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 15, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)
Volume 21, Number 5
[ Page 15611 ]
The House resumed at 6:36 p.m.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. D. Miller: In the House, I call committee on Bill 29. In Section A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 29; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 3 (continued).
L. Hanson: The scope of this act applies to all employees. I'm sure the minister has considered this, but maybe he can enlighten us as to what he might do or what his thoughts are. The minister knows of the volunteer, and quite often non-profit, organizations that have been formed around the province to assist handicapped people, to provide some work and some interest in a way they may enjoy their lives. A lot of those organizations are subsidized through lotteries or other charities within the community, because they are not profitable as such -- they have a different purpose in life. This act would seem to capture those sorts of organizations, with the minimum-wage regulations and other things that apply to them. And this section would seem to give the minister the opportunity, by regulation, of recognizing that difficulty. Maybe the minister could comment on that.
Hon. D. Miller: The regulations, if you like, bring in a number of occupations or groups that previously were not covered, and those include persons with disabilities. That particular area is one that will require, I think, some very careful work, so that we distinguish between those workshops, for example, where persons with disabilities are receiving training -- some of that training, quite frankly, may be of a lifetime duration -- as opposed to where people are considered employees. A recent letter I received, for example, dealt with that. It dealt with the concerns of a society, but it also mentioned that those individuals, persons with disabilities, are used to distribute flyers. Where that is the case, they would be considered employees and would be subject to the act in terms of the minimum wage provision and those provisions that apply to anyone who is covered under the act. So it's really drawing that distinction.
My ministry has been working with the Ministry of Social Services. We clearly don't want to upset the work of many volunteers. Volunteers, for example, are not considered to be employees, and we're very cognizant of that area. At the same time we do feel that individuals, if they are doing work -- I cited distributing flyers as one example -- really are entitled to the basic provisions contained in the act, regardless of the disability the individuals might have.
L. Hanson: Yes, I can appreciate that, and certainly I don't think there's any attempt or any motivation to exempt people who are truly employees working in the workforce. But there is a unique situation there where.... In one that I happen to have some personal knowledge of, the proceeds of the work being done are divided equally among the people who work there, and I suspect that it's far from the minimum wage. As a matter of fact, in this particular one the Kinsmen provide a monthly allowance to the organization simply to keep it liquid. I think if the minister can give those people the assurance that it will be a serious consideration when regulations are developed, it would allay the fears that are out there.
Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's comments. Throughout this process, I have tried to pay particular attention to this area. In fact, over dinner we were talking about that very issue. It will require the branch to work very closely with the Ministry of Social Services, for example, to ensure that we don't disrupt those activities. Many activities are carried on by societies that are doing just outstanding work, really -- not in rehabilitation, necessarily, but in ongoing work to provide opportunities for persons with disabilities to receive training and to be gainfully occupied in doing something. Recognizing the difference between training -- those kinds of things that are therapeutic and good for the individual -- and the times when that person may be in fact engaged in work, is important, and I intend to watch that very carefully.
G. Farrell-Collins: We were partway through a very short line of questioning I had for the minister with regard to regulations before we went back to section 1. The minister commented about the regulations taking time to develop and that that's why they are not ready at the same time the bill comes forward. Can the minister tell me when he anticipates those regulations being ready and available so employers can start to have a look at them?
Hon. D. Miller: I would say, given that the bulk of the provisions of the act have remained unchanged from the existing act but have simply been rewritten -- the act is obviously new; they may be in different sections -- and that the essential regulations that flow from any particular section of the act where it has not been changed.... Really, we are not contemplating any change in the regulations. It is those new areas, and I'm not certain that I can give a specific time when they may be available, even.... We're indicating that we will be working on them through the summer, and perhaps it will be available in August -- I'm not saying the beginning or the end; it may be September. We don't intend to delay; we want to get these issues dealt with and have them available not only to employers but also to employees so that they understand the regulations that flow from the act.
G. Farrell-Collins: Given that the minister says the majority of the bill remains more or less unchanged in content and intent, then I would suspect that the only regulations being drafted are the regulations for those new sections that are introduced. Or is there wholesale revision of the regulations, trying to put them into plain language also? What sort of a task are we undertaking here? Is this a complete rewrite or is it just writing for those new sections?
[6:45]
Hon. D. Miller: The member is correct. We are trying to restructure them. One of the issues we try to deal with in the act and will try to deal with in the regulations is the plain language issue. The home-based registry, prorating of statu-
[ Page 15612 ]
tory holiday pay, penalties, interest and the area that we've just canvassed with respect to persons with disabilities are some of the new areas that will require new regulations. We would like them to mirror the act in terms of form.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
J. Tyabji: I note that this is talking about requirements of the act that cannot be waived. When it says that it's subject to sections 43, 49, 61 and 69, we're dealing with collective agreements. So what the minister is saying is: there can be provisions of collective agreements where employers and employees can waive sections of this act or requirements of this act, and I would imagine it's in lieu of something else. Given that this act is fairly rigid in many of its provisions, why is the minister allowing people in a collective agreement scenario to have more flexibility in waiving the requirements of this act than an employer and employee who may come to an agreement?
Hon. D. Miller: At one time people covered by collective agreements were exempt from the act. We may want to get into.... I'm not certain, but the member may even have some proposed amendments in terms of sections 43, 49 and 69. As we deal with those, the test of the language that's used is to meet or exceed. In a collective agreement situation, therefore, there may be elements of the collective agreement that don't conform precisely to the act, but the collective agreement is superior. Most of them are superior. I would suggest that that debate or discussion would more properly take place under the sections that are referenced.
J. Tyabji: I would accept that, when we get to those sections and we are talking about collective agreements waiving the requirements of this act. What I'm more interested in, though, is that in other sections of this act, we see that there's going to be some rigidity as far as.... If there's site mobility, there are going to be some difficulties, which we'll discuss in different sections. We know that in a changing work environment, a work environment does not necessarily have the same definitions it used to have. Given that, I would hope that there could be a provision for an employer and an employee to get into a situation where they could have a written contract which may be deemed to be outside of some of the provisions of the act.
I go back to the definition section in referencing that. When we talk about "regular wage," for example, the minister has dealt specifically, broken it down by hour. Then we know that there are other employment standards such as minimum-wage provisions and all the other things that come in. We would support all of that.
But what we would hope is that there would be some provision for flexibility between an employer and an employee who may not be in a relationship that allows for collective bargaining -- for example, the same situation we were using before, where an employee may actually do the work out of his or her home. There are parts of this act.... The act was not written for that; the act was written for a standard workplace. We are going into an age where there are different workplaces.
Given that, I would hope that the employer and employee could get into an agreement. Is the minister saying that if they have a written agreement, it may be deemed to meet or exceed provisions of this act, even though it doesn't fall within specific requirements of this act?
Hon. D. Miller: No. Primarily, the intent of the act is to mean that you cannot, even by mutual agreement, waive the requirements of the act, just as, for example, those who are in a collective agreement relationship cannot contract out of the provisions of the Labour Code. You cannot avoid, if you like, even by mutual agreement, the provisions of the Labour Code.
The issue of flexibility is dealt with in a different section; that is the section dealing with variances. We've tried to accommodate that flexibility. Certainly one of the areas that may be paramount is our shift schedules. But fundamentally, you cannot, as I say, even by mutual agreement, agree with an employer that you will waive some of the basic elements -- for example, the overtime provisions. There's flexibility available, but not to the extent that you can waive the provisions.
J. Tyabji: The more the minister speaks to sections of this bill, the more it sounds like what we have is a government-imposed collective agreement on all workers in this province who aren't under another collective agreement. It's unfortunate that there's not going to be an agreement that can be reached between an employee and employer which would fit in section 4 of this act. Could the minister tell me, then: in the event of an employee and employer, perhaps not realizing that section 4 doesn't allow them to get into an agreement outside of the jurisdiction of this act.... They get into an agreement, for example, on flexible shifts or mobility of sites. Later on we'll get into the fact that that's supposed to be registered. If they got into an agreement, and neither of them were unhappy with this agreement, but it came to the attention of the director that they were outside of that agreement, would they be deemed to have contravened this act, and would the employer then be liable under this act?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, they would. I would only say this with respect to collective agreements. I'm from that background myself, and I'm certainly not aware of too many collective agreements that have a wage of $6.50 an hour. What is it -- $11,000 or $12,000 a year? I'm not aware of collective agreements that lack seniority provisions. There are no seniority provisions in this. This is not a collective agreement.
J. Tyabji: It's pretty close to it.
Hon. D. Miller: The member might say that it's pretty close; it is not a collective agreement. If you read the report from Professor Thompson, that issue is dealt with. In fact, this represents a minimum standard. It simply represents a minimum standard -- a floor, if you like -- for those people who do not have a collective agreement, who are not represented by a trade union. The provisions, I would argue, are very modest.
J. Tyabji: Although the minister and I disagree about whether or not this is similar to a collective agreement, we recognize that, by regulation, certain professions will be exempted. I would assume that those that require greater flexibility than what is in this act are going to be on that list.
Going back to the question about whether or not an employer and an employee had gone into an agreement
[ Page 15613 ]
where they actually operated in a manner that was deemed to have waived some of the requirements of this act, the minister has said that they would then be deemed to be in contravention of this act. I don't see any reference under section 4. Is it implied that if they do go outside of that, there will automatically be action taken against them by the director? Does that follow from the minister's answer that they have contravened the act?
Hon. D. Miller: Two points, dealing with the last first. There has to be a complaint to the branch; it has to be drawn to the attention of the branch. There is another section that deals with that, and perhaps we can discuss it at that time.
Secondly, just to illustrate my point, I did do a radio interview with Rafe Mair, I think his name is.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, a bearded chap. It was actually a very pleasant interview. I think he agreed with me -- most of the things I said. I can provide a tape if the member is interested. But during that interview, a phone-in show, a gentleman phoned in and suggested that the state had absolutely no business with employment standards laws, that there shouldn't be an employment standards act. That particular individual wanted to pay $3.50 an hour. If he could find people who were prepared to work for $3.50 an hour, that was okay and there should never be any regulation. Well, he and I disagree. Even if it's by mutual consent and an employer can find someone who's prepared to work for $3.50 an hour, they cannot legally do that. If a complaint is drawn to the attention of the branch, we will act on it.
J. Tyabji: Very briefly, the minister wouldn't get any disagreement from us; we believe there should be a minimum wage.
I guess what I'm talking about more is not necessarily the financial end of the provisions of this act. There are many other provisions in here which offer excellent protection, and I should say that in second reading we spoke up very strongly for the first section of this act actually being a marked improvement on the existing act.
What we're concerned about is the changing work environment, where there's a need for greater flexibility. There may be instances where the employer and employee would like to come to an agreement that has nothing to do with the rate of pay. It has to do, for example, with some of the other sections we've talked about. So that's what we're referring to. As we go through the bill, we'll canvass that under the different sections. But I'd like to put the minister on notice that when we get to those sections, that's what we're referring to in section 4. So when we get there, we'll refer back to them.
Hon. D. Miller: I have one other reference, because I recognize that the nature of work and the way of working are changing somewhat. I want to illustrate the point with respect to minimum standards. I met with an individual woman trade unionist who represents garment workers. These are immigrant women, they work in their homes and they have not been covered by even the minimum standards of this Employment Standards Act. They work at home, they produce whatever the good is that they're working on, they take it to the person who has commissioned them to do the work, expecting to get a particular piece rate, and they're at the complete whim and mercy of whoever is purchasing the good. That person can say: "I'm not prepared to pay you that piece rate." They have absolutely no recourse under law, and that is totally unacceptable. That is one of the changes in terms of flexibility that exists in our society, and I refuse to tolerate the exploitation of people in those situations. That's why we have this section that says you cannot, even by mutual agreement. There are many, many other scenarios like that, and this section deals with those kinds of situations.
G. Wilson: A very quick question to the minister to do with the effect of negotiated collective agreements. In particular, it notes that, "...those requirements is of no effect, subject to sections 43, 49, 61 and 69," which deals with everything from termination through to holidays, and so on. Within some collective agreements there are, however, flexibility provisions for job-sharing. In those provisions for job-sharing, collective agreements have been negotiated where employees have been able to put in what you might call a shift differential. In other words, they will have so many hours of work one week, so many hours of work the second week, and the person they're sharing with will pick up comparable amounts of hours. The difficulty with that is that in this act it removes the flexibility for that to take place, if in fact it doesn't meet the base minimum. I see everybody shaking their heads over there; maybe you could tell us where in this act that's protected.
Hon. D. Miller: They wouldn't be impacted at all. The act deals with hours of work, minimum pay, holidays and those kinds of things, but does not restrict the ability to.... In fact, I've done that in my own office in the past, where people have expressed a desire to work, for example, two days a week. You alternate two and three days every week. Those kinds of arrangements are completely.... The act would not prohibit or impede anybody from making those kinds of arrangements at all.
G. Wilson: I'm assuming that in those collective agreements where there's a negotiation for the provision of time in lieu of statutory holidays -- and that has to do mostly with essential service work where employees on shift are given compensation if they have to work consecutive statutory holidays.... It occurs where, because of the way that the shift falls, people lose the statutory holiday provision. That would be deemed to be, I would guess, less than the minimum requirement here. It's clear that if anything in this act provides greater protection than under a collective agreement, it applies; but if they've been in negotiation for a collective agreement where there may be provisions for time in lieu, for example, that wouldn't meet the requirements of this with respect to statutory holiday provisions.
[7:00]
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it could meet the requirements.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
J. Tyabji: I need some direction from the Chair, actually, as to whether we can ask about how much it's going to cost. Section 5 says: "The director must develop and carry out policies to promote...." I'm assuming that means an adver-
[ Page 15614 ]
tising campaign. Is there a budget? Can we ask that under this section? My understanding is that we can't. I ask the Chair.
The Chair: I disagree with the member's premise. I think this is a question for the minister.
Hon. D. Miller: Whatever the cost is would be accommodated within the budget of the ministry. This is something that we have been doing, and it has been an ongoing part of the ministry. I referred earlier, I think, in one of my answers, to pamphlets that have been prepared and distributed by the ministry. We intend to continue that kind of work.
J. Tyabji: I'm assuming as well, since this is quite a departure from the old act, that the ministry will try to contact businesses directly, or at least business associations -- not just the Coalition of B.C. Businesses and the B.C. Business Council; there are many other businesses. Can the minister let me know if that is planned and underway?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes. We realize that while there are business organizations in the province, some may not be as representative as they sometimes say they are. So we will be broad-based in our approach.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us what specific plans there are to raise the knowledge level of both employers and employees about the new act and the new regulations once they come into force?
Hon. D. Miller: The employment standards branch has a task team devoted to developing the educational strategy to promote greater awareness. That was, in fact, one of the recommendations in the Thompson report, and we take it seriously. The discussions we've had, and I think very good discussions, notwithstanding some of the recent criticism from some of the business organizations.... There is an acknowledgment that we are attempting to put together, with the task team, a better strategy to promote greater awareness of the act.
As I indicated in one of my earlier answers, we think that's important, because the more that people understand the act, our view is, the less there will be any violations. It's fair to say that some of the violations that take place are quite unintended; people don't want to break or violate the law. But it's important they know what it is, so we will work with those business organizations that we have traditionally worked with and others, and attempt, to the degree that we can, to promote awareness of the act.
I think it's important that British Columbians understand as well. There is a fair degree of awareness, I think, among the populace that there is an Employment Standards Act. But given that we are making some changes, we will make our best efforts to promote the act: its existence, the changes and the fact that it does have an impact on the employer-employee relationship. I think that previously -- I'm not certain of this -- there may have been notices in newspapers when these kinds of changes took place. We'll look at any opportunity we can, within the constraints of our budget, to promote awareness of the act.
G. Farrell-Collins: Are there any specific plans to approach employees or employee groups other than through the employers in the workplace? Are there any other specific targeting initiatives or information initiatives in that area? I'm thinking in particular of farmworkers. They are a group which is often difficult to get to. I'm wondering if the minister or this task force has any particular strategies to work with those groups. Domestics is another group that I would imagine would be very difficult to contact, even to find out where they are and who they're working for. Another one would be, I think, the pieceworkers in the garment industry that the minister referred to earlier.
Those three, off the top of my head, seem to be ones that would be particularly difficult to access: first, because of finding them; and second, accessing them, because of cultural and language difficulties in many cases. Are there specific plans to access those workers directly rather than through their employers or their contractors? I know the ministry is doing work in other languages; I'm just wondering what the plans are for this new act.
Hon. D. Miller: It's a good question. We are doing that. For example, the members may have noticed that a short while ago we started highway checks of the vans transporting farmworkers. When we do those checks, we do distribute pamphlets to the farmworkers in their language. There's also some interest in developing some curriculum that could be available in high schools, for example, so that students could have at least a passing knowledge of these kinds of provisions.
It does, in some cases, present a difficulty. It's almost ironic, in fact. I had this comment from a member of a chamber of commerce.... I spoke to a chamber of commerce group quite some time ago now, and they noted, with some irony, I suppose, that where there's a trade union involved, at least there is a vehicle of communication; there's an organizational structure, and there are people you can talk to. Where workers are unorganized, it simply doesn't exist.
In a general sense, how do you communicate with "workers" who may not be organized? Where there are those mechanisms -- the garment workers I talked about, for example -- we will work with existing organizations. We need to work in a broader way -- that's what I referred to -- whether it's advertisements in newspapers or whatever communication vehicles you could use, to advise people that these changes have taken place.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister gave me an outline, I guess, of two of them. The third one that I was particularly curious about was domestics. Is there a strategy of identifying and approaching those people to inform them of the changes in the act that now apply to them?
Hon. D. Miller: There are, in fact, organizations in British Columbia that represent domestics; they have organized themselves. I'm not certain how comprehensive they are, but there is a network that can reach people who are in that field of work.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
G. Farrell-Collins: This is one section that's caused a bit of controversy and consternation among the employer com-
[ Page 15615 ]
munity in particular, I think, in that the intent of it is.... The intent is one that I agree with, in that posting the rules or making the employees aware of the parameters of the rules -- and, quite frankly, having them there for the employer to remind themselves what the rules are from time to time -- is a good thing. I think that that is all part of the education process that both employer and employee groups would want.
I think, however, where the difficulty and the concern come with this section is in its application in a variety of unusual -- well, not really unusual, but different -- circumstances. I'm sure the minister is aware, as many are, of what some of those difficulties may be. There have been examples bandied around in discussions, and I'm sure the minister has been aware of them: loggers, mobile salespeople, people who work out of their car, or someone who installs equipment from place to place and doesn't really have a home base they are working out of, except perhaps to pick up supplies -- and maybe not even there. Can the minister tell us how this section is going to work in that regard? And could he provide some assurance to those employers out there that this section is going to be enforced with some common sense, that they don't have to worry unnecessarily about the enforcement branch coming in and giving them a hard time on what may appear unreasonable grounds?
Hon. D. Miller: I have received some of the correspondence, obviously. In fact, I can recall some of the specific examples that were given, such as how were they going to post a notice in a taxicab or something. Look, the branch has no desire to complicate this issue. It really is, though.... I mean, we go back to the earlier question we were talking about. I think the members were saying that they thought that if people were informed about the provision of the act, things would be better. So we'll take a practical approach.
Another thing is the issue of language. While English is the predominant language, we think it's important -- particularly in some sectors of our economy, where a different language is really the primary language of those workers -- that posters be available. We will make the posters available, by the way. The branch will develop and make the posters available. We don't want to make life complicated for employers. For employers, it would simply mean, in the main, that where there is a centralized workplace, the posters be posted in that workplace. For example, for people in the taxi industry, presumably they might look at the dispatch area, the central location. So, yes, we will be very practical.
G. Farrell-Collins: One other question just pops into my mind, and it harks back to what the member for Okanagan-Vernon said with regard to workers who have disabilities. One of them might be a workshop or a training centre or an employment centre for people who are blind. Under subsection (2) here, would that allow -- this is just a thought -- the director to ask that that be posted in braille or be available in braille in some form? Is that an option that is there too?
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I think the member has raised a very good point. Yes, in my view, that would be something that.... I think the branch has been looking at this issue, and there is no reason on earth why a poster can't be developed in braille for those kinds of situations.
L. Hanson: Just for the sake of clarity, then, the statement must be in the form provided by the director, and the minister interprets that to mean providing the printed notice of what the rights are. I don't think anyone disputes the benefit of having people knowledgable about what their rights are and what their rights are not, too, I guess, in a lot of cases. In this case, employers can be assured.... Because if there has been any theme behind opposition to this act, it has mostly been because of the impression of the requirement of bureaucratic actions on the part of the employer. As I said to the minister before, most of the things in this act were in the old act, although they maybe weren't as well known because of the change in the wording. So I think that if that is the responsibility of the director is to provide the educational information, and the employer's responsibility is simply to post it somewhere where it is seen in the workplace, that's some assurance that part of that difficulty may not....
Hon. D. Miller: I just want to confirm that the branch will produce the material for employers so that they can post it.
G. Wilson: It says that there has to be a display in each workplace, and it makes specific reference to locations where it can be read by employees. So the intention of the act is obviously not to provide written terms of employment or a written agreement, if it was in a collective agreement, for example. I think the point has already been covered by others about how that may complicate issues. On the part of domestics, for example, that's likely to cause an issue. With respect to informing an employee of their rights, is it intended that an employer could simply provide a written statement to the employee as part of their terms of agreement that these kinds of procedures will protect their rights? That is, can it not be part of a contract for labour served?
Hon. D. Miller: I would presume that there would be no prohibition of employers providing a written contract for employment, but I don't think very many do. In fact, I've not heard of any who do; I think most prefer not to. I think the section is really very simple in its essence -- that is, there should be a poster in the workplace, and we'll provide the poster that will advise employees of their rights under the act.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to go back to the minister's example of a domestic who does piecework at home.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Oh, I'm sorry. The minister had used the example of a seamstress, a garment worker. Of course, the domestic will also be working in the home of the person who is employing him or her. In addition, there will be people who perform other jobs where the actual work is done at home.
Now, we note in the definitions section that there is no definition of workplace. The only reference that's made to it is under section 1(2) -- which we talked about earlier -- that says they're not deemed to be at work while on call if they're in their home. That's why we canvassed that at some length before the break. But since there is no definition of workplace provided in this act, where is the poster put up if the work that's being performed for the employer is being done in the home of the employee?
[7:15]
Hon. D. Miller: In pursuing this particular section, I suppose that members could spend a great deal of time look-
[ Page 15616 ]
ing into the variety of workplaces that exist in the province and asking a question about where the poster would be placed in each specific instance. Now, my view is that this would be counterproductive in terms of the debate. The section merely requires that these notices be posted. I've indicated in my answers that the branch is not bureaucratic in that respect. There's no attempt to search out people who may not have the poster posted exactly in the right place in the workplace, and all the rest. It may be that some of those questions, in fact, don't have.... We're dealing here with hypothetical situations, and I'd like to advise you that I might not have the answer with respect to every hypothetical situation that might be described. The fundamental thrust of the section is to ensure that employees are advised of their rights, and I think we've canvassed the issue in a pretty thorough way.
[J. Doyle in the chair.]
J. Tyabji: I should say that even if we agree that it's a good idea for the employees to have easy access.... If there's a poster that the minister is going to provide for all the employers.... The reason I'm asking, because there's a follow-up question obviously, is that if it turns out that an employer -- let's use the minister's example of a garment manufacturer -- hires an employee, but the employee does the work at the employee's home, I assume that it means the employee's home is the workplace. That's what I'd like to find out. If that's the case, is the employer liable if there isn't a display of the worker's rights in the home of the worker?
Hon. D. Miller: In those kinds of circumstances, nothing would prevent.... In fact, it might make sense for the employer -- on giving that worker their first paycheque, for example -- to give them a copy of the poster, which would advise that individual of their rights under the act. Whether the individual chose to mount that on their wall would be up to their discretion. But the obligation of the employer in that circumstance, I think, would be fulfilled; the obligation of the act on the employer would be fulfilled.
Hon. Chair, I think we have canvassed this in a most thorough way.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
G. Farrell-Collins: This is a section that I have a particular problem with, not so much because of the content or the way it's written but because of the fact that we spent some time about two years ago debating a similar section in another bill that came out of this ministry, with a different minister. I believe it was section 3 of the Labour Code. At that time there was a fair bit of discussion about that committee, what it was intended to do and the glorious things it was going to provide to the minister. The ongoing review of the act, the ongoing consultation and the monitoring of the implementation of the act, hopefully to find what little things and big things needed to be tweaked and to allow for bringing in amendments to the Labour Code as time went by.
Time after time after time we've been told that this committee was on its way. Rumours were out there about who was and who wasn't going to be on the committee, and whether those were prompted by the ministry or the government, and where they came from. They've been out there.
I think it is a tool that could potentially do some good. It could have done some good with the Labour Code; it still could. With the right people on an advisory committee like that, the advice coming to the minister would be topnotch. But it certainly hasn't been used as far as the Labour Code goes.
So I guess I question why it's been included in here, if there's no intent to avail yourself, or if the government has no intent to avail itself of the advice of people out there whom it's going to affect. It would seem to me that you would want to take that advice rather than just posture and put it in legislation -- that it would be out there and active. We know we had a major rewrite of the Labour Code; it's two and a half years later now. It has had some major implications, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses, certain employers and union groups that it's had an impact on. It's time to activate that group and get them working, with the right people on board.
I ask the minister today, under this section: will we ever see it in place? Second of all -- perhaps out of order, but I'll ask it anyway: are we ever going to see the committee for the Labour Code in place?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, and yes. It is important. The member does make some comments, and I don't disagree with the comments the member has made. But this act, for example, is as I've indicated in some of the previous readings or previous statements.
It is an act that really brought together about ten different acts from the early eighties or maybe the seventies, which had not been reviewed for a long, long time. I think the review was overdue. The major review by Thompson, interestingly enough, that took almost two years and involved extensive consultation, has culminated in the allegation by some as recently as a day or two ago that there's not been any consultation. I'm a bit flabbergasted by that.
But I do agree with the member. The act, as you'll see in subsection 7(5), does prescribe this: "If a review committee is appointed, it must provide to the minister, at least every 3 years, an evaluation report...."
I also want to say that, notwithstanding the lack of review under section 3 of the Labour Code, I think all of us are quite pleased that our labour relations experience here in British Columbia, on balance, has been very, very good. In fact, it's been extraordinary, compared to some of the past years, to some degree. I would never stand in this House and claim that labour peace is only as a result of the Labour Code. It is, though, something that could be used to counter the critics of the Labour Code who indicated that it would bring chaos. It certainly hasn't done that, and in a very modest way, I like to think that perhaps it has contributed to the very good labour relations climate that we have enjoyed in this province. That, along with the kind of approach the government has taken in terms of major issues -- the partnership approach, bringing labour, business, etc., together to consider major issues in our province and to try to develop an approach that's common to all....
There are many more things that impact, but I appreciate.... The member has made some good points. It doesn't make a lot of sense to put a section in an act that allows for review and then not have that acted upon. I can assure the hon. member that in a couple of years hence, as Minister of Labour, I'll certainly initiate another review.
[ Page 15617 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister should check his wall calendar; the time is ticking away. I suppose the ultimate decision rests with people outside this chamber, but I wouldn't count those chickens before they hatch.
The question was: is this committee ever going to come into existence, and is the committee under section 3 of the Labour Code ever going to come into existence? And the answer was: Yes, and yes. My question to the minister is: when, and when?
Hon. D. Miller: Stay tuned, hon. Chair.
G. Farrell-Collins: I've been on the same channel for two and a half years now, and I haven't seen the video tuner, or whatever they call it, change. I keep waiting for a program to pop on there, and I'm getting a little tired of watching the little stripes. So maybe the minister could get that underway in the near future and we could actually have some results come out of it.
Despite what the minister says, there have been some pretty major impacts of the Labour Code in the community. The minister can say they're good and I can say they're bad and we can agree on some and disagree on others, but it has had an impact. There has been substantive change in the labour relations climate, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. As the minister knows, the stats bear that out. There's been significant change in the construction industry with regard to market share. There are whole rafts of changes that are taking place out there, and I think that committee is long overdue. But I can honestly say that I'm a bit hesitant even to bring the issue up, because I'm not sure who's going to be on that committee. That, I guess, is the big question. That committee can either be a tool for good or a tool for some real damage. I would hope that the people that are brought onto that committee aren't reflective of.... I hope that they are reflective of the better people who are out there from all sides of the labour, business and other communities that can contribute, as opposed to the more strident, less cooperative, types if I can put it politely.
I hope that when that committee comes -- soon -- that it is made up of people who are there for their talents and not for other reasons, and I trust that the minister will do the right thing. I look forward to seeing those two committees get struck and seeing them get to work.
Hon. D. Miller: I want to be clear that under the Employment Standards Act I would not contemplate that we would want to strike a review committee in a very short time. It seems to me that we're developing a brand-new act here. Before one starts to review, we obviously want to make sure it's in there and its implementation is running smoothly. In fact, we do discover issues on our own. With respect to the Labour Code -- although it's quite out of order with respect to this debate -- where I have put committees together to review various issues, I have genuinely felt that there is a willingness, if you want to talk about the parties -- traditionally, in the labour sense, the labour and business parties -- to give their best efforts. I've been delighted with the cooperation from all quarters.
As I say -- not to press the point too hard -- we have had, as I think all of us appreciate, a period of significant peace, if you like, in terms of labour-management relationships. That's something that I think all parties need to be aware of. The best way to ensure that that is maintained into the future is for people not to give in to the temptation to simply side with one side or the other. We can all have our beliefs. We can all have our fundamental values and be prepared to fight about those, but when you actually want to make some progress, maintaining the balance that we've striven to maintain is absolutely essential. Otherwise, we will only march backwards in time in this province, and everybody loses if we start to go backwards. That's something that all members might want to bear in mind.
J. Tyabji: Just briefly on section 7, we note that later on in the act there's an Employment Standards Tribunal that will be working on the administration of the act. It will probably have some good ideas and recommendations for the minister on how the act might be fine-tuned. We would actually like to state for the record that we don't support any unnecessary money being spent on a committee under this act or under the Labour Code, because, as we've seen in the past, the government does have a propensity to appoint travelling road shows and have written reports afterward. To have yet another committee struck by this government is not the most appealing prospect. If the Labour Code, as the minister has said, has functioned this well without a committee.... I'm sure the minister would be taking representations all the time whether there were a committee or not. If there is any expense involved under section 7, then we certainly wouldn't want to support that expense being made.
Hon. D. Miller: That is gratuitous nonsense. The act that we're dealing with today was the result of a wide and extensive consultation around this province. There was a panel of people who represented the business sector and the labour sector and who advised Professor Thompson. The Labour Code of British Columbia was put together in the same fashion. There are innumerable issues that have been dealt with in a very positive way with representatives from a wide spectrum of British Columbians. To suggest that this government puts together travelling road shows and writes up reports that don't reflect the recommendations of those panels or committees or what have you is gratuitous nonsense.
G. Wilson: I'll leave it to the electorate to decide whether or not some of the so-called travelling road shows are gratuitous nonsense.
Notwithstanding that, the point that was being made, and the point that I think we need to reiterate, is that once a bill is in place, we are not anxious to see provisions that are going to create positions within the civil service to simply sit there and constantly rework a bill. That's what we're talking about. It seems to me that the minister, with respect to the tribunal, is in a good enough position to be able to deal with this.
As to the gratuitous nonsense, we'll leave that for the voters to decide.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
[7:30]
G. Wilson: I just have a very quick question for the minister. We certainly have no problem with the language, as
[ Page 15618 ]
long as.... It says that an employer must not induce an employee by misrepresenting wages. Quite often within small business employment, there will be a provision in the first term of employment. It provides a period during which the employee comes under.... I'm thinking of the word; it has slipped my mind now. Essentially it's...
An Hon. Member: A probationary period.
G. Wilson: ...a probationary period; that's the word. I would want to make sure that this doesn't preclude somebody from saying, "You're on a probationary period at such-and-such a rate, with a provision to move up the scale," and then to find that where that additional money is not available...the employee is kept at the same rate.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, you have my assurance.
J. Tyabji: Following up on that question, I would be concerned that there would be some form of tangible evidence of the misrepresentation before some action would be taken. Going back to the question that was asked under the definitions section, we note that this minister has included in the definition of "wages" money that is paid or payable as an incentive, and that may relate to efficiency. We are getting into an area where one could see that an employer could be vulnerable to someone claiming that there were wages owing for an incentive or for efficiency. If it's a small business, as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talked about earlier, that could leave the employer at a serious disadvantage. Could the minister just answer that?
Hon. D. Miller: The section is really only a rewording of the existing section. It's been there for a long, long time, and it essentially says that you can't -- and I'll use an extreme example -- hire somebody and say, "Look, I'm going to pay you 80 grand," and when they start to work pay them ten grand.
Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.
On section 11.
J. Tyabji: Under subsection (2), it says: "A farm labour contractor must not make a payment, directly or indirectly, to a person for whom the farm labour contractor's employees work." Could the minister explain why this needed to be added to the act?
Hon. D. Miller: It's not a new addition. It's a rewrite of the existing act.
Sections 11 and 12 approved.
On section 13.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 13 is where I have a question. This is the section which deals with farm labour contractors being licensed. I'm looking particularly at section 13(2), as opposed to the old section 68, which was there before. This ties in with an amendment to section 30 that the member for Okanagan East has brought forward, which I think is a very good amendment and which we will be supporting when it comes forward.
I know this is essentially identical, but there is one change in this. It's the dropping of the word "knowingly," which used to exist in section 68: "A person who knowingly enters into an agreement with an unlicensed farm labour contractor." The new section says: "A person who engages the services of an unlicensed farm labour contractor." I think the word "knowingly" is significant and important. It's sort of a due diligence type of thing. I think if somebody has every reason to expect that the person is licensed -- perhaps their licence has been pulled and they weren't made aware of that; perhaps they used them the year previous and they have lost their license in between.... There could be a whole host of reasons why that may happen. I think as long as it can be proved that the person did it unknowingly, and took due diligence to ensure that there was a licence, then they shouldn't be held liable. That liability should rest with the farm labour contractor.
It's just a slight change in the wording. I don't know if it was deliberate or if it was an omission, but I bring it to the attention of the minister and ask him if he could comment on that.
Hon. D. Miller: It was deliberate, yes. Section 30 does deal, again, with the liability -- the joint and separate liability of the farmer and the farm labour contractor. This is really the essential issue, and one that the agriculture sector has indicated some unhappiness with. Let me first of all deal with the issue in a broader way and use some other examples as analogies for this situation. For example, in the contracting or construction industry, if a prime contractor hires a subcontractor and that subcontractor fails to pay the WCB premiums, the prime contractor is liable. In forestry, if a company is awarded, for example, a section 16 licence -- a market logger sale -- and fails to pay the stumpage to the Crown, under the Forest Act the Crown can pursue the people who purchased the logs and extract the stumpage payments from them.
I guess it ultimately goes to the protection of farm labourers. There have been some cases where significant payments have not been made, and the farm labourer -- the poor labourer at the bottom end -- simply has no recourse in terms of recovery of wages. They're the people who have done the physical work, and in some instances they don't have the ability to go anywhere to chase anybody just to get their wages -- their fundamental wages. We think it's quite appropriate that the responsibility rest with both the farmer and the labour contractor.
I think members would support that kind of arrangement. After all, threaded throughout our laws is recognition.... The Mechanics Lien Act and those kinds of acts recognized that workers who are in a certain situation should at least have the opportunity to collect the basic wages they've earned. When I get into that issue, perhaps under section 30.... I guess we could probably do it here; it's really the same issue.
There is licensing of contractors. I do think it's reasonable that the farmers, as business people, have a good opportunity to ensure that the farm labour contractors they employ are reputable. In fact, they're in a better position to influence these kinds of things than the farm labourers are. I just think that that kind of relationship is a good one; it will force, if you like, honest farm labour contractors, and farmers will know that they will not deal with people who are unreliable.
If you look at many other businesses that exist -- any business you care to name.... I know lots of small business
[ Page 15619 ]
people in my community of Prince Rupert. They deal with contractors or retailers that they can trust. They learn that trust from experience, and if they get burnt, they don't deal with those people anymore. They're in a much better position to influence those relationships than the farm labourer is, and I think that is absolutely, fundamentally a principle that all of us would want to maintain.
J. Tyabji: To follow up on the minister's discussion about this, in the event of a farmer believing that a farm labour contractor is licensed under this act -- there could be fraud involved; there could be misrepresentation involved -- the farmer is obviously on the hook for this. I'm assuming -- the minister could just clarify this -- that the farmer's only option at that point would be civil litigation to recoup from the farm labour contractor, in the event of there being a farm labour contractor who isn't licensed and who does not make payment to the employees. Is that correct? Does the farmer then have to pursue litigation?
Hon. D. Miller: Just to be clear, was the question with respect to the farmer's recourse if a farm labour contractor defaults on payment? Then the question.... Obviously the farmer in that situation, if the farmer ultimately.... If the branch, for example, on an application or a complaint, cannot collect wages owing to an employee by a farm labour contractor and ultimately has to go to the farmer to collect those wages, then the farmer is free to pursue whatever legal remedies they can in terms of trying to recoup that from the farm labour contractor.
J. Tyabji: That's not quite what I was asking. I was talking about the event of a farm labour contractor misrepresenting their status with respect to licensing. The reason I'm asking is that if the farm labour contractor misrepresents their status -- they are not licensed, but they represent to the farmer that they are -- then I would assume they are in contravention of the act, so the director would want to go after the farm labour contractor. But the way this is written, the farmer would be the one on the hook. Would it be a scenario where the director would assist the farmer in going after the farm labour contractor, or would the farmer be stuck having to pursue litigation? We know that later on there are many provisions for the director to take action, and I would hope that the director would assist the farmer so they don't have to go through civil litigation.
Hon. D. Miller: The responsibility of the branch is to pursue the wages for the employee. In anything else, people are on their own to do whatever they wish.
J. Tyabji: When we get to the Employment Standards Tribunal section, it says quite clearly that anyone who contravenes this act is liable under this act to the director's actions. I would be hoping that if a farm labour contractor who is unlicensed misrepresents their status and claims that they are licensed, then technically they've contravened the act. I would hope that the director would then have an interest in pursuing that person, if the farmer is liable for the wages in the short term. Under this section, the status of the person is unlicensed, so the farmer is liable. However, they have represented to the farmer that they are licensed, which is in contravention of the act. So the director has an interest in going after them for contravening the act. And the farmer, who has maybe had to pay the wages, hopefully will be reimbursed if action is taken by the director against the farm labour contractor.
Hon. D. Miller: There are two issues here; let me restate this. On a complaint filed with the branch, the branch will pursue unpaid wages on behalf of an employee. They will first go to the farm labour contractor and will pursue that. If they fail to obtain the wages from the farm labour contractor, they will then go to the farmer and pursue those wages. At the same time, the farm labour contractor may have violated the act, and presumably the branch will pursue that violation. It depends what the violation is, what the penalties are, etc. But yes, the pursuit of the infraction of the act will also take place.
[7:45]
J. Tyabji: That's very encouraging. The reason I'm asking is that if there is an unlicensed farm labour contractor, then the farmer automatically becomes the employer of the people who appear to be the employees of the farm labour contractor. We're doing a lot of the debate under section 30, so all I need to know for this section is whether it's a contravention of the act for someone to fraudulently represent themselves as a licensed farm labour contractor.
Hon. D. Miller: To be unlicensed is an offence. Therefore I would suggest that someone who fraudulently suggests that they are licensed is committing an offence, because they're not licensed.
G. Farrell-Collins: Just a quick aside. I assume that would apply to private investigators who are hired by the Ministry of Health, too, would it not?
Interjections.
L. Hanson: I think I know the answer, but I have to ask the question anyway. The minister explained that if a farmer hires employees through a farm labour contractor and it's subsequently found that the farm labour contractor was not licensed, liability rests with the farmer. At least, when they pursue the contractor and find out that he is unlicensed, the branch would then look to the farmer for wages for that employee. I know that somewhere in the act -- and I hope the minister will confirm this -- if the licence expires or is cancelled sometime during that harvest season, it isn't the farmer's liability under those circumstances unless he is advised of that liability.
Hon. D. Miller: No, I disagree. The responsibility would still rest with the farmer to ensure that the farm labour contractor that they were utilizing to supply labour was licensed.
L. Hanson: I know that the minister is a very fair man, and I know that he will have some sympathy with what may happen under these circumstances. The minister recognizes, I'm sure, that harvest season is a bit of a frantic time, and usually that is the time when farm labour contractors and farmers get together to hire the harvesting employees. If, for some reason, that contractor loses their licence or the licence is cancelled, it seems rather an imposition to put the responsibility on the farmer to know the status of the farm labour contractor at that time. And it may change.
[ Page 15620 ]
I can sympathize and agree with the position that if the farmer doesn't investigate the status of the contractor when they originally hire some of their employees, there is a liability there, and it probably should be pursued. But I think there is a situation that could arise here that the minister should consider when he is putting regulations in place -- even though I recognize the minister's responsibility to protect the employees' ability to get their wages.
Hon. D. Miller: The intent here is not, I don't think, to be unreasonable with respect to the onus on the farmer. In fact, my staff advised me that they are not aware that there has been a midseason cancellation of a contractor's licence. Obviously, we're dealing in a hypothetical situation. If we want to add further hypotheses, there would have to be a complaint to the branch, for example, whether wages were paid or not paid. There are a lot of suppositions in this scenario that you have described.
I want to bring it back to a more simple approach. Let's assume, for example, that there has been a situation where in midseason a broker lost their licence, and that resulted in employees not being paid for whatever reason. Does the member really think it is fair that the answer to someone who has laboured on a farm, picking produce or what have you...? As they pursue their wages for that work, do you think it is satisfactory that they should be told: "I'm sorry, but there's been a bit of mixup here. The farmer's not really responsible, because he didn't know that the contractor didn't have his licence. I'm afraid you are just going to have to do without your wages"? No.
My view is that that is a responsibility. It's not something.... Bear in mind what I've said: we are not aware of midseason cancellations. The farmers are.... It's also very difficult to track, because we license contractors for employees, not for particular farms. We obviously can't track that. It's very simple: if the farmer has any suspicion whatsoever that something might be amiss, they simply have to phone the branch. That is really something that is going to be their responsibility. I don't think it's unnecessarily onerous. And we are dealing here with some fairly hypothetical situations. But the bottom line, I think -- and it's really threaded throughout the act; and again, I would say with respect to the mechanics lien act that we still have situations that are not covered -- is that when employees, ordinary people, go work for a living and put some time in, and then they go to collect their paycheque and it's not there, they should have a priority. I think they should have a priority over everybody else. Unfortunately, they still don't, in many respects, so I think this is pretty fair.
L. Hanson: I am always interested to watch the minister's reaction to certain things. I think that the minister is suggesting that I have some sympathy for the employer that I don't have for the employee, and that's just not true. I think that if the employer has good evidence that they have fulfilled their agreement and paid for the services, and -- for whatever the reason may be -- the contractor has caused some difficulty, you're now going to say that the employer has to pay twice for that same service. Maybe that's fair; I don't know. I don't think it is, quite frankly.
I know what the minister is talking about. I know that in the case of bankruptcies, employees quite often do not get the full pay they're entitled to, and the ministry does some excellent work trying to get that. Most of the time they're successful, but not all of the time. I guess there may even be a liability, if it's an incorporated company, on the part of the directors of that company to satisfy those wages. That's all well and good; I don't think that any employee should be asked to work and then not get the benefit of that work. By the same token, I think there are circumstances where there could be some unique situations that the minister should recognize.
Hon. D. Miller: I wasn't trying to impute motives to the member at all; I was simply trying to describe the way the act is constructed. The member raised an issue of what I thought was essentially an element of fairness in terms of the farmer not being aware that a contractor may not be licensed. I tried to respond by saying that there had not been incidents of midseason cancellation. Notwithstanding that, I guess that in terms of fairness, the primary thrust was fairness for the person who had actually done the work. I'm not trying to impute any motive at all to the member; I may be just describing my own feelings in this regard.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I think that of all ministers, he's probably the best motive-imputer around, and he does it quite effectively.
But I think the point that's trying to be raised here isn't one of a partisan nature, nor one of taking sides -- certainly not from this side, although the....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you. I'm pleased with that.
The point that's being raised is that if an action by the employment standards branch were to take place.... And I know we're dealing in hypotheticals here. That's part of what we do; this whole place is hypothetical most of the time. But if there were to be a case where the branch were to cancel the licence of a contractor in midharvest for whatever reason, it would be nice for the farmer to have some notice within the general work area...
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Let me finish.
...and traditional operations of that labour contractor, because it's virtually impossible for the farmer to go out every day to the labour contractor and say: "Show me your licence today. Show me your licence today. Show me your licence today." To do that every single day is pretty difficult. I'm not suggesting for one minute that the worker shouldn't be entitled to their wages, but if there is some action taken by the branch to cancel a licence, there's a hardship done to both parties -- to the farmer and to the workers. I mean, I come from a farming community, and I've been on the farms. Many of the farmers aren't so wealthy that they can afford to cough up an extra $4,000 or $5,000 or more when a labour contractor gets yanked.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know it's probably very unlikely to happen, and it is hypothetical. But all we're asking for is to be
[ Page 15621 ]
assured that there will be some level of understanding and common sense and some measure of the due diligence, intent and goodwill of the farmer and the employees, in both cases.
From what I understood earlier in the discussion, the minister said that the first line of action for the branch would be to go after that contractor, and if at the end of the day there is no way to secure the funds or whatever is required from that contractor...
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: ...then it reverts back to the farmer. All we're asking here is that there be some level of understanding of the role that the branch may well play in causing that event to occur. I don't think we're asking for ironclad guarantees, other than the minister's assurance that this section will be applied with common sense and fairness to both the farmer and the farmworkers. That's all we're asking.
Hon. D. Miller: I'll give that assurance. I really do honestly believe that the branch does carry out their work with fairness and impartiality.
But the members recognize, I hope, the underlying principle behind the clause and the position I've taken. We want to see in those kinds of situations that develop.... We want to ensure, to the degree we can, that.... If someone has gone out and put in a day's work in a field somewhere, they don't want to listen to a bunch of people going like this, you know, each one pointing and saying: "It's not my fault. It's not my fault."
I understand what the members are saying. I think we've canvassed.... In fact, I'd be willing to suggest that we've had a substantive debate on section 13. I move that we move on.
[8:00]
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
G. Wilson: A very quick comment and suggestion. First of all, we think this is long, long overdue. We congratulate the minister for bringing it in.
We have not moved an amendment, but we do suggest that the contract also be provided for the immigration officer. That's important...
J. Tyabji: In the case of domestics.
G. Wilson: ...in the case of foreign domestics, because in the case of foreign domestics, the fact that the immigration officer would have a copy of that contract may help prevent litigation in the event that there is dispute between the employers, given that it's often a family situation. I think that's a very useful suggestion put forward for the minister to consider. It really does add a further protection to foreign domestics if the immigration officer is provided a copy of the contract.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's suggestion. It's a useful one. We are working on the regs to this section, and we will give that consideration.
Section 14 of Bill 29 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
On section 15.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 15 is fairly short. I would like to read it just so people are aware: "An employer must provide to the director, in accordance with the regulations, any information required for establishing and maintaining a register of employees working in private residences." The question is straightforward. Who maintains that record, and where is it stored? Is that going to be an undertaking of the ministry, or is that an undertaking of the employer?
Hon. D. Miller: The employment standards branch. Just for the member's information, on a statistical basis there are, to our knowledge, approximately -- and this is 1991 data -- 25,500 employees who may be.... But in excess of 100,000 workers in B.C. work in their homes or work at a home, so.... The answer to your question, though, is the branch.
G. Farrell-Collins: I wanted to.... Is this something you perceive as being a mandatory thing for all employers? Is it going to be something under regulation that is asked for or done on request? Or is it going to be a wide-ranging, sort of blanket requirement that all employers will be expected to comply with instantaneously? Or, as I said, is it something that's going to be done on request?
Hon. D. Miller: We need to develop regulations around this section, and it is the intention of the branch to phase that in, probably starting with domestics.
G. Farrell-Collins: Is this section designed to deal...? I understand it probably came to light with regard to domestics, but there are a lot of other people who work at home also, doing a whole variety of things. There are telecommuters, there are people who do contract work, and the member for Okanagan East referred to journalists.... I mean, I can think of any number of employees who would work out of their home.
I guess the question that I'm looking for is: is this intended to apply to employees who normally work out of their homes, or would this also cover employees who occasionally work out of their homes? Again, this is one of those sections that can strike fear into small employers or even large employers, when workers take work home voluntarily in the evenings, when very occasionally -- maybe one day a week on average -- they spend their time at home and work there because it's quieter, and they can get more done. How wide-ranging is this going to be? Is it going to be employees who normally work at home, or is it going to include employees who occasionally work at home?
Hon. D. Miller: We're really looking at situations where that home, whether it be the individual's home or someone else's, is the principal workplace. I mean, all of us.... We don't want to regulate people taking work home, whether that's on a.... Some jobs, no doubt, depending on the nature of the work.... Some may require reading, for example. You can't get into people's lives and regulate that. Really we're aiming at the fact that, as I indicated by the numbers, there are a great number of people who either work using their own
[ Page 15622 ]
residence as the principal workplace or are working, in the case of domestics, in someone else's home as their principal workplace. Those are the primary areas.
G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding is that as long as it's not the principal place of work, it's not going to fall within the gambit of this section. Therefore somebody who, for a period of time, had to be home to take care of a relative.... That would not apply. Okay, thank you.
L. Hanson: A question. I know that the minister is aware of some circumstances where, let's say, a mother has some responsibilities for looking after children and takes some work from the workplace home. While they are looking after their household duties and caring for the children and the others, there is an hour here and an hour there and an hour someplace else where they get into some kind of production work. It may be the assembly of something. I think it's used in the garment industry from time to time. I know that this section of the act doesn't necessarily cover all of the questions that the minister might want to answer under that, but how does the minister anticipate the policing of that -- the requirement for posting of the workplace and all of the other things that are involved in it? The person would, in fact, be an employee, although one day it might be two hours, the next day it might be five hours, as time permits; it's handled within the other duties.
[8:15]
Hon. D. Miller: What we're really trying to get at here is the principal workplace. The occasional or random taking home of work.... In fact, I just inquired of my staff.... I'm trying to think theoretically here. For example, let's say a pregnant woman is able to work out of her home -- has a type of job that is something that she could transfer from the workplace where she might normally work to her home, and continue to conduct that work, for her own reasons. Would that be covered? Our view is that it probably wouldn't. It's an occasional situation as opposed to a regular situation. That's really the intent.
L. Hanson: I think the minister has partially understood what I'm talking about -- maybe not completely. I'm not talking about the intermittent happening of that sort of thing. There are circumstances starting to develop where, on a regular basis, the work that a person is doing for an employer is regularly done in the home -- usually on a piecework basis, some days for two hours, some days for three hours, some days there's no time to do it, and that sort of thing. The regular workplace is the home, yet it isn't the standard kind of employer-employee relationship under those circumstances. The person usually has some responsibilities to look after -- a family or other responsibilities in the home -- and fits this in around those other things, and earns a few dollars, but it may not even be the primary source of income.
Hon. D. Miller: Maybe I'm just a little bit reluctant to make an absolute pronouncement about a hypothetical. I hope the minister -- former minister -- appreciates why. It may be that given the complexities that could surround any given set of circumstances, the branch would have to make a determination in those cases.
I want to bring members back or perhaps remind members that the legislation works to the extent that people are aware of it. As a result of being aware of it, people may file an application or a complaint with the branch. I don't think we should get too concerned about the infinite variety of situations that might exist with respect to the shifting nature of where the work is done, whether it's in a workplace or a home or, given the technological changes that are coming about, who knows where.
If there are particular issues that require a determination, then the branch would certainly look at it, but with the view in mind that the intent of the section is to deal.... The act has now brought people in who have not previously been covered. Recognize that there's a great deal of work done in homes in the case of nannies and domestics, for example, so those people have been brought into the act. But in any particular set of circumstances, it's pretty difficult to make an absolute determination. It would depend on a lot of factors, and obviously in a hypothetical discussion, those are not part of the determination.
L. Hanson: I don't want to pursue this, and I'm not sure I'm asking for an absolute answer from the minister, but I want to point out to the minister that there are different circumstances. As a matter of fact, the reason I'm pointing it out is that I was approached by an individual who happened to be associated with one of the handicap operations that we talked about earlier. They were making a series of toys. This person was a single mother with young children. They were delivering the toys to her house, and she was painting the faces on them; she gets so much a toy. I asked: "Are you being paid the minimum wage?" She said that she didn't know; when the baby quit crying, she painted two faces. Then, half an hour later, maybe she got another one done. All I'm saying is that there are unique circumstances that have to be recognized.
Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.
On section 20.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 20 is similar to the old section 6, I guess. There is an addition. If you look at subsection (c), right at the end it says: "...by deposit to the credit of an employee's account in a savings institution, if authorized by the employee in writing or by a collective agreement." Is this an area where we want to remove that individual preference from an employee? As part of a negotiation, I could see where a union and an employer could say: "Look, this is causing us headaches. We've got to make deposits in this person's bank account and this person's bank account. Some people want cash; some people want cheques. Just for simplification purposes, let's agree as a group to do it one way only." That's very conceivable. Employees may not particularly want that. I guess what I'm asking is: is that an area that we need to have the union responsible for, or is that something that we should leave in the hands of the individuals? I know that when employees get together and organize themselves collectively, they give up certain individual rights in favour of more collective strength, but I'm wondering if this is something that really needs to be there. Can we not just let them hammer that one out on their own?
Hon. D. Miller: It's not an attempt to be intrusive. There were submissions made to Thompson that called for this. In fact, in what is kind of the reverse of the situation you
[ Page 15623 ]
described, I recall quite some time ago.... In fact, I was an executive assistant to a cabinet minister back in the seventies, and I was frequently on the road. I remember inquiring back then: "Can't you deposit my cheque in the bank? Quite often I'm not here on a Friday, and that's kind of awkward." In those days, which really.... Not before technology was invented, but before it had made the kind of rapid advancement it's made today, it was a problem. I had to do some talking in order to allow that to happen. Nowadays I suspect that it's perhaps becoming more and more the norm, where the cheque is deposited electronically.
Typically in a trade union, or where there's a collective agreement, there is a desire to maintain a sort of collective approach. The only argument that might be made as well.... Let's say that in discussions between an employer and a trade union it was mutually agreed, for a variety of reasons -- whether it's cost-efficient or whatever -- that instead of paying out the paper cheque or whatever on payday, the employer wanted to have it electronically deposited. The union agreed, yet one person in the bargaining unit said: "No, I don't like that." In terms of operating a system, you can appreciate that the one person's desire might be overruled by the broader number of people in the collective agreement. In fact, that issue is going to come up -- and I know the PDA has expressed some concern about section 22. It really speaks to the same kind of principle. We'll talk about that when we get there.
So I don't think it's intrusive; I don't think it's intended to be intrusive. It's simply there to accommodate electronic deposits.
L. Hanson: I was concentrating on something else, and I hope that I don't repeat a question that has already been asked. But how wages are paid.... It gives three options there. I suppose that an employer could choose any one of those options and pay everyone on the same basis. You wouldn't have to agree to this one demanding money, that one a bank deposit and the other one a bank money order. You could establish a routine and a system, and treat everybody the same way.
Hon. D. Miller: As the member is aware, the existing act reads: "...if authorized by the employee...." I think I have addressed that situation. I think the act is better the way it is. Certainly I think some of the representations made by employers are in support of the changes.
Sections 20 and 21 approved.
On section 22.
G. Wilson: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 22 (2),
The director may authorize, on written advice from the employee, an assignment of wages for a purpose that the director considers is for the employee's benefit.]
On the amendment.
G. Wilson: This amendment is along the lines of the discussion we've just had. In the existing act, where it talks about the assignment of wages.... In the drafting it demonstrates that the employer shall honour an employee's written assignment of or authorization to pay wages under subsection (2). The section that deals with the provision is covered as a section of part 2. The difference in this drafting is that it is carried as a separate subsection, where: "The director may authorize an assignment of wages for a purpose that the director considers is for the employee's benefit." The amendment simply says: "The director may authorize, on written advice from the employee, an assignment of wages for a purpose that the director considers is for the employee's benefit."
I take the minister's comment, where he suggests that if there is a collective unit that's working, there may be a decision taken on behalf of the collective that would say that all employees' wages will be electronically deposited in a bank account. One might argue that that collective unit, therefore, is speaking on behalf of the employee, but it still has to be on the written advice of that collective. It can't be at the director's discretion. So we would argue that this amendment simply puts a protection in to suggest that the employee, either through the collective or representative body -- i.e., the union -- or, if they are not unionized, through their own individual written consent, will authorize the director to make assignments. The director can't arbitrarily make those assignments without the approval of the employee. It's fairly straightforward.
Hon. D. Miller: I've tried to follow that, and perhaps I was listening a bit to my staff, because we did discuss the issue prior to the debate this evening. As the member correctly stated, the principles of the debate were really contained in the last section. One of the issues, when I asked about section 22, is that, for example, where an employer may bring in a medical plan, a dental plan or something of that order which requires all the employees to enroll, but one employee says, "I'm not prepared to do that," it would be for the greater good of all employees -- and, obviously, of an employer who wanted to do that -- that the assignment of wages be authorized in that instance.
I don't think the construction of the section as we have it in the act is anything to cause any concern. It has been essentially there in the old act, although it is in a somewhat different form. I really don't have the member's concern. I appreciate that he has looked at the act and made some suggestions, but on balance, I'm reasonably convinced that the way we have it is okay. It is not something that will see an abuse of individual rights by an all-knowing director. There are opportunities under the act, obviously, for people to appeal decisions they feel aggrieved by. Really, considering the fairness and the way it is constructed, I really am satisfied that we have got it okay in the act as it stands.
[8:30]
G. Wilson: I don't share the minister's comfort zone on this thing, because if we're talking about medical or dental plan assignments or those sorts of things, they will be spelled out in conditions of employment through some form of agreement between the employer and the employee. If we are talking about a collective agreement and assignment on the basis of the collective agreement -- through a Rand formula or something similar to that -- the employee is going to have to be bound by the terms of that collective agreement. In both cases, those will supersede whatever is here in this act. That is not what we are looking at.
[ Page 15624 ]
The amendment simply puts in a protection that isn't there. That protection is in the old act, because the power of the director to assign is written as a subsection under section 7(2), which says: "An employer shall honour an employee's written assignment of or authorization to pay wages...." It's already written into it; it is a subsection under that caveat. That caveat does not exist here, and while the intentions of the director may be entirely honourable, as a matter of principle, I don't think we should be drafting legislation that empowers the director to authorize an assignment of wages for a purpose that the director considers is for the employee's benefit. As a general protection of the employee -- or the employee's representative, the union; or by virtue of an agreement that is signed with the employer as part of the terms of employment, which still is consent of the employee; or by separate cover -- the employee is the only one who should be able to determine that assignment of wages, not the director. I think this amendment is an extremely important one that provides protection for the employee.
Hon. D. Miller: I actually may have been ordered.... That rather lucid explanation I offered the last time I stood up may, in fact, have been slightly in error. I'll try again. I want to essentially compare the existing act with the new act, and see if the member can agree that in terms of substance, there is no difference.
First of all, I'll deal with the old act and read the sections as they link together. Section 7(2) says: "An employer shall honour an employee's written assignment of or authorization to pay wages...." We then move down to section 7(2)(e), which says: "...for a purpose that the director considers is for the benefit of the employee and that is authorized by written order of the director."
Now we go over to the new section. "An employer must honour an employee's written assignment of wages...(e) for a purpose authorized under subsection (2)." Subsection (2) reads: "The director may authorize an assignment of wages for a purpose that the director considers is for the employee's benefit."
They're really different constructions, but with the same language and same intent. The two are quite parallel.
G. Wilson: I have two questions, then. One: can subsection (2) be read on its own? It does not fall under the category of subsection (1), so there is no caveat to protect against the director making that direct assignment. Can subsection (2) be read independently of subsection (1)?
Two: is it the intent of the minister in this section that no assignment can be made without the express written intent of the employee?
Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't believe so. It simply empowers the director to make the assignment. That, of course, creates a situation where if someone feels aggrieved, they can appeal that decision.
I really want to stress that in the substance there's no change. In any event, the mechanism for appeal.... The potential for individuals to be aggrieved or abused by the director simply doesn't exist. I mean, given that there really is no difference, I think we've covered the issue.
G. Wilson: Well, just a last quick question to the minister. We're obviously going to agree to disagree on this, because I think, in the manner that it's drafted, there is a very real and substantive difference. I'd like the minister to tell me whether his interpretation of this section would allow subsection (2) to be read independently of subsection (1).
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised, by those who know far better than I, that in fact it cannot. The linkage is in section 22(1)(e). In any event, the issue is linked back, as I say, into.... Sorry. Our opinion is no. I'm satisfied that it's right.
Amendment negatived on division.
Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.
On section 25.
G. Farrell-Collins: This is the first appearance in this act of the infamous seven-year rule -- retaining records for seven years. Perhaps we can debate the seven-year question. I guess the question I have, and that.... You know, there are a couple of lines of questioning on this, I guess. The tax department requires us to keep records for, I believe, six years. So I'm wondering why we've....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Six plus one? So it's a total of seven. Fine, I stand corrected.
In the context of this act, if you look at the enforcement sections and you jump ahead to section 80, it looks to me like the only real penalty that can be imposed here to correct any sort of advantage that's been taken of an employee, under section 25 and others that require records to be kept for seven years, is that wages be paid -- back wages, back pay or compensation in that form. That's my understanding. If I'm incorrect, I'd be pleased to be informed of that. But section 80 puts a limit on that -- a statute of limitations, if you want to put it that way -- of 24 months. I'm wondering what the import is of keeping records for seven years when penalties can only be levied for two. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected, but it appears odd to me.
Hon. D. Miller: I thought we had this one straightened out. First, I want to say that the issue of harmonization has been met, or it was our attempt to meet the issue of harmonization. The Income Tax Act says until the expiration of six years from the end of the last taxation year to which records and books of account relate. Although the member makes a point with respect to how far back complaints can go, the recommendation of the business community was for harmonization, and that is in fact what we have -- harmonization. The principle is, of course, that if the records are there -- and in the case of the special clothing, they obtain the status of wages.... I would assume.... We try to make the argument that without the employer at least maintaining the records, in the event of a complaint and an investigation, the branch would have to rely on information that they could find. If there was none forthcoming from the employer, then, of course, the employer might be disadvantaged.
But the member does make a point with respect to how far back people can apply or make application for redress under the act.
G. Farrell-Collins: It would seem to me, then, that it is important for the tax department to make regulations and
[ Page 15625 ]
legislation requiring storage, receipt and retention of documents as it pertains to their rules and their laws, and that the employment standards branch and the Ministry of Labour should be passing regulations that make sense for what you're doing. I would hold that if these documents are required for taxation purposes, they're already being kept, and there's no need to write it in here. If there's a reason that these documents need to be kept, over and above what's already required under financial legislation, in those cases it would only be required that they be kept for the 24-month period, as described in the penalties provisions of section 80. I would suggest to the minister that he allow the finance department to set the rules governing retention of documents and receipts for legislation under their purview, and that the minister not extend this beyond what's required.
Hon. D. Miller: In brief discussion with my deputy, I'm advised that when the issue was canvassed at the Thompson hearings and in discussions with employers, there were, I guess, a variety of circumstances under legislation -- in other words, a variety of time periods. I'm advised that we probably need four years in order to be satisfied that records are maintained in terms of researching complaints.
But the employer's position was: in the face of a variety of circumstances, harmonize it with Revenue Canada. We took that advice, and that's what we've tried to do in this bill. We've used the term seven years, but it is a reflection of the realities of the Income Tax Act.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it's a moot point, I suppose. I'm not opposed to changing it, for example, to the language that's contained in the Income Tax Act. But for what purpose? Effectively, we are harmonizing, and if people keep records in any event, then I'd suggest that it's not adding any additional hardship to employers. Therefore, for practical reasons, I would suggest that the section remain as is, if members are satisfied.
I would be happy to pass over a copy of the Income Tax Act for their perusal, but it does appear that what it amounts to is seven years: until the expiration of six years from the end of the last taxation year to which records and books of account relate. That's probably more complicated. If we're talking about plain language, maybe seven years makes a heck of a lot more sense than that little phrase. We probably have people coming at us all the time asking what that means.
I appreciate it. I think the member made a good point with respect to complaints under the act, but on balance, I'd say that it's harmonized; let's leave it where it is.
G. Farrell-Collins: First, I'd like to stake out a fallback position, if I can, and then I want to pursue my line of questioning. The minister has stated that the intent here is to harmonize with the Income Tax Act. There is a subtle difference here: it could be months; it could be up to a year if you were to roll the calendars over. I just want assurance from the minister today that the intent here is to harmonize as closely as possible with the Income Tax Act, yet put it in plain-language terms to try and cover that. In the event that there is a missing month or a missing couple of months somewhere, the employer is not going to be held liable for that.
[8:45]
Hon. D. Miller: To the extent that Hansard forms a record of intent, I will state that in an unequivocal way. I was going to add that most of us, I'm sure, are aware of these issues, because like all people, I maintain my personal records going back seven years. It's probably longer -- in fact, my spouse does all the work. Nonetheless, there's a file cabinet that has those records, and they're very important. If you are ever audited by the income tax people, you want to know that you've got them. So yes, I hope that I've been very unequivocal in satisfying the request of the member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I suppose one should be prepared to have all documents ready and available for the auditor, should he call. One never knows when that may happen and for what reasons he or she may call. I'm sure we'll continue with that debate next week. Having staked out my fallback position, I would like to continue with the attack, if I can put it that way.
I want to ask the minister.... I'm trying to think, as I think through all the various sections in this bill, where the seven-year limit is required. In the context of section 80 and in the context of the Income Tax Act, are there not sets of documents and receipts and items that need to be kept by the employer that wouldn't necessarily be required to be kept by an employee under the Income Tax Act? I refer in particular to this section in terms of special clothing, dry-cleaning receipts and those types of things if the employer is paying for them. Those wouldn't necessarily fall under the Income Tax Act, I wouldn't think, if the employer was paying for it, unless it's a taxable benefit. I'm not a finance wizard. I wish my colleague from Delta South were here; I'm sure he could help me. But if it's not recorded as income for the employee, then why would the business have to maintain it, unless for some reason of expense under corporate income tax? Are there not portions of this bill -- and the reason I'm being wide-ranging here is that I would rather have the seven-year debate once and not have it five times throughout the bill -- where documents and receipts are required to be kept that would not normally be required to be kept under the Income Tax Act?
Hon. D. Miller: I can't honestly give you an answer to that. Like you, I'm not an expert in these matters. If one follows the act, that the moneys received or deducted with respect to special clothing, etc., have the category of wages, I think that there are probably sections of the Income Tax Act that would conclude that those are taxable benefits. It may be that some of those in a minor way escape that, but I think that strict adherence to the Income Tax Act would probably show they are taxable benefits. Again, I'm not absolutely certain of that.
It seems to me that in a way, for simplicity, we're better off using this harmonized approach as opposed to having a variety of circumstances throughout the bill -- some two years, some four years, for example. You have to look at all of these sections not in isolation, not in a narrow way, but in a broader way. Why do we have a requirement for maintaining records? We have it because if the branch needs to investigate a complaint, we want to ensure that the records are there. I think it's preferable to have a consistent time period.
In the main, I would have to argue that, for example.... Let's say there was a complaint registered, and there was a requirement for records going back at least four years. Upon investigation, the director or the branch discovered in the
[ Page 15626 ]
pursuit of that that the employer had records for only four years and not seven. I don't think he's going to lose any sleep. In fact, I'll state it unequivocally: if anybody ever did that at the branch, they probably wouldn't be around long, because it's inconsequential, if you appreciate what I'm saying. It's not something that someone need fear.
Given that the Income Tax Act does set the standard, then it seems to me quite appropriate to maintain that. Even going back to the business representation, I think both the coalition and the B.C. Business Council dealt with what they called harmonization. If the members can accept -- and I hope they do now -- that seven years is our interpretation of harmonization with the Income Tax Act, then I don't think we need to be overly concerned about this section.
G. Farrell-Collins: In with the fear of punishment is also the fear of drowning in paper. I think that is part of, particularly, the small business concern with the seven-year limit: having to keep this stuff on hand for a period of time. It's one of those things, which I think the member for Okanagan-Vernon stated earlier, that strikes fear into small businesses when they think: "Oh my goodness, I'm going to have to keep more records for more people for more things." It's just one more duty that they have.
If the intent, as the minister says, is to harmonize where necessary -- and I can understand that argument being put forward by certain business people who have a whole ream of requirements to follow and dates and times and calendars -- I appreciate the minister's sympathy to that. I hope he's as sympathetic when it comes time to discuss bank holiday time, and we can talk about the difficulty small businesses are likely to have with some of those calculations and accounting procedures. But if the minister is saying that the intent behind this is to harmonize with the Income Tax Act, and if instances occur where small and medium-sized -- or even large businesses, for that matter -- find these seven-year provisions in this act to be onerous and regret any calls their organizations may have made for harmonization, can the minister assure me that that issue will be dealt with expeditiously in one of those variety of miscellaneous statutes amendment acts that pop into this House every session, and that that revision could be changed to make it more reasonable and more compatible with the enforcement provisions? I think there's time between four years and seven years to see how this works. I would just like assurance from the minister that if there is a large amount of concern by the small, medium-sized and large business groups about the onerous nature of keeping these receipts, that he would be willing to revisit that very quickly to try to make it more realistic.
Hon. D. Miller: I would give that assurance. I'm sure that during our second term of office we'll pay close attention to those issues. I want to make the assurance that all we want to do in the act, to the degree that we can simplify...and to also ensure that the records are obtainable so that the investigations can be conducted in an expeditious way. So yes, you have my assurance.
Sections 25 and 26 approved.
On section 27.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister could give me some indication.... There was some comment in second reading about changes being made and exempting newspaper carriers by regulation. It was off the record. It was sort of one of those little things that goes on back and forth when the House is in full-flight debate. Can the minister tell me what the plans are? I'll get to how it applies to this section in just a second, but if the minister can answer that question for me and we can have a little discussion about that, it may free me from having to ask a series of questions on this section and in other sections. So can he tell me what the plans are for newspaper carriers?
Hon. D. Miller: I don't want to include the issue of babysitters, because that was fairly controversial some time ago. It was unfortunate.... Because it became quite controversial, it was my view that to try to manage a public discussion was impossible, therefore I simply backed out -- not that there aren't some arguments around that. By bringing these occupations under the act, they are subject to the provisions of the act. Some of those provisions have been around for a long time. Minimum wage is one issue. I think the minimum call-out is another. There are some tangential issues with respect to holidays, etc., but those are the primary ones.
The difficulty in constructing an employment standards act is that you cannot write it with enough flexibility that every unique set of circumstances that might exist in any particular occupation or workplace can be accommodated. That's why we have a section on variances where those can be dealt with. But in the main, the argument about newspaper carriers has been raised primarily here in the Victoria area, as opposed to the Vancouver area. In Vancouver, I think a decision was made some time ago to use exclusively adult distributors; therefore there really is no particular problem in the application of the Employment Standards Act in those circumstances. Here in Victoria there's a mixture of adults and school children, who are exempt under the regulations -- they are not covered by the act. If they are newspaper carriers and they're going to school, they're not covered. But they also employ adults.
I haven't got a complete picture -- sort of a profile, if you like -- of the adult carriers, but it's been argued that some of them are seniors and only want to do the work for the recreational value and perhaps for the money it might bring. Nonetheless, the argument was made for the exercise that to apply the act would force the newspaper, in order to satisfy the four-hour minimum call-out provision, to extend the routes -- the routes typically are an hour, or an hour and a half -- and combine them, which would thus deprive the students of the routes and create a situation where the adult carriers don't want to work that four hours. My staff have met with the Times Colonist; those discussions are ongoing. They canvassed a range of issues, including the opportunity to seek variances, for example, around the hours of work.
By the way, those hours are not.... The act doesn't compel people to work four hours; it simply means that the equivalency test has to be met with respect to the minimum wage. In other words, let's say for argument's sake that you were making $13 an hour. Clearly, by working two hours you will have satisfied the minimum-wage requirements. I hope the members follow my argument there.
So we are seeking a way in which we can deal with the issue that has been raised here in Victoria. I'm not aware of particular concerns that have been expressed in other parts of the province. That's not to say they're not there, but certainly
[ Page 15627 ]
they have not been drawn to my attention. My own experience in the community I come from is that the papers are delivered almost exclusively by school children. I'm not sure how long the routes are. In fact, I've known lots of kids over the years as they have come knocking on the door to collect.
So I don't think the impact is widespread, but that's the particular dilemma that has been identified here in Victoria. There are some other issues that apply, I think -- those people who deliver flyers, for example. There are companies that deliver flyers, and there has been a growing competition. At one time, all the flyers seemed to come in the newspaper; some of them used to come in the mail. Now, typically you find those flyers are dropped by people -- by adults -- and obviously companies have combined to have a single distributing company deliver those flyers. In those circumstances, the minimum wage does apply, and presumably one would not want to have a double standard -- in other words, a cost advantage to one particular means of delivery over another. That's not an issue that has been raised publicly, but it is one that occurred to me in looking at the problem.
So we'll see. I can't stand here and say that I have reached an absolutely perfect proposal in terms of Victoria, but it's an issue that we are trying to work on with the Times Colonist, and we'll see where that takes us.
[9:00]
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad those discussions are taking place, because I hope that in the attempt to bring fairness to the workplace -- fairness in the minister's mind, I guess -- he's not going to end up damaging people who are out there trying to do just the types of things we talked about.
The minister said something which I found interesting, and I may have been misunderstanding this for a long time. But the minister says that if an employee is required to work a minimum of four hours, he must be paid at least the minimum wage. Does that mean that if an employee was making $13, which is twice the minimum wage, that the employee would only be required to work two hours? Is that what the minister said? That's how it came across to me. I may have heard him wrong, or else I have been under some misconception for the last ten or 15 years as to how that applies.
Hon. D. Miller: Let's use some different numbers. Let's say that you made $26 an hour. Obviously, that's four times the minimum wage. The act requires that you be paid a minimum of four hours' pay when you're called out to work or when you report for work. Therefore, if you work for one hour and make $26, you will have satisfied the act. You will have earned the minimum rate, but you will have earned four times the minimum wage in that hour. Is that clear?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: I don't have it right? Just hang on now. Now I've misled the House, hon. Chair -- completely unintentionally. Let me recanvass that. I don't think I said it right. I think the reason I mischaracterized it was just to portray it as if the rate was $26 an hour. Let me try to recast that. If you earned $26 and you only worked one hour to earn that, you would have satisfied the requirements.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: No? Oh no. I'm embarrassed, hon. Chair. Give me a minute.
The Chair: This brief pause is brought to you courtesy of honesty and candour in debate. I'm sure the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is anxious to leap into the vacuum.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to make a bit of a comment. Often in this House we talk about the lack of business experience in making a payroll on the other side, and this is one of those instances I want to just put on the record to prove it. So there we go.
Hon. D. Miller: I can assure hon. members that when I used to get my paycheque on Fridays I was very quick to determine whether all the money that was owing to me was, in fact, on the payroll. I do apologize for confusing people, including myself.
We're talking about the four hours and how that impacts on the newspaper carriers. If you make $6.50 an hour -- and that's the minimum -- and you report for work, then, under the act you're entitled to receive four times the minimum rate for reporting to work. I've already cited that number and it's over $20 and less than $30.
I did talk about babysitters, but I don't want to get into a big debate about them, because we did have some. I just want to make this point. We have removed them from the regulations, but I want members to be aware that there are people who work full-time or all week babysitting. Unlike all other employees who are covered under the act, those people are not entitled to even the minimum provisions of the Employment Standards Act. I'm not proposing to reintroduce that, because I don't think it was well understood. But members should be aware that that is the case. There are people in our society who conceivably are working 40 hours a week and maybe longer who are not even entitled to the minimum provisions of the act. I think at some point in time we need to address that. I'm not proposing to do that now, because of the debate that took place in this province, but it was poorly understood.
I did not appreciate the fact that many people who take their children to a day care or to a private residence were under the impression that they would now have to start paying $6.50 an hour, which is completely erroneous. I would suggest that it is very easy to create uncertainty and fear -- witness my attempt to explain the minimum-wage provisions here a while ago. It is very easy to do that around those kinds of issues, and certainly many working families' fears were aroused. That's unfortunate, and maybe some way can be found to address that in a better way. It certainly doesn't leave me happy to know that there are people in our society who are working full-time and who are not even getting $6.50 an hour as a base rate.
J. Tyabji: The minister did raise the point about babysitting, and he's absolutely right. If someone is spending 40 hours a week or more babysitting.... Clearly there are very few jobs in society that are more important to the next generation than the care of children.
If I can make a recommendation, I think there's a definition of domestic worker that should include people who work 40 hours a week or more taking care of children. That is
[ Page 15628 ]
different from someone who is going to a private residence or a babysitter who babysits for a couple of hours on the weekend or does all the other things that encompass babysitting. I think that's an important distinction to make. Although there was a debate and a lot of concern about that, on the flip side there are a lot of people who wanted to see some recognition of how important the job of caring for children is, and how important it is for us to start to take it more seriously and not assume that we can just treat it in an offhand way.
I think there is a debate that needs to occur, and perhaps it occurs in the regulation section. I don't know, but some of us in this House do recognize that it's a very important job and that there should be some decent provisions for people who choose that as an occupation.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to come back to the minister's explanation about the four hours, because I think it's important. The minister gave us an example of somebody who is making minimum wage and they would have to be paid $26 regardless of whether they work one hour or three hours or four hours. I understand that.
I'll put it in simple terms. If that person's regular wage rate, which I think is defined in the act, was $10 an hour, and if that person came to work and didn't work the full four hours, would the maximum they'd be required to be paid be $26 or would it be $40?
Hon. D. Miller: For the record, $40.
G. Farrell-Collins: Now I don't have to worry about all the payrolls out there with my signature that were calculated that way. That's been my understanding, and I just wanted to make that clear.
The question, though, comes back here, and I guess this is really the only place to discuss it. It does deal with the issue that's been brought forward by the Times Colonist. The questions that they have, I think, are legitimate ones, and they deal with the calculation of a regular wage. They don't know, on an ongoing basis, how long it takes a person to do a route. Their number of subscribers fluctuates, the weather can have an impact on it; there's a whole range of things that impact on the length of time it takes to do a route. One person may do it with a car, a kid may do it on rollerblades, another person may do it on a bike, and somebody else will do it on foot. So it's very difficult for them to try to calculate what the regular wage rate would be for that route.
Some of those are pretty difficult, if not insurmountable, problems of calculating and accounting for the fluctuations within that field on an ongoing basis. I'm wondering how the minister intends to grapple with those issues to ensure that we're not asking for a huge burden to be placed in order to achieve something that maybe there wasn't a real problem with to start with.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I want to repeat that my staff have had some meetings with the Times Colonist, and we've proposed a process and we're waiting to hear back from them. We're prepared to send somebody in and take a look, particularly with respect to the profile on the adult side.
At the same time, I'm mindful of the fact that across the straits is a very large newspaper chain that employs adult carriers. To go back to the discussion we had when I talked about babysitters.... I'm not really prepared to say that they should not be covered. It seems to me that we're trying to find a solution but not one that would see us, as we did with the babysitters, simply retreat and take it out of the regulations. I think that's important.
There may be some ways to meet the problems of the Times Colonist. Clearly, the Vancouver Sun or the Province made a decision to go with adult carriers on their own, not because they felt compelled by the Employment Standards Act or any other act, but simply because, from their business point of view, that was presumably something they wanted to implement. There would be nothing to prevent the Times Colonist from saying they are going to use exclusively student carriers -- nothing at all -- in which case those students are exempt from the act.
We are seeking to maintain the principle of including an occupation under the list of occupations that are covered under the act, but at the same time to work -- in this particular case, here in Victoria with the Times Colonist, to see if some solution can't be found to a problem they've identified. I don't believe it is currently a problem. I don't think anybody's at risk of losing their job or working longer hours than they require. We will pursue that in a fair way and see if we can't find that solution.
The Chair: On section 27, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale continues.
Interjection.
The Chair: I'm sorry -- the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll let the electors decide that.
H. Lali: Come and run in our area. I dare you.
G. Farrell-Collins: We'll have more than ample candidates to run in Yale-Lillooet. I'm sure the member would like to get out of the House and back into his community to start campaigning, because he's going to need every door-knocker he can get.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: To get back into the debate, though, hon. member.... We were making good progress until the member for Yale-Lillooet imposed his presence upon us. I don't mind him being here, but maybe he could be quiet while he's here.
I just hope as the minister goes through this that it is being done in good faith. I think it's unfortunate for a lot.... The Sun and the Province together made the decision they made, I assume, for business and economic reasons. I personally think it's unfortunate that young people aren't allowed the opportunity to get out there and earn some money and learn some responsibility. I think it was a good opportunity. I know hundreds of people who did it when they were kids, and I really hate to see that go the way of the dinosaur. In looking at the many questions that have been raised by the
[ Page 15629 ]
Times Colonist -- and they probably do speak for a number of papers out there that just haven't come to grips with it yet -- I hope we come to some amenable settlement that can deal with the regulations and that won't cause unduly negative effects in an area that probably doesn't need a ton of help. I just hope we don't end up with a nightmare scenario there.
With that, we can move off this section, having dealt with probably a number of items for the future in this debate.
[9:15]
C. Serwa: I have a few more questions on that. What is not quite clear to me in this section is with respect to use. Is there a two-hour minimum call-out? For example, two hours at $6.50 is $13. Am I correct in that?
Hon. D. Miller: That really doesn't come under this section, but we've had a fair amount of latitude. It's four hours, and it's been part of the act for a considerable period of time.
C. Serwa: I thought there was a differential; it was two hours for youngsters, not four hours. Once again, would the minister just clarify that.
Hon. D. Miller: It is section 34 of the act. We're almost there. But the member is right. It's two hours for school, but the member didn't previously specify.
C. Serwa: There are a number of other jobs that youths hold other than delivering papers. There is some concern with respect to that. For example, in my community, some of the lawyers use young students as runners. In winter hours, with the daylight....
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Wrong section? Which section?
The Chair: My apologies, members. I really have allowed too much latitude. Could I ask the member if we could deal with section 27? I believe section 34 is where this would more properly be raised. My apologies; that's my fault, members.
J. Tyabji: I really don't want to prolong this section; I think it's gone on for a long time. But I'd like to ask the same question on this section and on section 28. Is there any intention by the branch to develop a software program that would be available for the cost of a disk, basically, so that you could have standardization of the records -- a PC version and a Mac version? I note that there are quite a few.... Because there are so many detailed pieces of information, I think it might make it a lot easier, not only for the employer -- because they could access the software for the cost of the disk -- but for the branch. If the branch ever has to make use of those records, they would have a standard format, and it would all be available on electronic disks for those employers who have the ability to do that.
Hon. D. Miller: We are looking at developing some work in that regard for the calculation of overtime. But there are a myriad of systems out there, and I'm sure if we did that we'd be accused of imposing the heavy hand of the state.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Or sell it -- develop and sell it; then we'd be accused of competing with private business, and I'd be a loser all around. So the answer is no.
Section 27 approved.
On the section 28.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment to section 28 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 28, in the proposed section 28 (1) by adding the following:
(c.1) the hours worked by the employee on each day, regardless of whether the employee is paid on an hourly or other basis;
(d.1) the employee's gross and net wages for each pay period; .]
On the amendment.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to delay this unnecessarily, but I think it is always good, when there is an amendment introduced, for the introducer to explain the rationale very briefly for why it's there, just so that everybody understands.
Hon. D. Miller: A very simple reason: it was an oversight on our part to not include the hours of work, hours worked by the employee in each day and the gross and net wages for each pay period. They are central for any investigation that might have to ensue as a result of a complaint. It was an oversight on our part for not including it, and we're redressing that now.
Amendment approved.
Section 28 as amended approved.
On section 29.
L. Hanson: The minister can correct me if I'm wrong; I know he will. This section where the farm labour contractor must provide his payroll records to the producer.... The purpose of that, obviously, is to ensure that the farm contractor has paid the employees, so that the producer can withhold if that's not the case. But isn't the fact that the producer must keep all of those records that are provided by the contractor a new section? It wasn't a requirement before to keep those records for seven years, was it?
Hon. D. Miller: It is a new section. The member may be aware -- and other members may be aware -- that there have been some problems with respect to records. The RCMP have been involved in some fairly extensive investigations in terms of the unemployment insurance system. In fact, without being able to quote any individual, it's my understanding that this is something that the RCMP would like to see, because to have those records obviously makes their jobs easier.
There are some significant issues around UI fraud. I note that members opposite have been particularly zealous when it comes to fraud issues as we deal with social services and other issues that are similar. Certainly, to the extent that the UI funds
[ Page 15630 ]
are paid by individual employees and employers, huge defrauding or attempts to defraud that system in the millions of dollars -- I'm advised -- is something that all members would want to see an end to. I'm advised that appropriate records in this regard will be helpful to put an end to that kind of thing.
L. Hanson: I think I understood from the minister that that relationship between the producer and the farm labour contractor is also required in federal legislation because of some UI difficulties. Is that...?
Before the minister gets up to answer that, it seems to me, as I understand the farm labour contractor and the producer, that there is a relationship; the producer hires the farm labour contractor to provide a service in harvesting the crop, and there's some protection for the employee, which is fair -- that the farm labour contractor pays that employee.
According to this act, the liability transfers from the farm labour contractor to the producer if the farm labour contractor didn't pay them, if he isn't licensed. If he is licensed, I suppose there's a process that the employment standards people use to ensure that wages are paid, and so on -- the same as they do for almost any other employer. Now, in this act, even though the producer is one arm's length removed from the direct employer of the employee, you're requiring that producer to not only get the records from the farm labour contractor but retain them for seven years. It seems to me that the employer is the farm labour contractor, and that's where the onus should lie. I'm not suggesting that there isn't some recourse, that Employment Standards shouldn't have to go to the farmer and say: "Hey, the farm labour contractor didn't pay the employees; you haven't paid the farm labour contractor. How about paying the employee?" That's fair; I don't disagree with that. But now you're putting the onus of an employer on the producer, with a requirement to get those records, which are not his records but are the records of the farm labour contractor, and then retain them for seven years, as if the producer were the direct employer of the employee.
Hon. D. Miller: I think we did canvass the relationship issue fairly extensively. If I'm not mistaken, there was at least some tacit agreement that the discussion on that point under another section -- which more properly should have been held under this section -- would suffice. If you want to talk about it over again, fair enough, but I think that was the sort of general understanding.
But let me make this point. The member is right that the farmer is ultimately -- or could ultimately be -- responsible for the payment of wages owed by the farm labour contractor. We canvassed that at length. I did say that it's the.... The bill really sides with the individual worker and says that regardless of the obligation of the farm labour contractor to pay those wages, if the contractor doesn't, then the farmer has to pay them. That's based on the principle that the worker should be paid. And we talked extensively about how I think the farmers will employ farm labour contractors that are reputable. They will ensure that when they are paying out their money, they are not going to pay it to some person who they think is going to take a jump and take off.
But the farmer will really receive protection by retaining the records. The contractor has to give the records to the farmer; the farmer has to retain them. If there is a subsequent application or complaint to the branch on the part of an unpaid farmworker and it's impossible to pursue the contractor, at the very least the farmer will have those records and there will be certainty with respect to the hours that were worked. I would say that this would be nothing but a benefit for the farmer. Since they are both liable -- jointly and severally liable, if you like -- then both should have to maintain those records.
L. Hanson: I don't want to spend all night on this section, but it seems to me that there is a treatment of this situation that doesn't follow through in all employee-employer relationships. I might just cite Highway Constructors Ltd., which is providing the employees to the contractors working on the Island Highway -- and heaven forbid this would ever happen.... Of course, I'm being a little ridiculous when I say this, but if there is a requirement on the part of the contractor to obtain the records of highway construction from the government arm, and retain it for seven years because the employees they have are working.... I think the minister understands what I'm trying to say. It seems that there's an obligation here that is not holding true in all employee-employer relationships.
Hon. D. Miller: The primary issue here is one of providing a system, to the degree that you can, so that in the event that employee is not paid, that employee will have the ability, through the branch, to pursue someone for those unpaid wages. It's just not good enough to say to the employee: "We went after the farm labour contractor. The farm labour contractor is gone; we can't find him; you're out of luck." We think there is a relationship, and in those cases where you could not find the contractor and obtain those wages for the employee, you can then go to the farmer and obtain those wages. We say they are jointly liable.
I cited the example earlier in the construction industry. If a subcontractor is employed by a prime contractor -- typically they have holdbacks to cover these kinds of things -- and the WCB assessment is not paid by the subcontractor, then the prime contractor is liable. And that's it. No ifs, ands or buts; no complaints about thinking he was honest or anything else -- he's liable. And if that's an analogy, the same relationship exists between the farmer and the farm labour contractor. And I think that's as it should be.
C. Serwa: I find that very inconsistent. I understand that the minister is saying that the labour must be paid, and that's fair enough. But if you look at the construction industry, for example, we have the workman's liens act, and there is a holdback. The owner pays the contractor but is then able to hold back 40 percent, or whatever it is -- I've been out of it for a while. Nevertheless, there's a holdback, and obviously part of the payment is for goods and materials and part of it is with respect to labour. So the owner in that case is ultimately liable for the wage payment to the employees, but there is a holdback to protect them.
In the situation that you've created here, the farmer has already paid the labour contractor. The labour contractor has pocketed the money and left town. So we come back to the farmer again and say: "Well, the folks have got to be paid. It's going to bankrupt you, but that's tough kitty. They've got to be paid." What are you going to do in that particular situation, Mr. Minister?
[9:30]
Hon. D. Miller: I don't think anybody should get too exercised here. Licensed contractors are bonded. I don't want
[ Page 15631 ]
to tell people how to do their business, but I presume that the farmer is able to have the same arrangement. They could have a holdback from the contractor, if they so desire. The farmers will make their own choices, and they will work and use the services of reputable farm labour contractors. The discipline will be exercised in the marketplace.
This is the least obtrusive way for the ministry to deal with the situation of trying to find redress where workers aren't paid. This is the least obtrusive. You can design other systems, but believe me, they would require additional staff and a larger bureaucracy. Then, no doubt, you'd be complaining about FTE counts. This is a very simple, simple way to deal with the solution. What we're trying to deal with here is where, in the event that people are not paid wages in this sector, they have a means of going after somebody to get paid those wages.
The Chair: It seems to me we have inadvertently slid into section 30. May I suggest that we vote on section 29? Okanagan West, just in case.
C. Serwa: I'm on section 29, and I'll stay here rather than going on to section 30.
On section 29, again with respect to the payroll records being provided to the owner, there are two situations. Section 29(2)(a), "the last day of each pay period," seems most unlikely, in that knowing the nature of business and the payment and whether employees turn up.... I'm not certain what the farm labour contractor faces, but I'm confident he faces the same scenario as anything else.
You can't develop your payroll records instantly. At the end of the day.... And, I presume, whether the individuals work in piecework or by the hour, but probably in piecework....
There are a whole number of complications. So the first option, fundamentally, is out. Does the minister agree with that? The first option is out and simply not possible.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Can we have a clarification from Okanagan West?
C. Serwa: Thank you very much. Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. In section 29(2)(a), the last day of each pay period is when the records are to be turned over to the owner. I'm saying that the mechanics of the whole situation make that potential solution an absolute impossibility.
Hon. D. Miller: With respect to the time, I refer the member to section 17 of the bill, in terms of the definition of pay period. There is an additional eight days. I'll just read section 17: "At least semimonthly and within 8 days after the end of the pay period, an employer must pay to an employee all wages earned by the employee in a pay period." There is an adequate amount of time.
C. Serwa: The minister doesn't understand me. For example, a pay period will be biweekly, but let's say one pay period ends on the fifteenth day of the month. At that time, the end of the pay period, your option 29(2)(a) indicates that one of the options is "the last day of each pay period," and I'm saying that it is a practical impossibility for this to transpire. So this is a statement that cannot possibly be honoured. It's impractical and impossible to honour, because most of the work is done on a contract or a piece basis and the contractor is not able to assemble the payroll. Working in fields and doing piecework is not like working in a factory, where it is all figured out. So that option is simply not possible to attain. Does the minister not agree with me?
Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't.
C. Serwa: I don't know if I'm not explaining it clearly enough, or if the members there have never employed anyone in that type of a situation. What we're saying is that the pay period ends on the 15th. The farm contractor is supplying labour to pick strawberries, and I presume that the employees get paid so much a flat. The information has to come in on the evening of the 15th, and then the calculation has to be made, etc. Then he is allowed so many days -- the minister said it's eight days -- to make the actual payroll. With the mechanics of determining how many flats of strawberries were picked, I'm saying that it's impossible to be able to provide this information to the owner on the last day of each pay period. So it doesn't make any rational sense to include it in the legislation.
G. Farrell-Collins: Let me take a shot at this, if I can. I think what the member is saying is that there's confusion here between payday and pay period. The definition of payday under section 17 does have that eight-day grace period, but that eight-day grace period takes place after the end of the pay period.
In section 29 the minister is asking them not to produce the records on payday, but rather at the end of the pay period. It means that there is no eight-day grace period. If that were to say, "payroll records must be provided by the earlier of the following: (a) the payday, or (b) the day..." etc., etc., then I think you would have that eight-day grace period there.
Hon. D. Miller: My apologies for not understanding. Could we just stand this down, and we'll straighten out some language. I appreciate the points the members have made.
The Chair: Do I understand that we therefore would like to stand down sections 29 and 30? The two seem to be connected.
Interjection.
The Chair: Just section 29 -- okay.
C. Serwa: Could I just ask a further question on section 29? I understand that one portion has to stand down.
The second question I have is with respect to the second option: the day the farm labour contract with the producer is completed. What I want to determine with that -- which is reasonable enough -- is what happens if the owner is unable to obtain this information from the contractor. What liability is on the owner?
He approaches the contractor, the contractor says, "I'll have it in your hands next week," and so on, and every time he sees the contractor, and then he doesn't see the contractor. What liability is on the owner now? He's tried to get the payroll records; he hasn't been successful. Now what happens?
[ Page 15632 ]
Hon. D. Miller: Under the section, the obligation is on the contractor.
The Chair: Hon. member for Okanagan West, I understand we are going to stand down the section, but go ahead.
C. Serwa: This question is on a different section than the one the minister is going to stand down.
I don't understand. If the contractor is unwilling to provide the information to the owner, what legal means does the owner have of obtaining the payroll records? If he isn't able to obtain them, what is his liability in this particular situation?
Hon. D. Miller: The liability is with the contractor. The owner could phone the branch, for example, and have the issue dealt with by them. There are penalty provisions in the act. But the obligation is not on the farmer; the obligation in this section is on the contractor to provide to the farmer the records in question.
L. Hanson: I guess what I'm trying to understand from the minister is.... There is obviously a different relationship between the farm labour contractor and the producer than with someone contracting for a service with another employer. There's a difference in that relationship, and I guess the minister acknowledges that this is the method they have of handling that relationship. I can't argue with that, but there is definitely a different relationship between the farm labour contractor and the producer than if I hire a painter to come paint my house, he sends seven employees to paint the house and he doesn't pay the employees the wages. I don't have to keep payroll records and so on for those people who come as a result of being an employee of a contractor to do that. You have created a very unique circumstance or relationship between the producer and the farm labour contractor.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we have, and for the purpose I have talked about: in order to provide the best kind of protection we can for employees in terms of collection of moneys owed to them for wages.
L. Hanson: What I'm trying to understand is why the different relationship you are putting into the act is, then, the normal employee-employer relationship as it relates to this particular section. Is there some peculiar problem to it that...? Maybe there is.
Hon. D. Miller: This is the system, if you like, that is, in the main, peculiar to the agricultural sector in terms of how labour is organized.
It may interest the members.... I talked about some of the difficulties that have been experienced by the unemployment insurance system, and some of the difficulties that have been encountered by both the unemployment insurance system and the RCMP as they attempt to investigate UI fraud. Farmers paid out almost $2 million in a couple of cases. Almost $2 million was paid out by farmers to farm labour contractors that was not turned over to workers. The workers didn't get the money in the form of wages. It was fraud. This relationship is one that is important. If the broker and the farmer are up there, then down at the bottom, walking out in the dirt of the field or wherever it happens to be, is the worker.
I'm not quite sure where the members are coming from. Are they opposed to the linkage between the contractor and the farmer? I don't quite follow. We have been going around here for some time. If they are opposed to that relationship, if they are saying that the farmer should not be liable in the event of the failure of the contractor or the inability to pursue a contractor, then that is a position that they can take and one I disagree with. But I don't see why they would. Perhaps I'm missing something. I've been trying to listen carefully here, but maybe I have missed something.
The Chair: I'm just feeling very glad that we decided to stand this one down and save all this anxiety.
L. Hanson: Well, I'm not arguing against standing down the section; I just say sections 29 and 30 are so closely interrelated that you almost have to talk about principles in both of those sections to make your point. That's the reason I'm saying it.
[9:45]
All I'm saying to the minister is that the act recognizes the licensing or permitting of farm labour contractors. As an employer.... I agree 100 percent with the minister that the employees should get their money; no question about that. But what I'm concerned about is that it's a different.... I'm trying to get an understanding from the minister as to why it is a different situation than the painting contractor who absconds with the money paid to paint something: the guys who did the painting didn't get paid, either. Or a forest worker. All I'm asking is: how far does this go? Maybe the minister should police the farm labour contractor or something, because that truly is the employer. What you will probably see as a result of this is that the farmers or the producers will hire their helpers directly. That will resolve the issue, because the farm labour contractor doesn't come into it. You are giving the farm labour contractor a permit to provide a service, yet you are treating the employee-employer relationship with that farm labour contractor differently than that of a contractor who contracts to paint a house or plant trees or whatever.
Hon. D. Miller: There are a variety of options available. For example, we could -- and I'm not proposing we do -- say that it is illegal to be a labour broker. In that case, the scenario you described, where the farmer would have to employ directly, would be the norm. I suspect that we would get an argument from the agricultural sector, which would be something like: "Just a minute, this is crazy. This arrangement we have to organize our labour is one that works for us, because we know we can simply phone a broker, and they handle all of the employment relationships. It's more convenient, it makes more sense, and we would like to keep that."
So what we've tried to recognize is that this is a system that, in terms of organizing the labour requirements of the agricultural sector, I believe has some advantages for the farmer. At the same time, we are saying, in the interests of the employee, that if the contractor takes a hike, they can still go after the farmer for unpaid wages.
I don't know. I mean, I think this is trying to accommodate the interests of the agricultural sector but recognizing that in many cases.... I guess if the RCMP is involved in
[ Page 15633 ]
investigations that result in a significant number of counts of fraud being lodged, and farmers are shelling out money for contractors that is not finding its way into the hands of workers, then perhaps we've got ourselves a bit of a problem and it needs to be addressed.
I've heard far more horror stories we haven't dealt with. I can get really riled up when I hear stories about the exploitation of some labour in this province: women getting into vans when it's dark and driving for four hours up the Fraser Valley to work all day in some field, and we're not controlling that, because it's darned difficult to control. And the people who own the field, I presume, are saying: "Well, it's not my problem; those aren't my employees. Those are the employees of some contractor." I can get pretty hot when I talk about those kinds of things.
I think this is a modest attempt to try to ensure that where farmworkers are not paid wages they are owed, and they can't pursue a contractor for those wages, they can go to the farmer, because the farmer ain't gonna move; the farm is there. I think it's fair. It recognizes that this is unique -- more unique in this particular sector than in the sort of contracting issues.... We could get into the contracting game, but that's not part of this section and I don't wish to offend the rules too much. But I could talk a lot about what's happened; we can talk about some of the scams that are being pulled. These days, an ordinary worker who would like to be hired and paid an hourly rate is instead told by some company: "You're not just an ordinary worker; you're now an independent contractor, my friend."
There are all kinds of scams. There are more scams being pulled than you can appreciate, but we're not trying to address every one of them. We're simply trying to address the plight of farmworkers, and I think this does that to a reasonable extent. Furthermore, I think the members are in support of it. We have canvassed this, I have talked at length in previous sections and I have said that we're going to stand down section 29 so we can clarify the legitimate points raised by both members, where there appears to be some problem with the language. We'll address that and come back to section 29, but I don't see that any purpose is served by any further debate on the principles here.
The Chair: I think we'll stand section 29 down. Shall we go to section 30?
G. Farrell-Collins: I think the question being asked was that the liability under subsection (1) accrues to the contractor; that is, his or her obligation is to provide documents, and that's their job, and if those documents are received by the farmer, then it becomes the farmer's responsibility to retain them for a period of time.
Interjection.
The Chair: Oh, okay. Section 29, then, is stood down. Are we agreed?
An Hon. Member: Yes.
The Chair: All of section 29. Fair enough.
On section 30.
J. Tyabji: I feel like we have put the cart before the horse, in a way, because for the last 45 minutes we have been debating much of what is contained in section 30. I'd like to move the amendment to section 30 standing in my name on the order paper, which I think is part of what we've been discussing.
I also want to make the comment before I move that amendment that the minister has been talking at some length in a very emotional discussion, I think, about people who are transporting women in vans to the Fraser Valley, and what kind of contractor is this, and the farmer can say: "Hands off." The question I have is: is he referring to licensed contractors acting in that way? And if he is talking about licensed farm contractors, then my question is: who's giving out licences to people who are carrying on those kinds of business practices? And if they're not licensed contractors, then we already dealt with that in a previous section of the bill. So I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to delete section 30 and replace it with the following:
[SECTION 30,
A producer and a farm labour contractor are jointly and separately liable for wages earned by an employee of the farm labour contractor for work done on behalf of the producer, except where there is tangible evidence that wages have been paid from the producer to the farm labour contractor in which case the farm labour contractor is solely liable.]
On the amendment.
J. Tyabji: We've talked about that quite a bit; I know the minister is already shaking his head.
The point that has to be made is that in a previous section of the bill, the minister made a very clear point that unlicensed farm labour contractors would render the farmer automatically solely liable for those people, so that the employees of the unlicensed farm labour contractor would be deemed, for the purposes of this act, to be directly the employees of the farmer. So in section 30 we're not dealing with unlicensed contractors.
At some point, the director of the employment standards branch must take responsibility for the licences that are being issued to farm labour contractors. If licences are being issued to a farm labour contractor, we would assume that the director -- who, later on in the act has incredible powers for satisfaction, determination and discretion -- is going to ensure that before a licence is given to a farm labour contractor, there is some minimum code of credibility. Whether that means the person has a fixed address or whatever, the person is going to have a series of requirements. If in good faith a farmer hires someone who has received the confidence of the director in the form of a licence and and is listed as a licensed farm labour contractor, then the farmer should not be on the hook if the farmer pays the licensed farm labour contractor and that person, for whatever reason, does not give that money to the employees. The director has issued a licence, and that's an important point. We have already said in an earlier part that if there is no licence, the farmer is automatically culpable for those wages.
So it's two different things, and that's where I think.... When we were talking about this provision earlier, we didn't differentiate between unlicensed and licensed. And I would just put money on the fact that the minister's example -- which was a very emotional and very tangible example of an
[ Page 15634 ]
abuse -- couldn't possibly have been dealing with a licensed farm labour contractor. If it was, I would hope the minister would have taken immediate steps to have that licence revoked.
The Chair: I'll recognize the minister on this rather than get into a procedural wrangle about whether it's in order.
Hon. D. Miller: We are not going to back off from the bill as it's constructed and dilute the principles contained in the bill.
G. Wilson: Just so the record is clear and we know: what the minister is saying is that if a farmer, in good faith, has a contractor who works with the farmer to put together the contract, and the farmer pays the contractor, and that contractor absconds with the money or in some way does not pay the employees -- and this is a contractor licensed by this government -- then the farmer is going to suffer double jeopardy and be responsible under the laws of the province for the wages he or she has already paid. That's what the minister is saying.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that is what I am saying. I might add that I think the members are raising fears in an unnecessary way, because if in fact the contractors are good, solid citizens and they're running good companies, as the members have described, then I don't think there's really anything to fear. But at the end of the day -- that's a lawyer's term; I try not to use that too much -- if for some reason that doesn't happen and we are unable to pursue the contractor to get those wages, then this bill says that we will pursue the farmer to get those wages. That is a principle. I think your amendment dilutes the principle, and we are not going to back off from that principle.
The Chair: I see no purpose to be served in prolonging this debate. Therefore I call the question on the amendment.
[10:00]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 8 | ||
|
Farrell-Collins |
Hanson |
Serwa |
|
Wilson |
Tyabji |
Neufeld |
| van Dongen | Anderson | |
|
NAYS -- 27 | ||
|
Petter |
Dosanjh |
Marzari |
|
Pement |
Priddy |
Zirnhelt |
|
O'Neill |
Perry |
Hagen |
|
Kasper |
B. Jones |
Miller |
|
MacPhail |
Barlee |
Randall |
|
Beattie |
Doyle |
Janssen |
|
Lord |
Streifel |
Sawicki |
|
Jackson |
Brewin |
Schreck |
|
Lali |
Garden |
Hartley |
Section 30 approved on division.
Hon. D. Miller: The committee has made substantial progress on the bill tonight, and I'd like to thank all members sincerely for the debate.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 6:41 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)
On vote 12: minister's office, $332,812 (continued).
J. van Dongen: I want to engage in some dialogue with the minister on the role and function of the B.C. Marketing Board. Maybe I'll start with two or three years ago when the ministry was under the direction of his predecessor, and there were some significant changes made. There was a memorandum of understanding developed between the Marketing Board and the ministry, and I think the role of the board was somewhat expanded at that point. I should say it was done as a result of a fair bit of discussion with the Council of Marketing Boards and other people in the industry.
The concern that has continued to linger about the board.... I should say first of all that I think some of the directions that the board, the minister and his ministry have taken in general have been good. I'm speaking in particular about the efforts to engage in more mediation prior to something coming to appeal. I think that was a good change, and a necessary one. I also think that the more hands-off approach taken by the ministry with respect to a lot of the boards and commodities has been good. On the one hand farmers complain about interference by the government, but it does put the onus on them to resolve some of their own differences and difficulties within their commodities. That's not to say that intervention at some points isn't necessary or appropriate, but I think that the tone of the current approach is fairly good.
One other thing I'd add before asking some questions is that I think the B.C. Marketing Board is a critical aspect of the
[ Page 15635 ]
ministry's operations. It has significant impact and influence on a lot of the agricultural industry, particularly the supply-managed commodities, which are very dependent on an effective operation of their respective boards and on the effectiveness of the legislation in managing their commodities. This is certainly not confined to supply-managed commodities; there are also a number of other boards, as the minister knows, under the supervision of the board.
I want to talk a little about concerns over what I would set out as three functions of the board: its appeal function, which is, of course, in the Natural Farm Products Marketing Act; its supervisory function; and its involvement in policy. There is a lingering concern within the industry that there isn't enough separation of these functions.
[6:45]
I start with the issue of policy. I wonder if the minister could comment on how he sees the development of agricultural policy, particularly involving the commodities under the supervision of the board. Is there still a unit within the ministry that is responsible for policy, for example, toward supply-managed boards? Or is a significant amount of policy development expected to come from the superboard? It was certainly my impression at the time that changes were made by the previous minister such that virtually all the responsibility, including policy development, was handed over to the superboard.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is still a unit within the ministry that is responsible for policy -- the trade competition branch, which still provides policy direction. I think what we're talking about here is whether the administrative decisions made through appeals have an impact on policy. I guess my response would be that if someone flags a policy issue that has been made -- in effect, by default or whatever -- through an administrative decision, then it should be reviewed to see if it is in fact a policy decision. That is clearly still the responsibility of the ministry. The functions of the board, as you point out, are: supervisory; the appellate role, where we deal with appeals; and the signatory function for the national schemes.
J. van Dongen: I guess there is always going to be a certain amount of grey area, and I certainly agree with the minister that the decisions as they fall are going to have some influence on the overall policy. I guess the issue of separation may revolve around how specific it is to a particular commodity within the framework of its scheme. I know that sometimes you get confusing signals out of the industry, depending on who is concerned about what issues. I'm sure that the minister and his staff are aware of where some of the current complaints are coming from.
It has been suggested that maybe we could look at some variation of the current approach. Currently, when an individual appeal with respect to a certain commodity comes in, how is the panel for that appeal selected? I know there would be a specific panel selected to hear that appeal. What are the policy aspects of establishing who hears these panels?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The panel for any appeal is selected by the chair in consultation with the staff. One of the things they look at is whether any member of the appeal panel has had any exposure to that issue in order to avoid a conflict of interest. We want to avoid that. But it is subject to the availability of the people, so that's the first thing. You want to make sure you select only people who are available at that particular time to conduct the appeal.
J. van Dongen: With respect to a particular commodity, if, for example, it's a broiler hatching egg appeal, is the policy that no one who has been directly involved in the broiler hatching egg industry would sit on that appeal? Is that part of the policy?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The way it's been operating, to use your example of a broiler hatching egg, they would exclude from the panel someone who was a liaison with that board or industry. They want to make sure that the people sitting there have no prior involvement with that case -- in other words, they don't have somebody hearing an appeal who's been involved in a mediation that probably failed. That's why it's being appealed.
J. van Dongen: It's been put to me that the approach being used to establish appeal panels nationally may be better than the one we have provincially. I'm not directly familiar with that, but the model that I'm told is being used nationally by the supervisory board is that the board names one person, the appellant names one person and those two pick a third party. That is how they select the three people to hear the appeal.
I'm wondering, first of all, if the minister can confirm that, because I'm not directly sure myself. Would that model be something that the ministry and the superboard would consider?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are constrained by the legislation to picking people who are members of the superboard. We would have to change our legislation. The three members have to be members of the superboard. I haven't had enough instances pointed out to me that I would flag it as a problem, but if the system is dysfunctional, we would certainly have to look at it. I haven't had any cases that I can remember brought to my attention. They may be being dealt with at another level, but I'm not aware of any.
J. van Dongen: I'll wrap up that discussion by saying that I would appreciate it if the ministry and the superboard would revisit that issue with the Council of Marketing Boards. That would probably suffice in addressing what the concerns might be. I understand the council has a new chair, who is probably looking to make a fresh start on some of these issues, so I will leave it at that.
I want to ask a few questions relating to human resources within the ministry. I note in the estimates that about $27 million of the budget is allocated to salaries and benefits. That's a significant percentage of the budget. I'll say first that I am interested in the number of FTEs involved in each of the programs, and I'm looking here at the BC Guide for 1994-95. I'm not going to go through that in detail today. I would hope that the minister would agree to provide me with the information at my request -- basically, the FTEs by program and some related questions.
If that's okay with the minister, I'm just interested in asking a few questions with respect to the personnel branch and how we manage human resources within the ministry. I'll start out by asking: how many people are involved within the personnel branch? What is the FTE count there?
[ Page 15636 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is six and a half FTEs.
J. van Dongen: I note that the personnel branch is responsible for a long list of issues dealing with personnel. I'm interested in the issue of classification. It talks about different classification levels for employees and how, over time, people are reclassified depending on the work they're doing, etc. I'm curious about how many different classifications of staff there are within the ministry.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are four basic classifications. First of all, there are excluded staff who are basically OIC appointments -- there are not too many of those -- BCGEU members, union members of the Professional Employees' Association, who are mostly licensing officers, and then management. That's one categorization within which there are various levels, of course.
J. van Dongen: What percentage of the 471 staff, or whatever the exact figure is, are management versus BCGEU?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The management staff total 66, and with the four excluded, that would leave 405 from the 475.
J. van Dongen: Do the people in the personnel branch get involved in establishing job descriptions for each position?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Job descriptions are written by the supervisor, reviewed by the personnel branch with respect to standards and classification levels and then reviewed by the classification committee.
I'd like to add, just going back to your previous question, that the 66 managers are not all supervisors. They are positions that are described as management, I guess because of the nature of the job, but they aren't all supervisors as such.
J. van Dongen: Is it the practice or policy within the ministry that each employee goes through a performance appraisal on an annual basis or something of that nature? What is the policy in that area?
[7:00]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it's the general practice, although not everyone has it. The majority go through on a semi-annual basis; the rest would be on an annual basis.
J. van Dongen: It mentions here that the branch serves as a liaison with the Public Service Employees Relation Commission and the Superannuation Commission. Does the personnel branch within each ministry, like the Ministry of Agriculture, work within fairly strict guidelines set by the Public Service Commission?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Public Service Commission basically sets policy, but it is decentralized to individual ministries. Basically, it is a highly decentralized model, but the ministry manages only up to management level 5. Beyond that, the central agencies do more of the management.
J. van Dongen: I'm not sure if I totally understand that. What is a management level 5, minister?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: At the 5 level you get some directors above and some at that level. That's sort of partway up; it goes as high as 12, but that would be up in the deputy.... So the range between directors and deputies of different ministries would be in that 6, 7 to 12 level.
J. van Dongen: Within the unionized employees, how many different classifications would there be if you go to the next level of classification? I'm just curious as to how many different levels there would be within that sector of the employee group.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are different classifications: scientists, biologists, clerks and so on. There are different ways of categorizing employees; it's not necessarily by level. But there are probably in the neighbourhood of 20 levels and within those some pay-grade differentiation. We can provide that to you, if you like.
J. van Dongen: I probably will avail myself of that opportunity, just out of interest. I have one or two further questions in this area. In the past year, what has been the change in staffing in the ministry? How many employees left? How many new employees were hired?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Our turnover is amongst the lowest in government. It's less than 3 percent, so we'd be looking at 20 or so. Last year we had 473. We added two in the information field -- one for FOI and one for information management -- so now we're up to 475.
J. van Dongen: In last year's estimates I think there was discussion about contract employees versus employees on full staff. What is the situation with respect to that issue now? Is everybody on full staff or are there some contract employees? If so, how many?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll come at it this way. After the Korbin commission, where there was an indication that we really had employees who were on contract -- a system we had inherited from the previous government -- we converted people who were direct employees and really shouldn't have been considered contractors. There were 15 of those. We're left with people who are truly doing services that.... The nature of their employment is truly that of a contract for services, and there's no employee-employer relationship.
J. van Dongen: I'll now get into a whole series of miscellaneous topics; I'll be all over the place.
I noticed in last year's Hansard quite a lot of discussion about the Peace River seed industry and the efforts that were being made at that time and over quite a long period of time to encourage the Purchasing Commission to use locally grown seed as opposed to seed coming in from out of province. I'm wondering if the minister could bring us up to date on what has transpired with respect to that issue in the past 12 months.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll take a run at that question. It's something I've followed up, because every time I go to the Peace, it is an issue. In a large number of contracts that go out from government agencies now, they do put out calls specifying local seed -- at least, species that are natural to that area and that can be provided locally. This hasn't always resulted in successful bids on the job by local seed producers, but I think it's an area that probably needs nurturing. It's one of the areas in which diversification can happen in the Peace River.
[ Page 15637 ]
In 1994-95, $325,000 worth of seed was purchased through provincial purchasing services, and additional quantities were bought directly by ministries and Crown corporations. This seed was almost all purchased from B.C. seed producers. Boreal Seeds, one of the contractors up there, was invited to quote on 14 occasions since 1994 and has submitted only one acceptable bid. We can't always meet the needs with local producers, but we've moved that way. I would mention creeping red fescue and timothy grasses as two that do feature in local mixes.
J. van Dongen: In the work that's contracted out to private sector contractors, do we specify B.C.-grown seeds or do we leave that to their discretion?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are constrained considerably by the Western Accord, which was the agreement between the provinces not to eliminate competition across provincial boundaries. We inherited the Western Accord, and it's very difficult to break something like that.
What we have done is made sure that the B.C. seeds are considered, and where appropriate, they are specified. We're satisfied that progress has been made, and where it is possible to achieve more for B.C. seed producers, we will keep supporting that. But part of it is educating the people who are making the prescriptions. We have ensured under the Forest Practices Code that the revegetation deals with native grasses, so that would give a leg up for local legumes.
J. van Dongen: I want to get into a few questions about the sustainable farming groups. There's one for poultry, I think there's one for dairy and there may be one for hog -- I think there is. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what the involvement of the ministry is in those programs. I know it's sort of a joint industry-ministry effort, but I don't know specifically what the involvement is.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The ministry is involved in providing technical advice as well as administering the program. Under Ron Bertrand, we work with the Green Plan, which is federally funded and jointly administered. You have pointed out the groups that exist. It think we see it as an extension of the kind of work the ministry provides in terms of extension services. Where they are particularly innovative we bring in expertise, wherever we have it, to apply to the particular group's problems. Some of the most productive work is around manure disposal systems. That's an area where we have to keep working on the administration of the program, but also on the technical side, which is where we support these groups.
J. van Dongen: Are the professional people involved, like Kevin Chipperfield and the guy involved in dairy, on contract to the ministry? Is the ministry funding their compensation, and if so, how?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The practice is that they work for the group. They are funded, and the sustainable group hires and administers them. In most cases, probably because they are short-term employees, these are probably contracts. Some are direct employees of those groups and some are contractors.
J. van Dongen: So these groups are intended to be ongoing efforts, and they have a funding commitment to be ongoing?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They vary in terms of the length of the program; there are two-, three- and four-year programs. The Green Plan is a five-year program that is due to expire in 1997. There is no security for long-term funding.
J. van Dongen: I know the poultry group was certainly looking for funding to move manure from my part of the Fraser Valley to Delta, which is certainly something that should happen. I feel that we should be building some poultry barns in Delta so that we get better use of the manure on all that land there that could use it. That would provide better balance in terms of where we have our animal production units and the vegetable and cropping part of agriculture in the valley. With the kind of bylaws we've had, it was hard to get a poultry barn into Delta.
[7:15]
It doesn't strike me that we're putting a lot of money into these groups, and I think it's money well spent. I'm wondering if any further support is possible because of the critical environmental aspect of the work they are doing. We certainly need it, and I think there is good reason to use public funds to further the kind of work these groups are doing.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We do provide support in kind from the ministry. These groups can avail themselves of Partners In Progress dollars; if they have a particular project, that could be done. We consider any money spent under those groups as excellent investment by government, and it is limited only by the fact that government funds are limited.
I would like to add that in the process of developing the agrifood policy, if what came through from every group was that sustainable practices, for example, was an area we had to concentrate on, then we would be forced to adjust our strategic plan to assign staff resources, contract resources or whatever might be available.
I suggest that one of the things we ought to do is continue to lobby for the extension of the Green Plan, because the federal government has served notice that it was due to end, but I think that now is the time to start lobbying for it. We can argue vociferously that we need funds here in British Columbia. We still have problems. Industry is going to grow, the population is growing and we need to do it carefully.
J. van Dongen: In terms of federal programs, if I'm not mistaken, the national farm business management program has also expired recently. Am I correct on that?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we were able to negotiate a one-year extension, and this year we will look at the long-term program. I think it's a very effective program. I think B.C. is leading Canada in the effectiveness of that type of program. We're very proud of it here. It amounts to $432,000, so we rolled over an agreement here for the short term while we look at the long term.
J. van Dongen: I'm not surprised by the minister's comments that B.C. leads the rest of Canada on some of these federal programs; we've seen that in other federal programs. I think it is an indication of the aggressive nature of our agriculture and our farmers here. Probably in terms of trade-offs, we may not be able to keep both programs; let us hope we can keep some of that funding in agriculture.
[ Page 15638 ]
I want to reiterate the point -- and the minister has made it, too -- that the sustainable farming groups are doing very good work. It's not just farmers that are concerned about this issue. There is a very, very large portion of the public with a concern and a real interest in seeing us deal with manure more effectively than we have in the past. I certainly would encourage any support the industry can get in that area.
On a very similar note, I wonder if the minister could comment on the requests he's been getting for some sort of support for the AEPC -- monetary support. I'm personally concerned about that program. I think it's a good program, and I think we have some good people involved in it, but I am concerned that we continue to expect them to carry more and more of a load in addition to their responsibilities on their own farms.
The financing for the farm organizations that support those groups, as the minister knows, is fairly tenuous. I'm concerned that a good program here is at some risk because of a small amount of critical funding. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: First of all, under the right to farm, we anticipate a role for looking at peer review. Some resources will be devoted to those kinds of functions and possibly that particular council. Recently there's been a two-year program approved for $70,000 a year for specific activities under the gambit of the AEPC. Those are Green Plan dollars. I think that will give a new lease to life.
We are putting into legislation a function akin to what they've been providing, with the full intention to utilize them, and of course we won't undermine the right to farm by underresourcing this function.
J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to hear that response from the minister. I would turn to my colleague from Chilliwack to carry on at this present time.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to ask some questions that have been developed by the Cattlemen's Association and sent to me, to see what your response is so that they can read Hansard themselves and see exactly where you're coming from and where the government direction will be in the next little while. "In the recent budget the Minister of Finance announced several new exemptions from the social service tax for bona fide farmers. Over the years, the list of farm input purchases that are exempt from the social service tax has been added to in a piecemeal fashion. Why not exempt all farm inputs from the social service tax for bona fide farmers?" I realize this has to be a negotiation between you and the Finance minister. Maybe you can enlighten them as to exactly what negotiations you've had with the Finance minister.
Along with that question, I'd like to add a little bit on the subject of gasoline. After all, we've seen fit to take PST off natural gas, electricity and the like, yet we have not seen fit to take it off gasoline, which is a commodity that is used to a great degree in farming. If we did take that off, it would bring us that much closer to our competitors, such as Alberta. Could the minister enlighten us as to the reason for keeping that tax? And what negotiations is he is carrying on with the Minister of Finance?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The common problem to both of the cases that you raised is really the leakage. You can give an exemption for farm purposes, but how do you control it if it's used for something else that is a non-farm purpose? That's the problem with the social service tax, particularly with respect to gasoline. While we are watching this one pretty closely and it is often considered, it is a large item. I think it's a $4 million item; that's a lot. But it would constitute a significant benefit to farmers. The problem is developing a system where, again, there is a leakage.
The problem is that we recognize bona fide farmers as people who own agricultural land that is classified as agricultural land. A lot of people are not commercial farmers, therefore you'd be creating a benefit. The smaller the farm the more likely it is that there's off-farm activity, and you'd get the benefit transferred, creating a potential policing problem. I think they found that the commercial transport branch and the social service tax people had quite a job policing the purple gas that was there before. We are continually in discussion with the Ministry of Finance about ways that we can establish this, but we haven't been able to satisfy them that there's a system that will guarantee no leakage so that the benefits are spread beyond the farmers, who are the primary beneficiaries.
R. Chisholm: The first part of that question was the exemption for the farm input purchases and other commodities, other than just the fuels. We update this periodically, as we've spoken about in other years. Why not, with bona fide farmers, have inputs automatically on that list, rather than have this ongoing struggle with a list?
You were talking about gasoline. I'm not sure if purple gas is still used in some jurisdictions. But was that system not adequate to govern the use of gasoline in the agricultural domain? I understand the point with the five-acre gentleman farmer and so forth, but a bona fide farmer could be done with the degree of farming -- how much land, how much production or whatever the case may be. If we are going to come closer, let's say to Alberta and other jurisdictions, we are going to have to look at these commodities. With this one here, there would be almost a 3 percent decrease in difference between Alberta and B.C.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With respect to your first point, it was really the same answer for both, although with respect to the social service tax on input cost, it was a matter of trying to differentiate those things that were truly input to farm production and not something that could be used for something else. I know the farmers think it would be easy. For their part it might be easy, and everything is considered an input cost. But it's for those people who might be farming and logging, or farming and working off-farm, or some other combination, and separating these is a nightmare. For the full-time bona fide farmer, it might be a little bit easier. That list is negotiated every year, and those things that are true inputs -- isolated as input to agriculture and that's all -- are generally given exemption.
On the gas issue, I'll have to say we have isolated this, among other things. It's out there in our competitiveness studies that we did as background documents to the agrifood policy. We can examine that again when we examine the agrifood policy, and if it's a significant factor, then it's something we can work on.
R. Chisholm: The government made a commitment to openness and consultation with third parties, including
[ Page 15639 ]
farmers and ranchers, with regard to the negotiation of interim measures agreements with various bands and tribal councils. Is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food still proceeding with and participating in certain of these agreements when the promise of consultation has not been adhered to with reference to farmers and ranchers?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the member could be specific, it might help me in giving an answer. I think there's a general assertion made, and when you examine it, I'm not sure that it holds up. Certainly where there is anything that relates to this ministry, we ensure that there is third-party consultation. In fact, there's often third-party consultation before agreement comes forward, even from my purview.
With respect to the timely Douglas Lake situation, I can assure you that the agreements have not proceeded beyond agreements in principle to conclude another agreement which would deal with an agenda determination: how we're going to deal with the issues that have been raised. I've assured the president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, based on my conversation with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that there will be third-party involvement.
[7:30]
The other agreements that I am familiar with are in my constituency. There have been discussions with third parties on a local basis. If there are some specifics, that's fine, but I am not aware of a lack of consultation in the interim measures over the last year. Somebody may try to say that there is, but it's always the case of having something to take to the third party. You may have some discussions with some people when you're developing that draft. I know of nowhere where we sign an interim agreement that might affect the agriculture industry.
R. Chisholm: Maybe that's a heads-up cue to talk to the executive at the Cattlemen's Association, because these have been directed from them to me just a month ago. There's obviously more of a problem. I know of the problem with the Rose case, where he wasn't able to report back, but that goes back a little bit. There might be some more issues that need to be looked at. Maybe the minister should talk to Lorne Leach and those people and straighten this one out before it becomes a problem.
Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food commit to recognizing the wishes of B.C. beef cattle producers to not participate in the whole farm NISA program because of their concerns over the potential for trade actions by the United States?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the 1994 tax forms that are being developed right now, NISA is available to all commodity groups with the exception of supply-managed groups and beef cattle, at the request of the beef cattle organization.
J. Dalton: I guess I came in at the right time. I was going to ask the minister some questions about the blockades and disruptions, such as Douglas Lake, that he referred to. I was interested to get the minister's view, because he did say that he's been consulting with and advising third parties in his own riding.
As the minister knows, my in-laws are ranchers in his riding, and I talked to them yesterday. They don't know what's going on. They're very fearful, quite frankly, about the potential for blockades and other disruptions this summer. We've seen it at Douglas Lake, and we're seeing similar things at Adams River, just to name two -- not that that was a ranching issue; it's not specific to ranching.
I would like to find out from the minister what third-party involvements -- in particular for his constituents, because I think that's important.... They're ranchers, farmers, loggers, fishers and whatever else. They have to have some assurance that this government is going to keep them apprised of what is happening, whether it be in the Chilcotin, the Cariboo or the Fraser Valley.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, maybe I could advise the member's relatives through the member that they could place a call to me if they have some concerns and use me as their MLA, not the guy from North Vancouver who may not be as aware of what's going on in the riding.
But let me assure you that I attended a meeting setting up for the land claims, and there weren't any Chilcotin people there except the member from the Anahim Lake Cattlemen's Association. It was well advertised. These are pre-treaty discussions. I have to tell the member that if they're concerned about blockades, we don't go out ahead of time and muse about a potential blockade and consult with third parties. I mean, what kind of a process is the member suggesting? I just don't understand.
J. Dalton: The point I was making is the very fact -- and Douglas Lake is the perfect example of it -- that this government had no game plan for what to do about a situation like that. They stalled and dithered, as we saw and as we raised in the House, and did nothing about it. The only thing that ever happened -- and this is where third parties have to become apprised and have a game plan in mind before it comes up.... I admit that you can't anticipate where they might happen, but if the government doesn't plan anything, you know that it's going to happen.
So the point I would like to make is that people have to be apprised. Will the law be obeyed by all the citizens of this province? And will people like ranchers, whether they be in the Chilcotin -- and I appreciate the minister's point that the Anahim people, I gather, were at a meeting.... I know that the Riske Creek people probably didn't have time to go to these meetings. They are so busy trying to keep one step ahead of the rest of the world that, quite frankly, they can't drop everything and attend these meetings. But I think it's only fair to these people to have the opportunity to know from this government that when something like Douglas Lake comes up, this government will move in and take some action. I'm going to drop that point, because perhaps we'll get -- heaven forbid -- too inflamed in our discussion.
The other thing I would like to ask the minister is, given the issues of land claims -- and they particularly affect ranchers and farmers and people in the primary industries -- what interministry cooperation and involvement is there between, for example, his ministry, Attorney General, Aboriginal Affairs and Environment so that the government has an overall plan and we're not dealing with it on a piecemeal basis? Quite frankly, that's all I see now, at best. The government sort of limps from issue to issue, and one ministry doesn't know what the other one is doing.
Is there an overall plan to address not only the immediate emergency issue of blockades, but the more important long-
[ Page 15640 ]
range issues of dealing with third-party concerns? We know who's at the table: the provincial government, the federal government and the aboriginal peoples. But the third parties have every right to have not only a sort of token: "We'll let you know by newsletter or something what this government is doing." The particular point, again, is between the ministries of this government. That's what I'm interested in.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we have to separate the ongoing business of government under existing programs from the treaty, although there is a relationship. With respect to preparations for treaties, we have the regional advisory committees and local advisory committees that are established, with third-party interests and public representatives who may not be specific to a particular third party interest. There are caucuses of government officials in the regions where they are closest to the situation, and they are being developed. They will advise and work with the laypeople who are involved on the regional advisory committees. I think if you chose to look around and follow a particular issue, you might be surprised to find just how much coordination there is within the limits.
You can't, on the other hand, say, "We should cut the staff of the ministries," and then expect a better job to be done. As these are trying times, officials -- like members of the business third-party community, are working hard, and everybody wants us to resolve these things. People have to step up. There's no question that there have to be volunteers, and we have to ask our officials to work extra hard and extra smart in order to accomplish this kind of coordination.
The culture of coordination was more or less -- I'd say less -- well-developed to deal with land use and land claims issues. We're trying to get the corporate culture to respond. It's second nature to anticipate problems. You rightly point out that we should be anticipating problems, and we are. We're not governing to the hot spots -- you don't want to have a self-fulfilling prophecy by establishing such a plan. However, you do have a response capacity. We are working on that and are trying to get the local people to be teams that will back up crisis situations, but more importantly, these regional caucuses will work together and look at the overlap.
I'll just bring it back to this ministry. We don't have Crown land administrative responsibilities; we have the responsibility to ensure that the government processes and consultations reflect the needs of our client groups. We will work closely with the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment -- the two in particular are water licences and range licences in the case of the ranching community; it's different in the case of fish. We work very closely in establishing mechanisms. Wherever there is a formalized process, like an interim measures agreement or a memorandum of understanding, the consultation is formal and is inclusive of all the ministries.
I think there's more, perhaps, than meets the eye. It's not usually a lack of coordination; it's maybe a lack of understanding that there's a problem out there, a lack of communication. There's some evidence, for example, in the case of Douglas Lake that the early warnings were not communicated as directly to government by the first nations as they perhaps should have been -- or by the agreed party, in this case the ranch. I think people vary in their ability to pinpoint the exact annoyance; that, I think, is one of our problems.
We're trying to be ahead of those things. As I say, if you scratch the surface, you'll find an awful lot of work. Our own ministry has a small unit that deals with aboriginal affairs, and they are all about coordination.
R. Chisholm: Would the minister be willing to divert funds that the government would have targeted towards a whole farm NISA program for beef cattle producers into beef cattle industry research and development projects that would be GATT-green?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are not prepared to divert funds from NISA into development funds. We have already established a plus or minus $9.2 million fund for B.C. We have contributed over $700,000. Approximately $10 million goes into two beef industry development funds, the earnings of which, if matched by the producer contributions, can be spent on any of those developments. This is the largest development by far in the province -- probably the largest in the country so far. I think that answers your question.
R. Chisholm: Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food support the request made by the B.C. Cattlemen's Association that the government announce a provincewide policy such that existing cattle grazing will be an allowable use in all new protected areas?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's a good question, and it's already been answered: you have received your letter from them. When I was up at the B.C. Cattlemen's Association meeting ten days ago or so, I announced that it is the policy of the government that grazing can normally continue in protected areas. If, however, the protected area has been established for a specific purpose and grazing is incompatible with that purpose, then grazing may be changed, reduced or whatever. The positive language is that it will normally be expected to take place.
[7:45]
I don't have the exact wording of the policy here, but I'd be happy to send it to you. I read it out to the cattlemen, and we will be communicating with them. Of course, I have to say that the grazing enhancement fund is there to assist in re-establishing management regimes in protected areas. That would be the first priority. The cattlemen were very pleased to hear that. We've been up front with them. That doesn't say that in protected areas we're going to carry on with a wolf kill program; that's off the table. We can't do that, but I think it's a very significant achievement and to the credit of the cattlemen, who have participated, along with environmental and wildlife interests, at the local planning tables. We credit the Cariboo, the Anahim Lake round table, the LRMP in Kamloops and the Kootenay land use planning as providing the basis for the policy. I have to commend those people. If the letter were written this week, that question wouldn't be in it, because it would already be answered.
R. Chisholm: That letter was written; at the end of May, I received it. That was prior to your visit there.
You brought up the enhancement fund of $2.4 million. Perhaps you can enlighten us a little more on exactly how it will be used and what we're trying to accomplish with it.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The fund will be used in any area where a land use plan is in place. It's assumed that the land
[ Page 15641 ]
use plans will either call for the enhancement of grazing or the rearrangement of grazing in conjunction with other uses. It can be used for enhancement generally, because grazing is defined in the Forest Act as grazing by cattle and wildlife. It will be used primarily in protected areas, but also in development areas; and possibly in enhanced resource management areas as well. It can be used for the purpose of achieving objectives under the Forests Practices Code. Some of those objectives are biodiversity. It's very flexible, and we expect the local committees that are established to refine the particular management objectives that are to be achieved with the expenditure of the farms.
R. Chisholm: Will the proposed agriculture enhancement act contain a provision that will guarantee the fencing off of private lands and subdivisions from surrounding Crown lands, for instance? Would it be that flexible in those cases?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll try to answer you. The grazing enhancement fund could theoretically be used if a non-farm development that required fencing bordered two grazing units, for example. Theoretically that's possible, but we are not picking up costs that should be on the shoulders of developers. I think there's a feeling out there that if someone develops land for housing purposes within the agricultural land reserve, under the right-to-farm bill the approving officer would be able to make a determination and require the fencing of that subdivision. It would be a cost of development, as opposed to leaving unfenced boundaries between newcomers to a traditional ranching area.
I came at it two ways there; I hope I covered your question.
R. Chisholm: Yes, you covered it quite adequately, hon. minister.
The next area I'd like to touch on is the area of education. Like I said in past years to the former minister and to yourself, I believe this is the future of agriculture, whether it be educating young farmers getting into the business or educating the population as to the value of agriculture to society. I wonder exactly how far we've come with educating the younger portion of our society -- I'm talking about the elementary and high schools, that type of thing. There were programs such as the bush bean program. Could the minister give us an overview of where the ministry is going, in the elementary and high school area to educate our younger people in this country as to the value of agriculture?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I know the member understands that we don't have a lot of money for ag in the classroom, but we did give it a $50,000 lift -- that's $50,000 on top of the $30,000, which is more than double -- in order to develop the strategy that is now being reviewed, with full launching of classrooms to take place over the next year. We think this will be very cost-effective.
I think we have a larger problem on the skill-development side. I'm not talking about agricultural awareness, but actual skill development. There's considerable interest in developing some programs in schools through Skills Now. We have a lot of work to do on that, but we are in discussion with Skills Now. We have to be able to offer agriculture on a more extensive basis, otherwise we aren't going to meet the needs of the farming community. I don't think the farmers themselves can be replenished entirely from within their own ranks.
That's a general sort of answer to your question. I expect the next generation of activity in agriculture, now that we've set up development funds, is to deal with how we get ladder development from high school right through to technical school, and so on. We intend to utilize the Skills Now program to do that.
R. Chisholm: I'll go back to the original -- the $50,000. Did we develop any more new programs or enhance a present program, such as the bush bean program? I'd like you to enlighten me a little more on that.
When it comes to Skills Now, I talked to the minister about Skills Now, and he gave me his view. I wonder what your view is. We have agricultural programs spread around the province, but they are rather minuscule -- whether you talk about the University College of the Fraser Valley, Kwantlen College or whatever. I'm wondering if you envision an agricultural college at any time. We have talked about it in the past. When opportunities arose, the minister and I talked about the possibility of colleges. There was talk of the research station going down, and the same with Royal Roads. Do you envision bringing together all these courses so that we end up granting agriculture and horticulture degrees in this province, that type of thing? Are you and the ministry working along that line?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The $50,000 really was to develop a strategic plan to get into the classroom. It was how they were going to get in and use existing materials, rather than develop new materials. That's the answer to that part of your question.
Yes, we did discuss this idea last year, and I've actually been mulling it over and discussing it with my officials over the year. We're faced with the question: do you put the courses in the regions so that people can avail themselves closer to home or do you centralize?
I think it's a dilemma for us, especially if a large institution were to be in the lower mainland. We would have this continuing problem of the hinterland not being served. We've got over 590 students enrolled in agriculture, involving seven colleges and four universities with related programs.
With respect to that, I was up at Creston, where we will have 14 students starting in horticulture at East Kootenay Community College, and they're going to based right in Creston. The orchardists and farmers there are very enthusiastic because it's right there. Students can go into the industry and gain knowledge and provide a service with less money than it probably would take to give them practical knowledge.
I think the decentralized model here is going to stay for a while. What's important is that we make sure that there is coordination between the various ones. Kwantlen College probably has the most students, as many as 120 in horticulture. Kwantlen College is starting to develop a critical mass among the colleges. I take your point. We need to examine whether or not there needs to be more articulation between the various colleges so that students can easily get the programs they need.
R. Chisholm: I realize what you're saying about not having another central plant. We can get education out to the
[ Page 15642 ]
province through electronics. We can get hands-on in the first, second and possibly third years in the rest of the province, but I am looking eventually at a degree-granting institution that can bring this all together. The standards set would be recognized by all the institutions, and then we could educate our farmers through the electronic medium.
After all, this is a $13 billion infrastructure business with a $1.5 billion turnover every year. It does require a little bit of massaging in the educational area, because we don't seem to be developing the young farmer. The young farmers have enough hurdles due to cost just trying to get into the business, let alone the education and technology that goes along with it. Using the electronic medium, I think makes it quite possible. It's just a matter of having the core element that will set the standards for the rest of the province.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The University of British Columbia, as you know, grants degrees. I understand that considerable progress has been made in getting them to recognize the courses that are taken at the colleges. If that is still an obstacle, I think we have to lean on the university. I think this problem goes well beyond agriculture. I think it's a problem in the arts and in forestry. It's a problem in most areas.
I think it's a point that's right on. We have to find ways of making sure that there is recognition so that students don't feel they're wasting their time and so they can move from one to the other. That's an area that we need to punt over to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour and work with them on it.
In part, this is the problem of independently governed institutions. I take your point; I think it's well made. The only way we're going to get efficiency in the education system is to be able to ladder from apprenticeship courses in high school right through to university graduation, getting as much transferablilty as we can across the province.
R. Chisholm: I'm glad you think along that line, because that was the way the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour was talking, too. I believe we can be successful with a little bit of cooperation and we can talk to the universities to get them to cooperate themselves. Eventually we can end up training young people so that they're ready for the industry. This can only bode well for the industry.
The next area I'd like to talk about is somewhat in the same area of education. There are two parts to it. One is farm visitations, and we've talked about before. Are you going to enhance or promote more of that in the upcoming years? It seems to be a very successful program in educating the population as to the value of the farms around them, and it does alleviate some of the conflict that we see happening, once people understand the industry itself.
The second part of that question is along the lines of signage and what's available on the roads in the area. For instance, in the off-season, we have these massive signs on the Trans-Canada. We have berries and whatever that come into season, yet nobody knows. These signs just sit there idle, and there are absolutely no messages on them, nor will there be until the wintertime. I'm just wondering if we could do more along the lines of signage, utilizing what the Ministry of Highways has, and adding signs of our own stating what is available in the community. I know Tourism has done it with the wineries. I'm just wondering if it could be done in the Fraser Valley as well -- some sort of system along that line.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm happy to report that we have made progress in this area. We're working with the direct farm marketing groups to develop a strategy. We've got a pilot project running in the Courtenay area. We think that the direct farm marketing movement is one of the ways to go: get people onto the farm and have them buy something while they're there.
[8:00]
We're looking at three direct farm marketing directories that have been produced already. There are 230 producers there and 26 farmer markets involved. We've been concentrating on not just visiting to see a farm, but visiting to see the produce and probably buy some of it. That's the area we've been dealing with. We want families to come to understand farming. But producing guides of B.C.-grown products and allowing people to find their way out to visit a real operating farm seems to be working, so we will continue to support that approach.
R. Chisholm: Will there be more funding for that type of thing in the rural area for the different groups that put on these farm visitations? They have been working with limited funds for printing different material and advertising, and it has been a bit of scraping-by to get this thing done over the past few years. I'm just hoping that the ministry has seen fit to allot a bit more money. You said they have expanded it, but is the resource there to do it?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, as the member understands, we're trying to manage tight budgets. In terms of more money, it would mean cutting out something else, and it's not clear to me what that would be at this point. But as we carry through strategic planning in partnership with producer groups, I would say we might be in a position, if there's consensus among agriculture producers, to divert more there. Presently we have to rely on things like the Green Plan, where, for example, specialty agriculture tours have been developed in key areas on the lower mainland to promote exactly what you were talking about: awareness and public understanding of both the economic and the environmental aspects of farming. Twenty thousand dollars has gone into that, and another $40,000 was picked up by the industry itself. So it's something that seems to be growing in spite of limited funding from government.
R. Chisholm: The next area in education that I'd like to talk about is the agricultural fairs. They have been hit recently, of course, due to budgetary restraints. I'm wondering what the minister sees in their future, specifically the PNE. Where is it going to move and how much say does the minister have in where it's going to move to? After all, I'm going to put a little lobby in here for Chilliwack, being an agricultural area. I realize the Minister of Tourism has an awful lot to say about this whole thing too, but the Minister of Agriculture, of course, has a portion of that fair that he helps fund. Maybe he could enlighten us or enhance us when we come back after the division.
The Chair: Hon. members, a division has been called, and we are required in the other House. We will take a recess and return here as soon as that's done.
The committee recessed from 8:03 p.m. to 8:12 p.m.
[ Page 15643 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am responding to a question put just before the break with respect to the PNE and its future. There's an advisory committee to a committee of the PNE directors, and there are two staff members. They are spearheading the planning for relocation of the fair to a permanent site. The advisory committee has agricultural representation on it, and they are considering site options. I understand that they are very close to sitting down and reviewing a number of site options. As you know, they went out to get proposals and to see who was interested, and I trust that Chilliwack is on the list.
With respect to grants to fairs and exhibitions, we have not reduced the funding. We spent $372,000 there last year, and 1.5 million people attended last year's fairs and exhibitions. That must be close to half the population of British Columbia. We think the fairs provide an excellent opportunity to showcase B.C.'s food products and non-food agricultural products, and we feel that since a large number of the fairgoers are from urban areas, we'll continue our support as long as we have the financial ability to do that.
R. Chisholm: It's great to hear that you'll maintain that support, because there was some question in past years, especially when we are going through budgetary cuts and all the rest of it. Everything is getting tightened a little bit more.
Along the same lines, I would like to commend the minister on the continuing success of the Buy B.C. program, which he is continuing to support. It is a great idea, and it seems to be working. Will the Buy B.C. program be continued for the next few years, as we had with the five-year program, and will it be enhanced further than the $9.5 million that has been allotted? Maybe the minister can enlighten us as to how this has progressed and what he sees as changes in the future to try to make it even better than it is already.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As the member knows, we have one full fiscal year after this year in the program, and we expect next year to be approximately the same size as this year. Those two will be the two biggest years, and that would taper off a bit in the fifth year.
[8:15]
We are in the process of evaluating this program, which we believe to be an unqualified success. We have made no commitment to continue it. By its nature, it was designed to be a one-shot thing. If the success can be built on, then that's something we have to prove during the evaluation process. I have said to people that I want to engage the industry in a really hard look at whether it was cost-effective and whether we could propose that it continue. I just have to say that it is a very popular program, and if it will provide good value for money, then it will get consideration -- but only based on the tough evaluation that we'll put it through, starting now.
R. Chisholm: It's good to hear that the minister's mind is open as to continuing further after the demise of the five-year program. Hopefully, the results will be as positive as they look, and it will be continued.
Maybe the minister could enlighten us a bit on the Partners in Progress program and the $2 million that is being allotted to that, and the elimination of the agricultural land development fund program. Maybe he can tell us exactly where that one's going to go, too, and what he sees for its future.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me give you a general answer and then maybe the specifics you want.
Partners in Progress has put out about $1.1 million so far this year, and we expect that will total $2.2 million because of other contributions, so we have a ways to go. We have projects distributed through every region, although we don't have a lot in the Peace, which still has money under the PRASPS program that they can fund projects with. There are two in the north coast, eight in the southern interior, 15 on the south coast and 15 on Vancouver Island.
We are quite excited about the partners program. There are some very innovative things happening in the development of technology in shellfish, for example. We have a total of $750,000 in the fisheries area, which is more than half the program. This shows that we are taking an area -- fisheries -- that traditionally has not been funded and we're allowing it to grow, with this program as the funding source.
ALDA has been eliminated, although the applications that were sent in up to March 31 will be assessed. I discussed the program earlier, but I know the member was elsewhere. The ALDA program.... I've heard from a number of organizations that they'd like to review the decision. I've said quite frankly that we presented a number of options to Treasury Board, and it wanted to see cutbacks in some programs. We opted for the tax cut on energy inputs to agriculture. We felt that would be a fairer distribution of more money than was the case with the ALDA program. We feel that the things that could have been funded under ALDA can be financed through the banks.
In my view, since the average ALDA recipient received a subsidy of $500, that wouldn't make or break an agricultural operator. In fact, if they can't make that up through management, and if it doesn't contribute more than $500 to their profits, it's probably a questionable investment. We think the discipline of presenting a business plan and borrowing from a bank at market value will result in the funding of those improvements that are economic.
R. Chisholm: Another area I'd like to touch on is the question of how moneys from Buy B.C. and other programs go to different commodity groups. The commodity groups have their own committees that spend the money in whatever way they see fit. There are a lot of inequities between the commodities regarding access to funds. Provincially there has been a lot of emphasis on developing commodity councils to administer development funds; this has caused a lot of dissension among producers. Producer dissatisfaction has primarily been due to democratically elected organizations being ineligible for development funds.
I wonder what the minister thinks of the concept -- if he has even considered it -- of the establishment of a single provincial development fund council with quality industry directors. The council would likely have one or two government directors. It is envisaged that this council would allocate all provincial and federal funds to be used for the purpose of development in any particular situation. It would be democratically elected, with government input. Does he see this as a way to take out the antagonism between the commodity groups over the allocation and use of funds?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Buy B.C. and Partners in Progress are driven by applications, and to my knowledge, we are
[ Page 15644 ]
responding. If we get X number from the fisheries area, we respond. If we get some from vegetable sectors, we respond in proportion -- probably to the applications, although I don't think we've analyzed it that closely. We attempt to be fair, and no commodity group will be left out if they have a good proposal. I think we look at the relative size when we're looking at it, but in the first year I think we've taken the best projects. I think there's a pretty wide distribution of them, and I don't think Partners in Progress or Buy B.C. have led to conflicts between commodity groups.
I would not be prepared to turn over these funds, or a portion of these funds, to a democratically elected industry group per se, because I think that a lot of those groups don't have the capacity to go through the rigour and the analysis of these projects and provide the accountability that we would require.
With respect to development funds, I think you're alluding to problems where some of the industry organizations have not developed, or have recently developed, and are arguing that now they have the capacity to administer the funds. We ask for nominations from the industry groups, and we have to balance the various interests. And yes, there are conflicts; on the beef one there have been conflicts. I haven't heard lately, but I'm not sure there wouldn't be conflicts if all these groups were independent.
We try to get them to work together in related fields, because that gets the best dollar value. But we are moving towards putting people who represent these groups in charge of the development funds, and if there's one organization that speaks for the group, then of course we'll go to it. But as you know, not all producers of commodities belong to the industry association.
R. Chisholm: Maybe he could think about some of the possible benefits of going to this type of organization. For instance, politics would play a lesser role in how funds would be allocated, and commodities would only need one organization instead of two. So all of a sudden your efficiencies are getting a little bit better, and the ministry's administrative efficiency would improve, too.
You were saying that they're democratically elected. That is true, but there are delegated people from the government sitting on that board, too. I would just like the minister to look into these possibilities, because this is being discussed throughout the industry, and there seems to be growing support for it. I've heard support from different organizations, like the BCFA and what not. Maybe if he could spend a few hours looking into this situation, it might help with some of the antagonism we see between the different groups.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Certainly I can take that suggestion. We do put considerable resources into helping organizations develop. As I say, it's kind of mixed right now. We don't promote division. We try to promote unity among the organizations, but it's a tough time for farm organizations. This fall we'll be holding a consultation on the future of farm organizations and their funding. I don't know if we've got a date for that yet, but we'll be consulting with them, because some organizations want a direct levy and others don't. To get into that right now and respond to one group, we'd get ourselves into a conflict situation big-time. So I'll proceed cautiously on your advice. Thank you.
R. Chisholm: The next question I'd like to put to you is.... I have a copy of a letter here, and I know the minister has received the same letter. It is from one of my constituents who has been operating a farrow-to-finish hog farm for the past ten years.
My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Van De Kamp, speak for a majority of hog farmers who, in the past ten years, have witnessed a sharp rise in the amount of profit enjoyed by both packers and retailers in the hog industry, while their profits have shrunk in real dollars. In 1995 the Van De Kamps, like many hog farmers, have had to draw from their personal savings in order to pay for farm-related costs. This simply does not seem fair to me, given that the hog packers and retailers have increasingly enjoyed larger and larger profits.
In echoing the words of the Van De Kamps, I believe that if the hog industry were forced out of existence, related agribusinesses, such as feed companies, agri-supply retailers, truckers and equipment dealers would also be adversely affected. Though this scenario might never happen, I believe that a serious crisis is looming in the agriculture industry. Will the minister provide some security to help hog farmers sustain their industry? How will he assist this industry? Does he have any plan to try to assist them in their problems and their endeavours?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't recall the letter, so it's causing a bit of confusion here. We'll have to check for it. No one recalls the letter, although we do remember the down cycle that hogs were in at that time, and I think we probably got a lot of letters then. Our response was basically to say that we weren't going to provide ad hoc assistance based on this incredible low and that we had to look at the industry as a whole.
We have moved in a couple of areas. When I met with B.C. hog producers, I announced that we would establish an $800,000 industry development fund. That will provide considerable resources for them to deal with some of the problems they have. There's nothing stopping them from trying to organize for vertical integration in some way to share the benefits that they suggest are coming to people further down or up the food chain. So if there is desire on the part of the industry to look at that, they certainly can look into industry organization.
[8:30]
I think there are other and bigger problems. Since that time we've had the federal budget and the feed freight assistance adjustment fund cut, which is going to hurt hog producers in the lower mainland in particular, and the Crow rate is going, as well. So I think what's going to happen here is that they're going to have to work on the marketing side with the development of funds we've put there. They have, of course, the NISA program, which is going to assist once they've built up accounts. In the next downturn, there will be considerable savings in the banks. You know that program is government-matching, and it's actually doubling the producer's money so that it's a good source of stabilization of income.
R. Chisholm: Maybe you can look up that letter, because the Van De Kamps have told me that they never received a reply, either -- that's why I read that into the record. As you can see, the letter was addressed to the minister, so I would be most appreciative if you could look into that.
[ Page 15645 ]
The next area I'd like to touch on is the new agriculture centre in Abbotsford. I received this letter, which stated that there were some concerns. I'll just quote from it:
"There was very little thought must have gone into identifying the principal client group of the ministry and where they are located. Dairy farmers in Chilliwack have had access to local government services, while vegetable growers, field crop producers and berry growers in South Surrey, Delta and Richmond have been able to obtain professional services and disease diagnosis, insect pest identification and extension services from the Cloverdale office. With the new centre, services would become much less accessible to many agricultural producers in the eastern and western parts of the valley. Recently some changes have been made after concerns were expressed. A skeleton staff will remain in the Chilliwack and Cloverdale offices to offer services, but this decision may still be reversed."
Could the minister enlighten us on whether these decisions will be reversed? I'm also wondering how they will accommodate the farmers in these different regions, considering everything has been centralized into Abbotsford and their concern that they will not receive the services in the outlying regions.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I was trying to determine whether in fact we had a problem, or just what the nature of the concern was.
We will be leaving the Chilliwack and Cloverdale offices open. We think the centralized services will provide a better quality of service, because there would be regional specialists. A few specialists will go into that office out of the Chilliwack and Cloverdale offices, but they tend to be regional as opposed to local specialists.
I'm having trouble getting my head around this one. In our country, we drive 70 to 80 miles to talk to a district agriculturalist; in other parts of the province, a couple hundred miles. I'd sure like to meet any group that thinks we're making them drive too far -- not to be unkind to them, and to be considerate of their request. If it's a letter, I wouldn't mind seeing it. I will try to analyze the problem and get an answer.
R. Chisholm: I'll gladly give you a copy of this letter. A couple of other things need to be answered, too. I think you might have answered it by saying that they're going to keep these people in the Chilliwack and Cloverdale area available. That was basically the bottom line to that question.
In another area, this letter goes on to say:
"It appears the construction schedule and budget are on target, the facility is expected to be occupied this summer. But it's recently come to light that the annual funds needed to service the lease of the property have never been factored in. BCMAFF has been paying approximately $700,000 annually for the leases of its offices in the Fraser Valley. With the new facility, the total annual bill we be approximately $1.9 million. It is unclear where the extra $1.2 million has to come from every year. It has been suggested it will come from the operating budget of the south coastal region. This may result in the reduction of government services to the client groups it is supposed to serve."
Maybe the minister would like to comment on that particular thought in this letter.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The additional costs to run the new centre have been added to the operational costs of the ministry. We haven't cut any services in order to provide that. The budget reflects the total projected cost of operating that centre.
R. Chisholm: There are a few more questions in this letter. I will make that available to you so you can see it yourself and respond accordingly.
My next question is in regard to the government's new labour bill. Before the Chair rules it out of order, I would like to get it across, and then he can rule it out of order.
The Chair: You're very perceptive hon. member. It's being debated in the other House now.
R. Chisholm: The point here is to raise the minimum wage to $7 an hour and set minimum age requirements for employment. As the minister knows, this will definitely hurt the agriculture industry. This will hurt the farming industry and those who would work for farmers, particularly young high school students.
I'm talking about one particular case, the example of Mr. Klaus Berger. I think the minister knows the individual. Mr. Berger recently had to fire two young people, aged 13 and 14 respectively, whose jobs were to peel apples at his apple farm. Mr. Berger, like many other farmers in his position, simply did not have enough time to ask the ministry for special permission to hire these young people, nor did he have the money to pay them the new minimum wage. Consequently, Mr. Berger was forced to fire the two young people.
The farmers are not happy about this, and the young people who are out of jobs are not happy about this. As you know, farm businesses are not like any other businesses in this country. It is a grim reality that most farmers barely make ends meet. Many of them operate in debt, and it's only due to the fact that either they have a spouse or both work at non-farming jobs that they are able to put food on their plates.
It would seem that the new labour bill is simply making it more difficult for farmers to farm than it already is. All I'm asking of the minister is that he talk to the appropriate minister and get these points across. Reassure Mr. Klaus Berger that his thoughts and feelings and the farm industry's feelings are being promoted with the appropriate ministry's minister.
The Chair: With tolerance from the Chair, I would remind the member for Chilliwack that employment standards legislation is in committee stage in the House now -- before we get too deep into debating minimum wage, which comes under examination in that new legislation. If the minister would accept that caution, I would invite him to respond to that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the minimum wage and the effect that that might have on farming operations was discussed at great length between the ministries. I have raised every concern that has been brought to me by farmers. I have relayed them to the minister, and I'm now looking for evidence of affect. All I can say in this case is that we expect the very healthy agricultural industry here to be able to pay the minimum wage. With respect to employment of people under 15, it's my understanding from the minister that it's always been the law -- it wasn't enforced -- that the minimum age for employment was 15.
I know farmers find ways around that, but all I can say is that we want to encourage children to get a good education and develop skills so that they are able to produce when they are employed and thereby make a minimum wage, which in recent years has fallen behind, considering the growth of the economy. We know that 85 percent of the population out there supports the current minimum wage and the increase that we're going to see in the fall.
[ Page 15646 ]
R. Chisholm: Thank you for your tolerance on that particular question. Mr. Klaus Berger, I suppose, will be either satisfied with your answer or dissatisfied. But the point is that these children are in school and it does create a problem for them for the extra money.
The next area I'd like to talk about and hear the minister's point of view on is the area of BST in dairy. What does he see as the answer to this particular issue, and does he sees it being used here in British Columbia?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've discussed this with some of the milk industry organizations. It is a federal issue; federal Health is the key agency evaluating this. As you know, a report has been put out, basically on the economic factors associated with using it. We expect in July that Diane Marleau, the federal Minister of Health, will receive a report.
Our position has been that we are concerned about the effects of BST on the health of the animal and the health of humans and that we are concerned about what happens in the economics in the industry, which we have to be cognitive of. So I can say to people who have a concern that they should make their concern known to the federal minister, and when any reports come out we will review them, and if there is any implication for provincial policy, we will consider making our opinions known to the federal minister when the results of the study become known, which should be in July.
R. Chisholm: The last question I have in agriculture, before I turn to the things with fins and scales, is about organic milk production and the organic area. There have been a number of producers meeting over the past few months to finalize organic milk production standards for the province. What is the minister doing to ensure that they have a place or a niche in the market? Or don't they have a niche in the market? Maybe you can update us on the situation between the dairy board and these organic farmers. Has it been solved? What assistance is the minister giving to these farmers?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm very familiar with the group and the particular individual struggling to establish an industry here. I am concerned that by our industry not moving on this over the past few years, we have probably lost some market here to products coming in from other parts of the country. We've had our staff work with the organic and dairy industries in drafting the B.C. certified organic milk standards. They're in the final stage of editing. A draft of the processing standards, which would include dairy processing standards for the organics industry, has been circulated to the industry for comment. The ministry has identified six quota-holding milk producers -- three on Vancouver Island -- who are interested in adopting organic production standards and practices. They are actively seeking other producers. We know that there are three B.C. dairy processors who have indicated that there is some potential for market development for those products beyond existing markets.
We know that it has been a long haul for the producers to move through the hoops. We've solved the issue around recognizing.... They had to recognize that we had to get to quota as opposed to creating a new class. We are looking at the cottage industry program as a way to allow them in, which gives them a special place in the milk management system. I am hopeful that we can overcome, via an appeal process, the obstacle that's in the way of one processor, who is ready to go and wants to use a processing facility that exists on another farm. I have asked the various agencies, the ministry, the milk marketing board and the superboard to address this problem and try to remove administrative obstacles in order that this budding industry can get a foothold in B.C.
R. Chisholm: I'd now like to talk a little about the fishing industry -- the fish processing task force, the report that was released and the 12 points. I'd like the minister to update us on exactly where you are with this plan: what we have developed out of it, if it is progressing or if we have problem areas. I'd like the minister to update us on where the processing industry is in this province since this plan was implemented. After all, before the plan we talked about Tofino and Ucluelet, and the problems they had with the hake. Maybe the minister could bring us up to speed, then discuss the study and where we are now.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You might want to focus on specifics, but let me give you an overview. I have asked the ministry to act on all the recommendations; some are more difficult than others. In particular, we are concentrating on ways to improve labour-management relations, encourage diversification and set a strategy for long-term success in the seafood area. Specifically, I've appointed Joe Weiler, a well-known mediation lawyer who teaches at UBC. He's reviewing section 21 of the Fisheries Act to design a new joint price-setting mechanism. He did good work last year, which probably helped avoid a strike, and very happily set up a mechanism that saw more money at the end of the season going back to the fishermen, beyond the price that was set.
[8:45]
We are supporting the development of sectoral councils to bring together the industry and address the issues that affect the fisheries. We have invested $750,000 in partnerships that are designed to make those sectors stronger in terms of producing supply for processing and innovative processing methods. The salmon farming action plan will deal with issues of sustainability and develop a new, updated policy for salmon farming. A lot of the salmon do go through some of the processing facilities as they are made ready for consumption. We're moving on all of them.
One of the other areas is the relationship between communities and the fisheries resource. We have been supporting the coastal communities network and working with them to learn from one another about what can be done to stabilize and improve employment in their particular communities through encouraging processing. The direction we have to take is that fish that presently are not assigned to international markets get taken to processing plants close to where they're caught so that communities can have the maximum benefit of the diversification of the industry. That's an overview of where we're headed.
R. Chisholm: You pretty well covered it. The main thing I wanted to hear from you was communities impact -- that they had some influence on what was happening with the industries in their community.
The other area I'd like to talk with you about for a minute is our Pacific Salmon Treaty problem. Lord knows what will happen this summer and fall. Maybe you could give us an update as to exactly where we are on that particular issue.
[ Page 15647 ]
Who do we have now monitoring that situation from your government? Maybe you could tell us exactly where you and Mr. Tobin are in reference to negotiations with the Americans. Is there going to be a resolution at all this year, or are we looking at another year and another free-for-all on the high seas? Hopefully that will not happen.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As the member knows, we are in a worse situation this year. Last year was one of the highest runs in 40 years, in spite of some missing fish. We're going into a year that will be followed by another year of low returns for many of the major salmon stocks. We are in a situation where the aggressive fishing strategy, which was pursued last year to try to put pressure on the U.S., is not an option. I have called for arbitration; that was rejected. We ended up with mediation -- non-binding, of course -- in this area. The mediator is at work now between the two countries.
We continue to hold Canada responsible for country-to-country, nation-to-nation, government-to-government -- however you want to characterize it -- discussions with the United States. We hold the United States responsible to bring their reluctant subnational units -- and that means Alaska -- around to stop overfishing some of our stocks that we're having trouble conserving, particularly in the Nass and the Skeena.
For the first time in this government, we are represented by Bill Lefeaux-Valentine, who is a commissioner. He reports regularly to us as to what's going on at the talks. The talks didn't break off; they will resume again. There is some hope that there will be an agreement this year, but we have to keep up the pressure on the federal government to do that. If it fails, there will be unilateral fishing plans again, and Canada will be doing what it can within its own waters.
R. Chisholm: I certainly hope that the ministry stays on top of the situation and is in constant touch with Minister Tobin in reference to the situation. I don't think we can afford another year like the past one. I hope the minister will be there when needed.
In the next area I'd like to talk about, MAFF brought out a news release under Quickstart about salmon eggs. You'll recognize the name Quickstart, and it was about salmon eggs. This program was to be undertaken with the participation and voluntary financial support of various stakeholder groups. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food provided the startup grant of $23,000 in September.
This particular question comes from the Westcoast Fisherman. It's an article written by Peter A. Robson. He's quoting Dr. Carl Walters, a professor at the fisheries centre at UBC. He identifies three major problems with the Quickstart concept.
His first concern is that the program will never be able to correct the problem that it is trying to address. Walters says that even if the program does increase fish stocks, the numbers are going to collapse when the program is stopped, because the problem that is currently driving the spawning stocks down -- overfishing -- will still exist.
Walters's second concern is the limited carrying capacity of Georgia strait: "We have pumped up smolt numbers going into the strait enormously over the past, and we haven't seen a damn bit of change in the catch. There is no indication that we can actually pump up the number of fish the way they're talking."
His third concern is that the program is really a breeding program for culls. Walters states that even under natural conditions, about 90 percent of wild fish do not survive because they are not adapted and because they don't represent the strongest genetic traits. Maybe the minister would like to make comment on Dr. Walters's statements and elaborate on why we are promoting this program, if the professionals -- the experts in the industry -- think that it is not a viable program.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Of course, we know we've got to do something where there are stocks that are very weak or nonexistent. This program has to be seen as one that can work in unison, or complementarily, with the natural regeneration programs. It was the sport fish industry that suggested this; it will allow them fish to be caught. Yes, it may well require that you continue to farm fish in this fashion if you want to catch them in the numbers that they've been caught. But that's not to say that we can't re-establish stocks.
In fact, we visited a hatchery that did just this, up in Tofino. It is run by fishermen -- people who fish from boats, not sport fishermen. They think they can restock a lot of the streams by, in some cases, crossbreeding to get some vigorous stock, which they can re-establish in some of the rivers that have been damaged severely by logging. But there's been no final decision made to proceed with any Quickstart proposal.
While it was good information at the time, Dr. Walters has admitted, as in my response to his concerns that if done properly, Quickstart can be a good program. So we're moving cautiously with it. That Westcoast Fisherman must be a few months old, because Peter Robson is no longer there. We have tried to build into the planning the concerns that have been raised by people like Dr. Walters.
R. Chisholm: This particular article is about three months old, but the question here has been around for quite a period of time, especially his third observation -- the genetic portion. We have now proven that the hatchery-based fish are not as strong as the wild stock and that maybe this has not been the right answer over the last couple of decades, as we've seen with the Columbia River and what the American program was. They have finally admitted that this is maybe not the answer for solving these problems. I'm wondering if the ministry is looking into this particular area, because that's the area that concerns me most. If we are weakening the genetic stock, then the fish will eventually die out themselves. This may not be the answer we're looking for, unfortunately, as the Americans found out with their hatchery program and we have seen since.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's precisely why our first priority has been ecosystem protection. The Forest Practices Code, the forest renewal program with its watershed restoration part and the cancelling of Kemano all add up to concern about the habitat, which we know will protect biodiversity and the long-run health of the stocks. Quickstart is meant only to be an add-on that can result in some temporary relief to some of the stocks that had been destroyed. It's something to do while we're waiting for the restoration of the natural habitat.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to ask one question on the aquaculture industry. The aquaculture industry, in my opinion -- and
[ Page 15648 ]
I've said it in Hansard before -- is a sunrise industry. It is time we stopped paying lip service to it, actually looked at the situation and at the problems we see coming to the forefront, and solved some of them. After all, we've seen in approximately the last ten years that Chile has taken its industry and has had phenomenal growth. Meanwhile, we've been stagnating, due to the way we implemented the industry and its collapse, and then finally rebuilt it up again. I think it's a sunrise industry that has a lot of future.
One question I do want to ask, though, is about the scenic corridors, which seem to be a great problem to the industry. Maybe the minister can give us an overview of what he sees about this problem. Is he talking to the Minister of Environment about this problem? It seems to be restricting the growth of the industry, and there's an awful lot of antagonism between various groups, as you well know. Maybe the minister can enlighten us as to exactly what he is doing for the aquaculture industry in this particular situation.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I met last week with a number of the industry groups in Tofino to discuss precisely this problem. I undertook to report out in some detail to the ministers of Forests, Environment and Tourism.
We're aware of their concerns. There does have to be a stabilization of the land use in the area. As you know, Clayoquot Sound is a particularly controversial area, and we are trying to assist the industry in working through the problems so that we can get reconciliation between the competing interests on the waterfront, particularly the tourism industry.
[9:00]
Coming out of the Tofino area, my sense is that the people who live there think there can be an accommodation between salmon farming and the tourism industry, and they can work together hand in hand.
R. Chisholm: I'd just like to read from a letter from one of the people in the industry, and maybe the minister could comment:
"Opponents of salmon farming continuously use several myths to attack the industry. Some of the most popular of these myths include that salmon farming has a negative impact on wild salmon stocks or that B.C. salmon farming has destroyed commercial salmon prices.
"Provincial government officials, the hon. Moe Sihota at the time and some of his staff, continue to use inaccurate and out-of-date information to criticize the industry and continue these myths. When these issues are examined in detail, as the hon. Brian Tobin has done, one finds there is very little substance to these issues. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans shares the perspective of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, which has concluded that aquaculture, properly managed, is an environmentally-sound commercial activity.
"What are the prospects for British Columbia salmon farming? The existing farms continue to operate for now, but investment destined for British Columbia has already headed for more welcome locations -- Chile, Maine and elsewhere. Investors find the instability provided by the British Columbia government too much to take and certainly do not want to invest several million dollars into a farm, only to have it closed down because the political winds start blowing the wrong way.
"In the end, British Columbia and Canada lose out, and other countries gain. It is time for salmon farming to receive recognition for its contribution to British Columbia and for its potential. With proper predictable management, this sustainable industry can prosper and provide more employment, more investment and more benefits for all British Columbians."
This person has hit the nail right on the head. It is a sunrise industry with great potential, and it has been held back due to various environmental groups.
I believe that the education of our population has not been done by government to get rid of the myths that have stayed with this industry for a number of years. As I said, the industry did collapse, and, of course, they did not help themselves in that particular scenario. It's time we educated the public on what the facts are and got on with it. After all, here are the jobs and the investment we're looking for; here's an industry that can be with us for centuries to come, because the world is always going to need food, and we're needing it more and more every year.
This industry has proven itself, if it is managed properly, but we unfortunately haven't managed the information that's been put out to the public. There are misgivings on the part of the public and environmentalists as to what this industry will do to their environment, and I'm wondering what the minister is doing to promote education of the public so that these myths are dispelled.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not sure that we're dealing with myths as much as with matters of opinion, and I think there's a history that the salmon farmers have to overcome. One of the first things I did as minister was ask the industry to assume some responsibility for the public relations for their own industry, and they have done that. It has been a little slow to start, but when we said that as part of the action plan, we wanted to conduct an environmental assessment, they issued a release saying the B.C. salmon farmers welcome that. I think the activities around the environmental assessment will do a lot to dispel what you called myths. I call them different, maybe scientific, paradigms that will illustrate that there is probably compatibility between the different views and the different paradigms that are out there.
It's a good industry, but we need the independence of the environmental process to establish, hopefully once and for all, a resolution to this conflict that has impeded the development of the industry. I think industry is going to contribute. As a government we are working together corporately. So it's not just the proponents of development and aquaculture, and our ministry, but also Environment, which is there to protect the environment for other users. But there is growth in the shellfish industry; there is growth potential here. There's growth potential in the wild fishery. So all those things, if not managed very carefully and not done with good planning, can result in a lot of conflicts. We're trying to lay the groundwork so that those conflicts don't happen.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to thank the minister for his answers and for the cooperation and assistance that his ministry staff has given me over the past number of years, and I appreciate very much the forthrightness that I've seen here tonight. I'm sure these answers in Hansard, when they reach these individuals, will be enlightening to some of them. Some of them might not be too happy, but that's life, and that's the way it is.
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to come into this estimates debate to serve some of the needs and concerns of my riding. One of the first things I'd like to ask the minister about is the area of the West Cloverdale drainage project that the municipality has underway or in the planning
[ Page 15649 ]
stages. This is located just south of Highway 10, between 176th and 168th, and is intended to drain farmland in that area from the general rain in that area. It also provides a proper conduit for the drainage that's currently coming down the 168th roadway from the uplands area, the urban areas of West Cloverdale.
The city applied for infrastructure funding on the project, and that has been rejected. Does the minister know why that would have been rejected? Does he have any other alternatives to help that project move ahead so that the farm fields in that area would be more functional?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know the answer to your question on why it wasn't funded. As you know, the infrastructure was primarily water-sewer, for 85 percent; 15 percent was for cultural and other projects. I don't know if this would qualify under that. Employment and Investment and Municipal Affairs were the two that administered this program. We were not involved in it, because, to my knowledge, there wasn't an agricultural infrastructure component to that -- that is, water and drainage for agriculture: irrigation.
With the cancellation of the ARDSA program, the federal-provincial program, there is now no capital grant program for such things as drainage. Our partners program doesn't deal with capital per se, so local governments are, in part, left on their own. I would have to say, from my knowledge, that if there was a place for this, it would have to come out of that 15 percent, and as you know, the federal government sees that as a catch-all for their pet projects. We've been successful in getting some projects through, but not others.
K. Jones: Is the minister experiencing any other drainage projects that are not getting adequate funding? These are major capital projects, and the farm people are the ones who are affected.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're not aware of any other applications. The only one that would be close to it would be a water program that happened to serve the orchard industry and the municipal areas along the intake. I think that probably got funding; it's up in the Okanagan. I'm not aware of any drainage ones. I am aware of a couple of areas where drainage may be necessary, but I wasn't aware of any applications, I'm sorry. I think we should get a letter off from you to the Minister of Employment and Investment. That's probably the best route. We never had an agricultural component to the infrastructure; that was never considered. I don't think it was part of the intention of the federal government when they established it.
K. Jones: Could we have the support of the Minister of Agriculture in making an application for support funding for the agricultural industry?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the member could facilitate getting us some details of the project, we'd be happy to look at it and see if we have any problems in supporting it. I'd have to say that if there is to be an extension, expansion or modification of the infrastructure program, then we should have the needs rolled up into the planning process. I'd be happy to look at it.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister if he has any indication of when the results of the review of site options for the PNE are going to be known. Certainly the rodeo grounds at Cloverdale are one of the prime applicants in that area, particularly for the agricultural component, because they meld very well with existing agricultural components. Has the minister received a request for support for a new show building at the Cloverdale exhibition, which has been offered partial funding by the dog show people and would give a large building for show purposes that would be three times the size of the Agriplex?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With respect to your second question about support for a show building, we don't have a capital assistance program at this time. There hasn't been one for a while. Again, if the details are given to us, we will give any help we can. Maybe we could come up with some ideas to assist it.
With respect to site options for the PNE, it seems that those members who have a potential site in their areas have all spoken, and you're the latest. I can tell you that May 1 was the deadline for the relocation submissions, and they're being evaluated now. I understand there are meetings between the agricultural advisory group and the PNE board of directors, and over the coming weeks they are going to consider the options. I can't tell you the date when they want to announce an option, but I guess they're working back from a new site a year and a half down the road.
K. Jones: We hope we will have a favourable response in regard to that, as we are the largest agricultural fair in British Columbia right at the moment, outside of the PNE.
An Hon. Member: Lots of cowboys around your country.
K. Jones: Yes, we have a lot of cowboys, too. And we have a lot of horses, something like 7,000 horse people and a lot of breeding going on in the horse fields in our area. It's good business.
I'd like to ask the minister about the ALR with regard to the Barnston Island. What pressures, potentials and directions is the ALC presenting in that area?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I understand there have been applications; they have been rejected. The island is in the ALR, and to my knowledge it will stay there. The advice I have from the commission is that they are not going to allow subdivision.
[9:15]
K. Jones: Two sites on the island were established in the application when the golf courses were originally proposed. One of them has been landfilled with a substantial amount of sand, and as a result the area is not capable currently of being used for agricultural purposes. What is the ALC planning to do with regard to that situation?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When golf courses were an outright use in the ALR, this was a site where landfilling took place. We don't know what's going to happen to that site. Right now it's caught between us moving to restore the integrity of the agricultural land reserve and some encroachments that were made on it. It's our intention that it stay in the agricultural land reserve.
[ Page 15650 ]
K. Jones: Does the minister have any plans to see that agricultural lands are restored when there are impediments placed on them so that they can be utilized for farm purposes such as this? In other cases we have on the island, people have dumped cement and other landfill products onto prime farmland, and there seems to be no control over this type of dumping. Ultimately it gets to the point where the farmland is infilled, and there is no capability of farming; then they turn around and expect to get it as developable or industrial lands.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is a problem where there is illegal fill in other places in the province. Enforcement of it really is a resource issue. We could add four, six, eight or ten enforcement people, but right now the enforcement is primarily a local government responsibility. Enforcement is only as good as the ability to investigate, bring charges and get action by the courts. I admit it's a problem, and it got out of hand, especially when compounded with the kind of use that was proposed for golf courses. It's something that we have to stay on top of, but it would require diverting resources from something else.
Most of our resources now have been going to support farming on land that hasn't been illegally filled on. I guess this fill has not permanently damaged the ability to produce food products; the land can be restored in the future. Not all of the land in the ALR is developed at present, nor do we want it all developed, because it would impact on prices. As long as the land is there as a potential resource base, we can deal with it. It's unfortunate that this happens, but it really is a matter of resources. We just don't have the resources to adequately police this issue of illegal fill.
K. Jones: Does the ministry or the Land Commission have any authority to enforce the placing of materials onto farmland that will ultimately alienate it from farm use?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In this particular case, we would have to examine the map in some detail to know where the boundaries are, but under the Soil Conservation Act, we can order the removal, and I can direct the commission -- or ask the commission, since I can't direct them. They seem to be willing, since they're here in the room, to investigate this particular situation and get back to me on it. We will give a report to you.
K. Jones: Okay, that sounds good. I'd like to ask two more questions. What are the current practices with regard to aerial spraying? This is not ALC -- I'm finished there.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If it is spraying of pesticides, as opposed to seed -- I don't know who controls seed -- the Waste Management Act applies. Concerning the noise of the airplane, the farmer will be protected under Right to Farm if somebody chose to use a nuisance bylaw or noise bylaw. Aerial spraying is primarily under the Waste Management Act.
K. Jones: Does the Waste Management Act include the overspray outside farm areas, like roadways where children going to school are affected or private operations where they have an organic farm, let's say, and do not want any sprayed chemicals on their property?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. I gave you wrong information; it's the Pesticide Control Act under which that is regulated, and it does regulate spraying beyond the field. The permit has to state where it's going to be sprayed, and it's doubtful that they would get permission to spray beyond the boundaries of that particular field. They would have to spray when the conditions were such that there wouldn't be spray going beyond.
K. Jones: I hope that it's really very clear and that it's enforceable. We did have some serious problems in that area in the past, certainly in Surrey.
I'd like to ask one final question with regard the Money's Mushrooms composting plant, which is causing a great deal of concern to the neighbourhood due to its unpleasant odours. One describes it as pungent, foul and akin to rotting animal carcasses or rotten eggs. I've heard other descriptions of it as well. Twenty-three people out of a survey of 44 indicated that they had upper respiratory problems; 18 complained of headaches; 17 had nausea; 16 noted shortness of breath; 11 experienced coughing; and nine had other problems. Some of them have experienced many of these problems.
The operation there is a chemical operation, not a farm operation. It processes the compost for the industry and can be processed at any location. It doesn't have to be on farmland. It's of great concern that the new farm act might be making this possible, as I expressed to you earlier when we were talking about the farm bill.
The news story from Surrey indicated that they are now negotiating with the federal and provincial governments to get a low-interest, long-term loan to buy equipment to decrease the odour by 85 percent. Corrective measures would cost about $1 million, and the company only has one-third of that. Has the ministry any knowledge of some funding being made available on a low-interest, long-term loan basis?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are not aware of any proposal or request for funding for that. I think it's clear that they have to deal with that problem. As you know, it's not an agricultural issue per se; the Ministry of Environment permits them. We don't see it as an essentially agricultural operation. It would not be protected under the right-to-farm bill. It was started, developed, zoned and permitted as an industrial operation, and remains such. As you know, mushrooms are a growing industry, and we want to become leading exporters. We have told them that they have to get on with their investments. I think it's for the Ministry of Environment to keep the pressure on to require that they meet the waste management objectives that are set out in the permits.
K. Jones: I thank the minister for his assurances. It's of great interest to have that kind of support for the community in the neighbourhood. I also want to assure him that we are fully supporting the mushroom industry. It is a growing industry, in all senses of that word. It's one that....
Interjection.
K. Jones: In the dark, he says. It is an industry that we really want to support. We want to see it successful, and we have some very large producers in our Fraser Valley area.
Thank you very much. I'll turn the rest of the session over to my colleague.
[ Page 15651 ]
J. van Dongen: First of all, I just want to mention for the record about a half dozen items that I was going to question the minister on, had there been time. What I'll do is put them in a letter to the minister. Feed freight assistance and the negotiations involving the winding down of that program are critical from a B.C. position. I want to encourage the minister to take a very aggressive stance in that area.
We have some transportation issues that involve equipment dealers, equipment manufacturers. This is farm equipment. I have raised this issue with the Minister of Transportation, and I'll be writing her a letter, so I'll be copying the minister on that.
I have a concern from my own observation about what I think is overzealous application within the B.C. Assessment Authority of the requirements for people to maintain farm status within the ALR. As I understand it, there's been a policy decision, possibly within certain offices. I don't know, but I think that the kinds of approaches being taken there are not cost-effective from a government point of view, and they are just creating unnecessary problems for small holdings within the ALR.
I had a meeting with the beef industry not too long ago. This is just to reiterate -- I know this has been said -- their very serious concern about their grazing leases and that they continue to be affordable and secure. They want to continue having the relationship with the Crown as the landlord. They value that relationship.
The other one that I know the minister is working on is the J licence for wineries, trying to cut through some of the various hoops that those people have to go through to implement the actions necessary to give some credence to the press release issued by the minister in February 1995. As I said, I will highlight this in a letter to the minister.
[9:30]
I have one other area that I have one or two questions on; first of all, I have a comment on the new agricultural centre. I want to say to the minister that I think Abbotsford is an absolutely fabulous place to build that facility, but I do have a few questions. The first question is: who designed that facility?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Would you like to offer your opinion first before I answer? It does, after all, look like a barn. The first time I saw it I said, "whose barn is that?" and then I realized it was my barn. I assure you it's much better than the barn I have on my place. The architectural design was tendered by BCBC, so they were the group that did it. I think people will either like it or come to like it on the landscape.
J. van Dongen: I'll keep it to one more question, and I promise never to raise the issue again. The minister talked about BCBC contracting to get the design. What's the approval process, briefly, on a building like that? I am more concerned about the cost than the appearance. I have a problem with the appearance, too, but I have a concern about the cost of that design.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The process simply was a review committee of BCBC and the ministry. They accepted the lowest bid; it was an Abbotsford contractor that actually did the building. The costs that you might be concerned with -- it's more costly than, say, farm buildings, of course -- are because of the animal health unit. In particular, the vet lab is a very expensive facility. It has to be clean; it has to be able to control the pathogens that they're dealing with.
J. van Dongen: I don't even know what the building cost. I'm concerned from the perspective of the design of the building itself. I think that when you have a building where the walls are weaving in and out everywhere, there's twice as much wall there as there needs to be. That was the background to my comment.
The final issue that I want to raise is nothing new to the minister, but it's something that we are working through, and I hope we can work through it to completion. It ties in with my earlier comments about bureaucracy and regulation: the issue of on-site sewage. I wanted to mention seven names, and I would have gone into some detail on these cases to demonstrate that there are real people at the end of these regulations. But I will mention the names.
Dale and Lisa Schmidt, the minister knows. In their case, whereas a year ago they were virtually ready to shut down the farm because of their situation, they've gone ahead, I guess, without the blessing of the Ministry of Health. That operation has expanded in the past year to include a livestock hauling and dealing operation. They've added another truck and trailer, and where a year ago they were looking at possibly shutting down the farm, they now employ four people full-time there.
Dean and Karen Warmerdam are people that we haven't been able to help -- a young couple who want to do flower farming in Bradner. After two years of winter monitoring, I can't for the life of me understand why that situation can't be rectified, but I mention it.
John Arends has a large dairy farm in Sumas, where we simply had to take the health unit to task very severely with a double-registered letter. I won't go into the details, but again we were able to resolve that, but in a manner that should have never had to happen.
Annette Faessler in Surrey was one of the first people to file an appeal in the health unit that we were involved in. Again, things happened there that shouldn't have happened. Chris Duyvestyn, a case in Maple Ridge that the minister knows about, also went ahead without the blessing of the health unit and was taken to court three times. In the meantime, he's created eight or nine jobs in a greenhouse. Arvo Lige in Pitt Meadows has been unbelievably patient, in my view, and people like Doug Rennie and Jim Temple in Matsqui are very, very upset for good reason with the manner in which they had been treated by the health unit.
I know there's been some activity in recent days. I simply want to reference my letter of June 8 to the minister, setting out our view that the standards that we should be incorporating into this new program with the Ministry of Health should be no different than the standards that are currently being applied in restaurants for their on-site sewage disposal by the Ministry of Environment. We have a copy of a current waste management permit there showing those levels. I also have a memo here from Jake Janzen. I know there was a meeting yesterday. I was pleased to see Wayne Wickens and the Union of B.C. Municipalities involved.
With respect to the second comment, the Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Health and Municipal
[ Page 15652 ]
Affairs, along with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, jointly agree on terms of reference to obtain a contractor's recommendation on standards. I'm not sure what the background to that agreement is, but I'd still like to put a question to the minister. I would ask him to tell this committee, through his staff, why we couldn't simply use the same standards that waste management people are using with restaurants. I just don't understand why this continues to be more complicated than it should be.
I'm going to wrap up, hon. Chair, by saying that personally, from the amount of work I've done with the Ministry of Health and various parties on this issue, I think it is critical that the Minister of Agriculture himself be involved in this issue. I think his involvement is critical to its resolution, and I say that very seriously. I would ask the minister to continue to be involved and have his senior staff involved to get this thing resolved. There are far too many cases out there of the nature that I've mentioned, and there needs to be some changes. This new program that we're talking about would be a first shot at getting the right kinds of changes.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can assure the member that we will stay involved, either through Wayne Wickens or Ron Bertrand or both. We are watching the developments and trying to assist in keeping the pressure up to get towards resolution. I am told that there may be a significant difference between the nature of the effluent from restaurants and effluents from farms, although on the face of it, it's hard to see. I understand that the independent consultant will get beyond any dispute between the agencies here.
Like you, I welcome UBCM's involvement; I think it's helpful. You have my word that we'll stay on it, and I know you realize that I'm not ultimately responsible; it is the responsibility of the Minister of Health. What was disturbing to us was to find that what we wanted to do was probably not legal under the act, and it wasn't just a matter of changing the regulation; it was a matter of changing the act. I think we can ask the question: "Why don't we proceed even if it is a bit off-base from the law, with a view to retroactive legislation?" We don't like to do that. Occasionally it is done. We will try to get answers to that question. If there is a serious liability question, I don't think anybody will want to monkey with health regulations if somebody is going to be liable for something that goes wrong.
J. van Dongen: That concludes our questions. I'd be at your direction, hon. Chair, as to what the procedure is from here on in.
Vote 12 approved.
Vote 13: ministry operations, $64,618,078 -- approved.
Vote 14: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $2,639,254 -- approved.
Vote 15: British Columbia Marketing Board, $554,856 -- approved.
Vote 16: Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, $1,500,000 -- approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 9:41 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]