns about the level of care at the hospital. The result was a request for the hospital's financial statements. It took him over a year going through the freedom-of-information commissioner, because the information was not provided initially by the hospital, and he had to struggle with the Health ministry to get not all but at least a major part of the information.
In January 1993 he made the initial request, and on March 28, 1994, he received the information from the ministry, minus some if it, which I'll explain in a moment. I wasn't asking this information in any vindictive way; simply because a taxpayer had his mother in the hospital and he had some, I think, legitimate concerns about the operation and the public money that went into the hospital. On March 28 he received a letter containing the financial information that he requested, but a major part of the information was severed, under section 21 of the FOI Act. There were three reasons, which I'll read into the record, and I will invite the minister to comment in particular on the third reason for severing; this is the one which has concerned both my constituent and me.
The first reason for severing was that it would reveal financial information of a third party; second, it was supplied implicitly or explicitly in confidence; and third, it could reasonably be expected to result in similar information no longer being supplied to the public body, when it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be supplied.
I can understand, given that it is a private hospital -- not completely private, I would say, because there's a lot of public money that goes into it -- the first reason for not disclosing. I have some trouble with the second -- implicitly or explicitly given in confidence. For example, I have in my hand the Ministry of Health document dealing with care services, and all of the information that my constituent asks for, minus the things that were severed, is on this page, so I presume then that the ministry, obviously on a regular basis, asks for this information.
I suppose the bottom line of my question is: why should not all the information be provided? Why, for example, is the room differential figure deleted? Why is the total operating revenue deleted? I will add that my constituent certainly wasn't happy with this response, so he persisted, and a month after he complained about the lack of total information, he received a one-page document giving the list of the titles of the revenue and expenses of the hospital, but no figures.
What good is that? It reminds me of the Danny Perreault report that we got last year from the Attorney General. There were so many things severed from that report that it became a meaningless document. I would suggest to the minister that a large part of this document is meaningless. I think the ministry is, perhaps, practising subterfuge. Would the minister care to comment on the absence of pertinent public information that I think should have been provided and was a reasonable request that took over a year to be complied with and was not fully complied with anyway?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm quite willing to respond to some of the member's concerns. I'd just ask for one piece of information. The original request for information was on what date? And on what date did your constituent receive some of the information he was requesting?
J. Dalton: The initial request -- which went to the hospital itself, of course -- was in January 1993. It was March 28, 1994, when, having gone through freedom of information, he received a letter from the ministry containing the information -- but containing, of course, the reasons why some of it was severed. That's the other documentation. I'd be happy to provide copies to the minister if that would be of help to him.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would ascribe some of the delay, hon. member, simply to getting the act in place during a period when procedures were being developed. The other thing I'd point out to the member is that it was only last fall, in November 1994, that hospitals were -- as part of the tier-two designation of freedom of information -- made subject as institutions to the provisions of the act.
As far as the specifics around what's in, what gets severed and how documents are processed, I must tell the member that this is not a matter I control. This is the purview of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner. He works with staff in various ministries to ensure that there is uniform application of the legislation and regulations across ministries. He is now doing similar work with institutions that have been designated as subject to the act under tier-two designations, including organizations such as self-regulating health professional bodies -- the College of Physicians and Surgeons, for example.
[ Page 14810 ]
It is his purview to ensure a consistency of application of the act. The member's quarrel, I submit, is not with the Ministry of Health but with the legislation and regulations which we voted on in the Legislature around the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and with the application of the law and regulations by the commissioner.
Interjections.
J. Dalton: I'm hearing a lot of helpful advice from all over the room; I'll get to some of the points raised. They aren't on record, but I'll raise them anyway in a moment.
Perhaps I could ask a general question, because the minister has responded that the FOI Act, as we all know, is not administered by his ministry. But there are 18 ministries, and they all get FOI requests. I hope the minister isn't telling this committee that all these requests get dumped in David Flaherty's lap, because they don't. Obviously they have to be vetted by the people designated to deal with FOI requests; they're in the budget for each ministry. So I'm not impressed with that answer, quite frankly; I think the buck does stop there.
I would add, by the way -- because my neighbouring friend from North Vancouver-Lonsdale asked as I got to my feet if he had appealed -- that yes, he did appeal. He went through section 63 of the act. I assisted him with this and it got him nowhere. In April of this year that request was turned down. So he didn't get any satisfaction that way either.
Again, I think what we are obviously experiencing -- and we have to go through the growing pains -- is that FOI was not the be-all and end-all that this government would have us believe. I know it's caused it a lot of embarrassment. Obviously a lot of documents have been released, but let's not get into that.
Could the minister respond as to how FOI requests in his ministry are dealt with? That's what I would like to know.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Depending on the nature of information that is requested, it will be dealt with at a variety of levels within the ministry. All procedures for the compilation and release of information are done in accordance with legislation and regulation. Staff in the ministry take their direction on application of those regulations from the freedom-of-information office within Government Services. This is not something that differs from ministry to ministry, nor should it be something that differs from hospital to hospital or professional body to professional body.
I submit that the member is quite wrong. I hope he reconsiders his view that individual ministers should be those dictating responses and applications to the Freedom of Information Act within their ministries. I submit that that is a recipe for chaos.
As long as we are talking about the Freedom of Information Act, though, I must say that one thing it has surely revealed is the potential for abuse of requests for information by political parties and by the media. The bill for processing such requests, some of which I would describe as fishing expeditions for a minnow in the Pacific Ocean, consume hundreds of staff hours and tens of thousands of dollars of staff time for no conceivable benefit to the public at large. I can refer to requests that my ministry has received, for example, -- I don't believe from the Liberal opposition, by the way -- from another political party that requested all correspondence and documents relating to restructuring of health care between the federal and provincial governments.
I ask the member to contemplate the effort that would go into even beginning to compile those sorts of documents, as members of the ministry search back over four years through a huge range of interaction that takes place between the Ministry of Health in this province and the federal level of government around issues and health reform and renewal. It was an incredible request. I think it is that sort of abuse of the act that we have to be vigilant about and guard against, because it represents an abuse of the public purse.
The member referred to growing pains in FOI. I think that we are getting consistency in the application of it. If the member wishes to quarrel with some of the provisions in the act around what should or could be severed, I would suggest that it's a matter for legislation. It's not within the ability of this ministry to influence.
[11:15]
J. Dalton: I didn't anticipate that we would get into a protracted discussion about FOI. This isn't the place. In Government Services -- when and if we get around to that -- we can deal with that issue. I might remind the minister, however, of one example that was well publicized -- when the NDP was fishing around for city of Vancouver records going back to 1985, which dealt with a friend of our leader.
Interjection.
J. Dalton: Well, putting aside the issue of fishing trips, I guess we can deal with them in Agriculture estimates.
Let me deal with one other issue. Maybe this will be a little easier for the minister to handle. We won't get into a political discussion. The North Shore long term care funding for '95-96 is at the same level as in the previous budget year, yet this minister and his government are so proud of New Directions and Closer to Home. Can the minister tell the committee how he expects Closer to Home to any way be properly realized when more and more people are growing older and need more home care? My mother is an example of somebody who's struggling as best she can to stay at home and maintain the philosophy of Closer to Home. Yet in the example I cited -- the North Shore long term care funding -- there are no more resources available in the current budget year than in the previous year. The minister can't tell this committee that there aren't more people demanding that care, because obviously there are. We're not advocating that you throw up more hospitals. We are saying that if you want to follow the philosophy and direction that this government wants us to follow, then the ministry had better rethink what it's doing in the communities.
I might add, as the minister well knows, that some of the regional health boards are almost in chaos -- if they aren't totally in chaos -- because they're getting no direction. I think it's a shame. I don't want the minister to get up and tell us, now or in the House, about the federal Liberals and that other nonsense. That's totally irrelevant. We are dealing with fundamental home and community issues of funding and resources. They are not being demonstrated.
[ Page 14811 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: What a wonderful mixture of misrepresentation and lack of knowledge of actual facts as far as health care delivery on the North Shore goes! The regional health board on the North Shore, I would submit, was broadly representative of the community. It includes knowledgable people who've been involved in health care and community services for years. It's a good representation of the community, and I think they have hired excellent staff to assist them in transition in putting their health plan and management plan together.
Let's deal with the facts around home support statistics for the North Shore. I believe that's what the member was talking about -- home support. Is that accurate? The member may be interested in knowing that in 1991, 269,000 hours of home support were provided for residents of the North Shore at a cost of just over $4 million. In the last budget year, 361,000 hours of home support were provided for residents of the North Shore at a cost of over $7 million. The assertion that cutbacks have occurred in home support and that the North Shore is being starved of such services is simply inaccurate.
If this member wishes to stand up and suggest that increases of this magnitude -- double-digit increases in expenditure, year after year after year -- for home support on the North Shore are not sufficient, I think he has a serious quarrel with his leader, who suggests that somehow we can slash a billion dollars of corporate taxes, absorb not only the $800 million of federal offload, but perhaps a bit more, and not affect services like home support. We have walked the walk on community service delivery in the North Shore and other areas of the province.
Finally, I would mention that on the North Shore in the last year, $1.6 million of new community-based services have been provided through Closer to Home funds in that region. Many of those new services are now becoming fully operational, and I suggest that the member reflect on his words and on the potential impact of health budget reductions on our ability to sustain those sorts of innovative home-based services.
L. Reid: As the minister has noted, we have worked very carefully through the calendar of events, if you will, and we are now at the Medical Services Plan discussion. I understand that in 1994, $810 million in premiums were billed, and $144,000 was basically written off. I want to know if there is a strategy to collect those outstanding premiums or if the decision taken to write them off was because it was just not cost-effective to have some plan in place.
Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member and I have discussed before in other venues, the Medical Services Commission does pursue instances of fraud where it can find them. The only reason we would write off premiums is if, as the member suggests, it was simply not cost-effective to collect them and the procedure would cost more than the revenue.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments, because I do know that in a number of other provinces they are putting in place some kind of strategy around collecting those dollars. It would appear, from my very cursory research, that British Columbia probably has the lowest number of dollars outstanding, so things are going extremely well.
I would like to take a moment to commend the minister for his compassion and his patience around these estimates. I certainly appreciate that. But I would also like to take a moment to thank most sincerely the ministry staff for the support they have provided. I think it has been absolutely outstanding. Thank you.
I will defer to my colleague from Surrey-White Rock, as he has a number of questions for you, and then I believe we will conclude.
W. Hurd: Had I known the estimates had mellowed out to this extent, I would have come in earlier.
I have a series of questions about the auditor general's 1993 report with respect to the transfer of mental health services from Riverview Hospital to the community. I understand that there are some questions that have already been dealt with. I wonder if the minister could take a moment to explain something briefly to the committee and to me -- and I apologize if the matter has been dealt with at some length. I know that in my own community some of the calls coming into my office have dealt with relatives who continue to struggle with providing service as caregivers to relatives who have been discharged into the community. They are grappling with the challenges of dealing with those relatives and people. I wonder if the minister could give us a brief summary of what additional services might be available, compared to the gaps that were identified by the auditor general in his 1993 report on this transfer of mental health services from Riverview to the community.
Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member notes, parts of this were canvassed earlier in estimates. I also believe that the Public Accounts Committee has canvassed these issues at some length. What I would reiterate is that the findings of the value-for-money audit done by the auditor general and the process used in the year he audited, 1992-93, were adequate. There were some weaknesses in long-term planning in provision of information to the Legislative Assembly. The ministry accepted those findings and has taken action to rectify them. We are quite interested in making sure that we apply the principles and practices of project management to the task. We are really in the process of doing the detailed replacement plan for Riverview.
I think the member knows that recently the parliamentary secretary to my ministry announced replacement facilities both in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island, and I announced a similar initiative for the northern part of the province. The number of beds -- residential facilities -- for Riverview downsizing continues to be well in excess of those initially projected for the task, and we will be devoting some $5 million to additional residential facilities this year.
More importantly, we are, as the auditor general suggested, making sure that community-based mental health services are present as patients are transferred to communities. Of all the areas of community health funded through this ministry, none has received greater increases in the last four years than mental health services. It is an area that both I and my predecessor identified as one of long-term neglect, and we have attempted to rectify that both by planning and by budget allocations.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister can provide any statistics or information about accessibility of psychiatric beds in acute care hospitals. Certainly in the issues that have come
[ Page 14812 ]
before my constituency office, one that's often talked about is when someone suffering from a mental illness is not taking the medication required to control the condition, rapid deterioration results. The person is often at large, and relatives who are charged with the responsibility of providing care will naturally place a call to the authorities, the RCMP. The RCMP often find that there are no psychiatric beds available in the hospital. In fact, in some cases I've been advised that they do not attempt to apprehend the person, leaving the relatives in a great deal of distress. I know there have been incidents that have come to my attention -- not so much in the last year, but certainly in years gone by.
I wonder if the ministry has a handle on this particular problem. In particular, what can be done about the overloaded psychiatric wards in hospitals that very often are filled? The police have nowhere to put a person other than the cells, which is impossible, since in many cases they haven't necessarily committed any crime. I just wonder whether there's any strategy available or planned by the ministry to deal with this very real phenomenon in our community.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member identifies an issue that is of concern to all of us. We've all heard, I think, concerns from our constituents about a family member or friend who is going through a mental health crisis and about how law enforcement officials or others deal with the person.
I would submit to the member that this is at least as much a matter of education and coordination of services as it is a matter of measuring the number of in-patient psychiatric beds in a hospital. The mental health division of the ministry has been working to improve emergency mental health services through a variety of initiatives: consultation with community and family groups on what their needs are, training for police in responding to people with disturbed behaviours and opening community-based after-hours emergency care. Clearly, as the member said and I agree, a police cell is not the appropriate place for dealing with somebody who's going through a crisis in mental health.
This year we are looking to develop some 60 crisis beds -- not in institutions, but in a residential setting -- as alternatives to a hospital setting for this sort of crisis, when a patient may choose to stop taking medication or when other events lead to a mental health crisis.
We are also looking, I think most appropriately, to establish protocols in the various regions between the hospital, mental health services, community mental health services, police and others who may be first-line reactors to somebody experiencing a mental health crisis. This will provide us with a coordinated response.
I share the member's view that in some places this works well around the province. In some cases increased coordination needs to be done. My only caution to the member is that we should not focus on the number of in-patient beds in hospitals as the solution or measure of our ability to respond to this situation. I don't think that's the appropriate measure.
[11:30]
W. Hurd: I appreciate that response from the minister. I wonder, though, if the minister is aware of the recommendations of some in the mental health field that in fact we should be looking at a per-patient funding formula or some other measure, whereby, if the people are in a setting like Riverview.... I understand that a per-patient funding formula exists in that institution, but that it does not necessarily follow the individual into the community. Or does it? Maybe I could settle on an answer to that question first.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The funding for Riverview downsizing does follow the patient into the community. That's one of the principles of the management of the Riverview downsizing, and we are following through on it.
As far as the emergency mental health services are conderned, I want to inform the member of some further action that is being taken in Surrey, in the area that he represents. As recently as February of this year, an after-hours emergency service with two and a half full-time staff, Monday through Friday, was put in place at Surrey Memorial. We are also looking -- the member also may be available -- at a facility in Surrey called CRESST, a residential facility that provides emergency short-stay treatment for those with mental health problems, and we are looking to increase its capacity by three beds in the near future.
The hospital liaison worker position to deal with mental health crises -- about one and a half FTEs -- was an initiative seen as a priority by the community and funded through the Closer to Home initiative. I share the member's view that this is an area deserving attention. The mental health division of the ministry, Surrey Memorial Hospital and members who sit on the regional health board in that area identify those in need and have been looking to enhance services to respond to emergency mental health needs.
W. Hurd: I have a few other questions on this. One relates to support programs for the actual caregivers, those people in the homes who are responsible for maintaining the care of a relative with a mental illness and who find themselves in the position of having to try and monitor the timetable of prescription drugs, for example, that control symptoms. I think at times they really feel a sense of the overwhelming responsibility of the task they face.
Given the fact that there are literally hundreds of thousands of caregivers across the province who are providing in-home care for relatives, I wonder if the minister can tell us whether his ministry anticipates, with the shift to community care, expanding the assistance programs to the people actually providing the in-home care -- support for them, information, whatever else they may need to deal with a situation that I think most of us, fortunately, don't have to face until possibly our parents advance in years and we make a decision to look after them in the home.
Are we seeing with this shift to community-based care a desire by the ministry to increase the amount of support to caregivers, not just in the mental health field, but generally across the board with the aging population, where relatives are having to deal with these kinds of in-home problems?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The Canadian Mental Health Association, other advocates for the mentally ill, the health units across the province and mental health agencies provide support to family members who are working with a family member who may suffer from a mental illness. I think the member makes an excellent point that those supports need to be clearly in place, and I'm sure that community health councils, as well as the ministry, will be looking to increase them.
[ Page 14813 ]
The only other thing I'd say to the member is: don't be too sure that you won't need those services. One out of seven British Columbians will, at some time in their life, suffer from a severe mental health episode. This is a far more common health problem than most of us realize. While the number of chronic and severe cases is relatively small, it is far more prevalent than the general public recognizes.
Vote 42 approved.
Vote 43: ministry operations, $6,527,116,000 -- approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: In concluding these, I would like to add my thanks to staff for their support through some 31 hours of debate on Ministry of Health estimates this year. And thank you for your patience, hon. Chair, in making sure that the questions of all Members of the Legislative Assembly were heard and addressed.
I'd also like to thank the opposition critic and other members of the opposition who are not here now for their sometimes probing questions and also for sharing our common concern for improved health for all British Columbians.
I move the committee rise, report resolutions, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:37 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]