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)
TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)
Volume 21, Number 9
[ Page 15777 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery this afternoon are Rod Chant, a UVic social work student who has been doing a practicum at my community office over the last number of weeks, and Paula Cameron, who is also assisting at the office. I'd like all the members to make them most welcome.
G. Campbell: I'd like to introduce to the House Terry Smith and his son Lawrence, who are visiting the Legislature today. They are from the MLA for Langley's constituency. They're both very interested in the deliberations of the assembly. I hope we will all make them welcome.
F. Garden: In the gallery today are some very important people from my riding: Tiffany Bicchieri, Rena Schill, Jennifer Summers, Sheryl Bachofer, Lawni Langstaff, Lori Lees, Matthew Trenzek, Ryan Spooner, Mandi Stanley, Kim Van Diest and Merrissa Lewis. They are accompanied by the principal of Likely Elementary-Junior Secondary School, whose name is Jerome Beauchamp, and an adult by the name of Marion Langstaff. Could we please make these visitors welcome.
PARKS REPORT ON NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
G. Farrell-Collins: Over the last week the Minister of Finance has attempted to leave the impression that she referred the Parks report to the Attorney General's officials as soon as she became aware that there were possible grounds for a criminal investigation, and that she was only informed of this by Mr. Parks the day after their initial meeting. Indeed, her letter to Ernie Quantz states as much. However, once again the truth has finally come out. Mr. Parks said today:
"When I met the minister on June 5, I made her aware of the potential for a criminal investigation. I said it was very clear that we had discovered some things that might be of a criminal nature. I took her through the substance of the report and made it pretty clear that some things might lead to a criminal investigation."
Why, when the minister knew this at her very first meeting with Mr. Parks, did she not immediately pick up the phone and refer this to Ernie Quantz? Why did she wait 24 hours, and what took place in that 24 hours?
Hon. E. Cull: I met with Mr. Parks on Monday, June 5, and at the conclusion of our meeting Mr. Parks sought assurances from me that I would be releasing the report to the public. I gave him those assurances, and in the 24 hours between then and the time he phoned me the next day I commenced preparations to release the report.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The member has a supplemental.
G. Farrell-Collins: My question to the minister was.... Like the Attorney General said on the radio yesterday.... Upon being made aware that criminal investigations were likely to take place, why did she not immediately refer that to Mr. Quantz? Why did she wait 24 hours?
Hon. E. Cull: I did not wait 24 hours. I proceeded immediately in what I believed to be the public interest -- and what I still believe to be the public interest -- that that report see the light of day as soon as possible.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members, so that we can hear the answer.
Hon. E. Cull: I proceeded immediately to make preparations to release that report to the public. Twenty-four hours later, Mr. Parks called back and suggested that after having talked to his counsel, there may be further suggestions that I would like to hear. I arranged for him to take the report to the Attorney General's ministry. But even as late as Wednesday morning, when he met with the Attorney General's ministry, he was under the impression, as I had assured him on Monday, that we were planning to release the report.
In terms of a decision not to release the report -- or red light, if you like, not to release the report -- that did not occur until the following Tuesday, when the Deputy Attorney General confirmed that there was a criminal investigation underway. Up until that moment I was preparing to release this report to the public, as I think is appropriate.
M. de Jong: The Minister of Finance has forged for herself a legacy of deception by omission.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! The hon. member knows full well that to imply an improper motive on the part of an hon. member is unparliamentary, and I'm sure the hon. member can find a parliamentary means by which to convey his questions to her.
M. de Jong: She has, hon. Speaker, neglected to tell us that the Parks report existed until she was asked. She didn't tell us that she had given the report to two top NDP hacks until she was asked. She didn't tell us that she'd briefed Mr. Gardiner until she was asked. And today we find out again that the minister hasn't told us the whole truth.
Today we learned that Mr. Parks explicitly told her at their first meeting that criminal charges were likely. My question to the minister is: will she now, at last, tell the people of British Columbia the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Hon. E. Cull: I have been listening very carefully to the comments that these members have been making over the last number of days, both in this chamber and...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, members, in order to be able to hear accurately what is being expressed, it's important that the members allow the person speaking to continue without interruption.
[ Page 15778 ]
Hon. E. Cull: ...outside this chamber in various interviews, and I think it's regrettable that the members persist in rearranging the events as outlined by me in the statement that I made to this House last week.
I stand by that sequence of events. They are the facts as they unfolded, and in every step of the way we have acted with the advice we had at the time. The advice on Monday was to release the report as quickly as possible. The advice on Wednesday from the Deputy Attorney General was to wait for further instructions before mentioning the report. The advice on Tuesday the 13th was to not release the report, because a criminal investigation was under way. I've acted with the advice I receive day by day.
The Speaker: The hon. member on a supplemental question.
M. de Jong: With the greatest respect to the minister, her story has changed so often.... It has so many holes in it you could drive a truck through it. It is the minister whose story keeps changing.
When the Premier fired the member for Victoria-Hillside, he stated: "The ministers I appoint have to meet a standard of trust and confidence. When they have lost that trust and confidence, they're gone." After a week of partial truths, deception and cover-up, how can we possibly have any confidence in the judgment of the Minister of Finance? In the name of decency, and of public and parliamentary tradition, will the minister now do the honourable thing and tender her resignation to the Premier?
Hon. E. Cull: It's very convenient for these members to be able to consider the events of the past couple of weeks with perfect hindsight. I, on the other hand, operated with the information I had on the day. The story I have given to this House is exactly the same.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. E. Cull: On June 5, I received the report and gave my assurances that it would be released as soon as possible. I commenced preparations to release the report. On June 6, Mr. Parks called back and suggested there were other things that should be discussed prior to the release of the report. On June 7, Mr. Quantz called and asked me not to release the report until further notice. And finally, after the RCMP advised the Deputy Attorney General, we turned the report over to the Deputy Attorney General and left the matter with them. There is now a special prosecutor, and it is in his hands.
[2:15]
RELEASE OF LEGAL OPINIONS ON DELGAMUUKW DECISION
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. Yesterday the government willingly turned over its legal opinions on the constitutionality of bubble zones. For months now the Attorney General has refused to give us legal opinions on the interpretation of the Delgamuukw decision. The Attorney General has always hidden behind the argument of client-solicitor privilege. Why indeed has the government set two standards: one when it gets an opinion it likes on bubble zones; another when it gets opinions that it's unwilling to share with British Columbians around its responsibilities with respect to the Delgamuukw decision and others?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The legal opinion on the legislation that the member refers to was, in fact, given to both the Minister of Health and me by senior members of the legal services branch of the Ministry of Attorney General. The letter that the member is referring to is from a law professor who wrote to the Minister of Health in response to a member of the minister's bureaucracy who asked what he thought about the legislation. It was not a legal opinion.
The Speaker: Supplemental, member.
J. Weisgerber: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. Hon. members, we are conducting question....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
J. Weisgerber: My supplemental, Mr. Speaker.... Well, I think the minister protests too much. Indeed, when the minister gets an opinion, when the government gets an opinion they like, they release it. They use it as legal advice in arguing their constitutional position. The question is: why is the Attorney General unwilling to table advice the ministry has received regarding its constitutional obligations resulting from and flowing from the Delgamuukw decision? That is the question.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Attorney General does not release legal opinions. It may be that matters that are referred to in the legal opinion might end up in court someday, and we are not going to release those "legal opinions" in advance, obviously.
DISCLOSURE OF PARKS REPORT CONTENTS TO NDP PARTY OFFICIALS
W. Hurd: In her ministerial statement to the House on June 14, 1995, the Minister of Finance stated: "I fully apprised Mr. Quantz of my actions from the morning of June 5 forward." Will the minister categorically assure this House that at that time she told Mr. Quantz that she had briefed Brian Gardiner, the secretary of the NDP party, and also two paid political hacks in the Premier's office? Did she tell him then of her actions in alerting those people to the contents of the report?
Hon. E. Cull: I have had a number of discussions with Mr. Quantz in the last couple of weeks, and all of that information has been conveyed to Mr. Quantz.
The Speaker: Supplemental, member.
W. Hurd: Can the minister, then, tell the House why this information wasn't contained in her letter to Mr. Quantz,
[ Page 15779 ]
which detailed her activities from June 5 forward? Why did she decide to eliminate that rather important detail: that she had taken this report from Mr. Parks, which highlighted the possibility of criminal activity, and decided to share it with insiders in the NDP party who could have benefited from that information? Why was that missing from the letter that she sent to the Attorney General's ministry?
Hon. E. Cull: If this member is suggesting that I gave that report to anyone in that committee meeting, he is totally wrong.
ATTENDANCE RECORDS OF CABINET MEETINGS
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Government Services, the minister responsible for the cabinet secretariat. Yesterday the Premier evaded our request for a list of individuals who have attended cabinet meetings and cabinet committee meetings. Will the minister confirm that an attendance record is kept for all cabinet meetings and all cabinet committee meetings? Will he confirm that there is a list of who attends those meetings, including non-elected officials and MLAs who are not in cabinet?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The member knows full well that that matter pertains to cabinet confidentiality.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: The conflict-of-interest commissioner has a list of all cabinet members who absent themselves from cabinet meetings in order to avoid potential conflict. The only way the public can determine if non-elected officials or non-cabinet members have been to cabinet meetings that pose a conflict of interest is if they determine who is at those meetings. Will the minister responsible for the cabinet planning secretariat, who is also the minister responsible for freedom of information, agree to share that information? Will he agree to table the attendance records of all cabinet meetings and all cabinet committee meetings in the past 12 months?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer has already been provided by me.
DISCLOSURE OF PARKS REPORT CONTENTS TO NDP PARTY OFFICIALS
F. Gingell: As the Minister of Finance said, we have to listen very carefully -- and we look at everything with hindsight. One begins to understand that there has been a series of commissions of omissions. I got into trouble last week for suggesting that. But the minister has clearly stated that every move she made forward was a movement made with advice. Will the minister please advise this House who advised her, after she realized that criminal charges may arise from the Parks report, that it was appropriate, acceptable and proper practice to brief Mr. Brian Gardiner, the executive secretary of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia?
Hon. E. Cull: At every step of the way I had been trying to release this report to the public and had been making the appropriate preparations to do so until I was advised to do otherwise. On June 5, when I met with Mr. Parks, he sought my assurance that I was going to release this report to the public, and from that time until I was given the red light that it was not going to the public, I took the necessary steps to put that into the public arena, including the various discussions that would have had to take place to respond to the report. I need to make it very clear that this was the first step in a number of steps that would have been required had we been able to proceed with releasing the report.
The Speaker: Members, the bell terminates question period. The hon. member for Delta South rises on a matter.
F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Gingell: In the gallery today are 39 grade 3 children and their teacher, Ms. Phillips, from English Bluff Elementary School in beautiful sunny Tsawwassen. I ask all of you to please make them welcome.
M. Farnworth: I seek leave to table a petition, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Please proceed.
M. Farnworth: The petition is signed by some 200 constituents of the Tri-City Speed Watch, and their riding, to support the traffic safety initiatives set out by the province.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, in Section A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the Ministry of Forests estimates. In the House, I would like to start off by calling third reading of Bill 22.
FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION (RIGHT TO FARM) ACT
Bill 22 read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: I call third reading of Bill 41.
CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Bill 41 read a third time and passed.
[ Page 15780 ]
Hon. G. Clark: We're moving quickly. I call second reading of Bill 39.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION PLAN STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. E. Cull: I just might mention that the Liberal critic has left the room to talk to the school children from Delta, so I hope that he will be back before I finish these brief second reading notes.
Bill 39 proposes amendments to the Commercial Transport Act and the Social Service Tax Act to accommodate British Columbia's membership in the International Registration Plan, known as the IRP. It is intended that British Columbia become a member of this plan as of January 1, 1996. The IRP is a multi-jurisdictional licensing agreement that establishes a single, uniform system for administering and collecting licence fees and other recurring fees or taxes from interjurisdictional carriers.
Under the existing licensing and taxing provisions, multi-jurisdictional carriers are required to license in and pay tax separately to each jurisdiction in which they travel. Under the International Registration Plan, a carrier is only required to license at its base jurisdiction. At the time of licensing, the carrier receives credentials and pays the annual fees and taxes required of all the IRP member jurisdictions in which it will travel. The base jurisdiction collects the fees and taxes on behalf of member jurisdictions. This considerably reduces the administrative costs for carriers in complying with the various licensing and tax requirements of the jurisdictions in which they travel.
However, the IRP program cannot accommodate the collection of a onetime tax. Therefore, to ensure that B.C. carriers and the province receive the full benefits of IRP membership, Bill 39 proposes amendments to the Social Service Tax Act which will replace the existing onetime 7 percent tax with an annual tax payable each year the vehicle is licensed for travel in the province. The annual tax rates have been set, on average, so that the total amount of tax paid over the lifetime of the vehicle is equal to the onetime 7 percent tax currently paid. This amendment is therefore revenue-neutral to British Columbia. In fact, over time the province may experience an increase in revenue, because IRP membership facilitates increased tax compliance from out-of-province-based carriers.
Bill 39 also makes a minor amendment to the Commercial Transport Act to exempt extraprovincially licensed trailers from the requirement to obtain a licence for travel in B.C. This parallels the exemption provided to extraprovincial trailers by IRP jurisdictions.
[2:30]
The proposed amendments benefit multi-jurisdictional carriers because they reduce the administrative costs of compliance with the licensing and tax requirements of the various jurisdictions in which they travel. Carriers will realize some of the tax relief because they will be paying the tax over the lifetime of the vehicle rather than paying the full tax at the time the vehicle is purchased or first licensed for use in the province. The proposal benefits the province because it ensures a vehicle will not be licensed for use in B.C. until the provincial tax is paid. It maintains current levels of tax revenues and ensures that the tax and the licensing fees are collected in an efficient and timely manner. This proposal will benefit the industry, the province and our economy. With that, I now move second reading of Bill 39.
F. Gingell: We in the official opposition support this bill. It's a sensible move to allow interjurisdictional truckers to operate in a more efficient and tax-fair manner. But there are two or three issues I'd like to bring up.
The first is that this arrangement -- that taxes are paid annually on a calculated amount -- is intended to be tax-neutral. One won't know from the first year, but after two or maybe three years, it will be quite possible for the ministry to look at corporate records and find out if the tax neutrality that has been intended has in fact been effected. I would like to ask the province to make a commitment that they will look at this matter and revisit it after, say, two or three years, to ensure that they have in fact had a tax-neutral situation.
Interjurisdictional truckers who operate out of British Columbia are not very competitive. They're not very competitive because of the tax regime; their lack of competitiveness is not caused through their own inefficiencies. It's important for us to see that our businesses can compete, particularly in the deregulated community that is taking place. It is important that this matter be revisited.
I'm really pleased that the submissions of the British Columbia Trucking Association were successful in having the minister bring in a bill that includes the exclusion from sales tax on labour. I understand that that was one of the outstanding issues.
I'd like to make a special point to the minister that the government still hasn't dealt with the issue of the 4-cents-a-litre tax on diesel fuel for truckers within the area that is served by B.C. Transit in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. This causes sellers of truck fuels that are within that geographic area to be at a disadvantage. The act is written in such a way that it would be difficult for it to be included in the ITFA, the International Truck Fuels Agreement, but I think that the government should consider the issue of whether the 4 cents a litre that they can collect is worth it. Trucking organizations understandably go to great lengths to avoid paying it, and it does put trucking operations that are interjurisdictional and that are located in the Greater Vancouver Regional District at a distinct disadvantage. With those few words, I look forward to more detailed discussion on the text of this bill during committee stage.
The Speaker: There being no further speakers, I would ask the minister to close debate.
Hon. E. Cull: I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: In light of the remarkable cooperation, I'm going to ask leave to refer Bill 39 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
Leave granted.
Bill 39, International Registration Plan Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
[ Page 15781 ]
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION PLAN STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 39; D. Lovick in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
F. Gingell: This is a whole series of minor amendments to section 2 of the Social Service Tax Act. I was wondering if the minister's briefing notes could save us some time by her just running through each of these subsections.
Hon. E. Cull: The amendments in this section of the bill remove the existing provisions of the act which impose a proportional tax on vehicles purchased or brought into the province and used in interprovincial or international trade for the commercial carriage of passengers or goods. These amendments are consequential to establishing separate provisions for imposing tax on multi-jurisdictional vehicles under section 4 of this bill. That will accommodate the province's participation in the IRP.
M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are 46....
The Chair: Excuse me.
M. Farnworth: Oh, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair -- it's definitely one of those days.
In the gallery today we have 46 visitors from George Pearkes Junior Secondary School in my riding, in Port Coquitlam. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Douglas. I ask the House to please make them welcome.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
F. Gingell: This section, through subsection (5), levies the tax. If you add up all of these numbers, they come to somewhere around 18 percent. If one looks at it from the point of view of what is normally taxable, we know that the purchase price of the vehicle is taxable. So there is 7 percent. That leaves 11 percent, and 11 percent is the assumed cost of subsequent taxable services, primarily in the maintenance and service area -- servicing that vehicle over its life.
That suggests it's going to be one and a half times its capital cost -- i.e., if a truck costs $100,000, there's going to be a further $150,000 of taxable sales for labour, parts and maintenance costs over the following ten years. That sounds a little high to me. But both the British Columbia Trucking Association and policy people in the minister's office have assured me that the intention of this taxing portion is to be tax-neutral -- that everyone will be roughly in the same position after as they were before.
I mentioned during second reading debate three minutes ago that I would look for a commitment from the ministry to revisit this issue in, say, three years' time to ensure that it is, in fact, tax-neutral. It will be relatively simple to be able to follow that through. I'd like that commitment from the minister. I'd like it particularly because, as manufacturing techniques improve and the manufacture of this kind of equipment is brought up to date with the latest inventions, etc.... We know that automobiles, for instance, need much less service now than they did in the past, and there seems to be a move to improve the quality of manufacture and ensure that vehicles are much more maintenance-free than they have been in past years. If that is the case, and we don't go back and make amendments to the tax rates, local trucking companies will be at a disadvantage. So if we could get that commitment from the minister, I would appreciate it.
Hon. E. Cull: I think it is reasonable to suggest that if there's any question as to whether the formulas that have been determined aren't revenue-neutral, then certainly we would be willing to revisit it. I have here -- and I think the member will probably accept this -- a half-page description as to how the tax factors were established. In fact, he may have received all this detail from my staff during his briefing. Rather than read it all into the record, because it is rather lengthy in terms of single-spaced typing on the page, I would be happy to provide it to the member.
I have sought assurances, as has the member, that the calculations are revenue-neutral, and I believe that the industry itself has done its homework. They would, of course, have it in their interest to ensure that it is revenue-neutral. But I think the member's suggestion that we could revisit it after we have some experience, just to double-check that, is eminently reasonable.
F. Gingell: I look forward to seeing that from the minister. As I mentioned during second reading debate, the one item that hasn't been dealt with in this balancing out for interjurisdictional truckers is the additional fuel taxes levied within the Greater Vancouver regional area that is covered by B.C. Transit. I understand the problems: the tax is only charged on gasoline or fuels that are purchased within that area, and it has nothing to do with the consumption of those fuels. But it is another anomaly within this structure, and I wonder if the minister could advise us if there is any intention on the part of her ministry to try to deal with this anomaly.
Hon. E. Cull: I'll have another look at that, perhaps as part of the ongoing review the member has suggested. But at this point I don't see any way to be able to deal with it. I know my staff are aware of it, but it does not seem to have a solution that doesn't create problems elsewhere.
F. Gingell: If the purpose of the tax is to encourage people out of their cars -- out of single-occupancy vehicles -- and into rapid transit, it seems most inappropriate that this additional tax should be charged on buses.
[2:45]
Hon. E. Cull: I'm just checking my notes here. I don't have any staff here with me to answer the question. But buses that are used multi-jurisdictionally are taxable under the same formula, and the reason is that the tax factor was designed to generate tax revenues that are equivalent to the current ones collected. Making an exception for buses and other special cases would have added too much complexity to the factor.
[ Page 15782 ]
We would have had to shift items around to make sure that we maintained the neutrality to achieve another objective, which really wasn't part of the IRP objective.
I appreciate the concerns the member raises about wanting to encourage people to get out of their cars and take buses -- and I agree with that -- but loading that into this particular, already complex, tax calculation might have clouded the issue, I think, and not resolved it.
F. Gingell: I'm sorry, I didn't explain myself well enough. I appreciate that it isn't the subject of this bill, but it's an issue that.... I think this is an appropriate moment to bring it up -- that is, the fuel tax within the majority of the portions of the Greater Vancouver Regional District for the purposes of funding and subsidizing B.C. Transit. That is paid by interjurisdictional truckers who buy fuel within the area, so they tend not to buy it. I believe that the tax also applies to buses and multi-people vehicles within that same area. The suggestion I was making was that if the government is serious about trying not to download the costs of programs and facilities that encourage public transportation use, an exemption from that tax for trucks and buses would perhaps be appropriate. I appreciate that it has nothing to do with Bill 39, but this was an opportunity to mention that in passing.
A. Warnke: I'm just seeking some assurance from the minister, as well. I'm looking at subsection (6), where there's a formula: "Tax = TV x R x TR x T." I take it that none of the four symbols of the formula will be replaced with the symbol for infinity.
Sections 4 to 12 inclusive approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 39, International Registration Plan Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 29.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 29; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 31.
The Chair: I call the committee to order. There is an amendment standing in the minister's name.
Hon. D. Miller: I cannot recall whether I've moved the amendment, but I do move the amendment standing under my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 31, in the proposed section 31 by deleting subsection (3) and substituting the following:
(3) An employer must give an employee 24 hours' notice of a change in shift unless
(a) as a result of the change the employee will be entitled to overtime wages, or
(b) the shift is extended before it ends.]
On the amendment.
Hon. D. Miller: The amendment is fairly self-evident in that the qualifications in it deal with the fact that the 24 hours' notice obviously is not something practical. You cannot deal with that if the shift is extended before it ends. Secondly, it recognizes that where the extension of the shift results in overtime, the employee is covered. That's the practical explanation.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just putting my notes together again so we can get started.
Section 31 requires the hours of work and notices to be posted. We come back again to the debate over an earlier section about posting of workplace requirements, etc., the locations of posting and how it would be done. As far as the general terms of employment and provisions of the Employment Standards Act being posted is concerned, it was going to be a responsibility of the employment standards branch to supply that poster.
The Chair: Excuse me, member, I have a point of order.
J. Tyabji: Yes. It sounds like we're on the amendment, but we're also getting into section 31. Could we have clarification? Are we on the amendment or section 31?
The Chair: We are on the amendment. That would seem sufficient clarification.
Amendment approved.
On section 31 as amended.
Hon. D. Miller: The issue was one of posting notices. I believe that was canvassed by the member, and we had fairly extensive debate on that under previous sections of the bill. I thought I indicated at the time that the branch would work with employers, and that we would provide the notices for the employers to post. We clearly do not intend that it be a game in which we would want to try to catch out employers who have failed to put the notices up in exactly the places where we think they should be, and those kinds of things. The intent is what has to be met here, and the intent is that employees should be notified of the provisions of the act that impact upon them.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to seek assurance from the minister that the same sort of criteria that were applied to the notices put forward by the employment standards branch would apply in the hours-of-work provision, and that they will be enforced in a reasonable manner -- to the best of one's ability, without impinging on common sense.
Hon. D. Miller: That sounds exactly like how we do things, so if the members are satisfied.... Did we get section 31 passed?
[ Page 15783 ]
The Chair: No. We have done the amendment; we are still on the section. Shall the section pass?
J. van Dongen: I have a question to the minister on section 31(1). This may have come up in previous discussion, but the farming industry is concerned about this. Is the expectation of that section that notices will be posted in a field? If the place of work is a field and there's no building there, is it still intended that there be a notice in each field that pickers or others may be working in?
Hon. D. Miller: No, I think your colleague, the Labour critic, dealt with it in terms of some kind of language that would give comfort. Obviously, there is almost an infinite variety of workplaces in the province. The intent, though, is that employees must be advised by way of these notices of the Employment Standards Act. So I doubt very much if we would, in fact, post them in fields. I don't think that would fit that kind of description -- practically or otherwise.
J. Tyabji: I note that when we're talking about changing of shifts, it seems to be written fairly close-ended. Earlier in the bill we canvassed, I think fairly extensively, that an employer and employee can't, even by consent, waive any of the conditions of this bill.
It would seem to me that is what's happening in this section, and maybe the minister can clarify it. In the event of the employer having a shift available that doesn't meet this section's requirements for 24 hours' notice, it would appear that the employee will be disadvantaged and will not be able to take that shift, or that the employer, alternatively, may end up being vulnerable under this act. If the employee later decides to grieve it and say that they felt pressured -- whether they did or not -- if it didn't meet the 24-hour-notice provision, the employer could be in a lot of trouble.
That's the question I ask: is there any provision -- other than the two conditions that are here -- whereby an employee could say: "I am waiving my employer's need to give me 24 hours' notice, because I would like this shift"? When you're ending a shift, for example, and another shift becomes available the next day, and the employer says, "I'm sorry, I don't want to get in trouble with the employment standards branch, so I can't put you on that shift," could the employee take it because the employee wanted to?
Hon. D. Miller: I think the amendment that I've introduced and we've passed covers any problems that might arise with this section. That is simplest, again.... This is not a bad way to approach the various sections: what is the intent? The intent is quite simply -- except for the provisos -- that people be given adequate notice of a change in their shift. That's pretty standard. Where the change allows the employee to earn overtime, it's not a problem; or if the shift is extended before it ends, in terms of the amendment I've just introduced, it's not a problem.
J. Tyabji: Let me paint a scenario. Maybe the minister could tell me if this qualifies or not. Let's say a part-time employee was working three days a week -- obviously not qualifying for overtime if the employee had a fourth day offered -- and the employee is working on a Wednesday but is not scheduled to work Thursday or Friday of that week. If on that shift the employer says, "Tomorrow is now available," that's not an extension of the shift, and that's not 24 hours' notice. And if the employer says, "Well, I do have a vacancy tomorrow -- are you available?" could the employee say: "I waive my right to 24 hours' notice in that case, because I choose to take that shift" -- rather than the employer having to post it?
[3:00]
Hon. D. Miller: My own view is that in that case, there would be nothing wrong with the employee doing that. But again, there could be an infinite variety of circumstances. The bill is administered through the employment standards branch, and there would be an investigation if a complaint were filed. I think members might want to bear that in mind as well: the bill is complaint-driven. It does require people to file a complaint, and obviously in situations where.... We don't maintain, nor would we ever try to maintain, a policing presence on the worksite. That would be crazy; it would be impossible. Therefore I don't think there's a problem under this section with the situation the member describes. And with respect to those infinite varieties, I wouldn't presume to try to answer every single question that might arise in a hypothetical sense. Rather, those issues should be more properly determined through investigation by the branch.
J. Tyabji: A final point of clarification, then. In the scenario that I outlined -- where it doesn't meet these two provisos, but the employer does offer the shift and the employee takes the shift -- if a complaint were lodged.... Even a fellow employee could lodge it, maybe a competing employee who's also part-time and wants more shifts. If that did happen, would there be grounds for an nvestigation under this section of the act? Would there be grounds for an investigation if a complaint came in, regardless of whether it was a competitor in the marketplace or someone lodging a complaint? Are there grounds if there's no evidence that there was the 24 hours' notice, but there is evidence that an employee took a shift the next day?
Hon. D. Miller: There's no onus, if you like, on individuals to make a case. Anyone, even third parties, can launch a complaint under the Employment Standards Act. That will be investigated. If it's found by the branch that there's no violation of the act, that will be the decision. If it's found that there is, then even if action is taken, there are still avenues of appeal through the tribunal, which comes later in the bill.
J. Tyabji: Are the notices of shift part of the records of the company?
Hon. D. Miller: Not in the same sense that the recordkeeping provisions -- payroll records and those kinds of things -- that we discussed earlier are.
J. Tyabji: So under this section of the bill, then, what constitutes evidence if there is some sort of complaint or discrepancy between an employer and an employee, or a group of employees?
Hon. D. Miller: That would be dealt with by the branch.
C. Serwa: I was listening to the debate with the member for Okanagan East, and that inspires several questions on this.
[ Page 15784 ]
Technically, the situation is such that under the Employment Standards Act, there is a break in the rules. Even if the employer, for example, had the employee's signature stating that the employee agreed to take the opportunity of the extra shift, technically there is a breach of the legislation, and because there is a breach of the legislation, an employee or a third party could institute a charge against the employer. Is that not correct?
Hon. D. Miller: The hypothetical scenario that was described by the member for Okanagan East was a situation where a part-time employee who normally works Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday was asked by the employer if they would work Thursday. My response was that that would not be captured by this section and that, in fact, in that instance the employer is simply offering that individual employee an additional day's work over and above what they normally would work. If, however, on Tuesday, the employer says to the employee, "I don't want you to work Wednesday; I want you to work Thursday," it seems to me that that suggests a change of the regular shift.
The evidence would be adduced by the investigation, and I think that's a fairly straightforward explanation.
C. Serwa: In the case the minister brought up, that would be a breach of the Employment Standards Act, even though the employee was willing and would sign a commitment that they were willing to work Thursday rather than work Wednesday. Is that not correct?
Hon. D. Miller: The risk of dealing in hypothetical situations -- it is somewhat of a risk -- is that all of the factors that might apply in real circumstances aren't known. Those issues are ones that would be canvassed by an investigator in the branch. I'm a bit hesitant as we potentially get into even more hypothetical situations. I understand, and I don't object to the members trying to determine how the section would apply in response to a hypothetical situation, but we don't want to go too far on that.
The primary intent of the clause is to ensure that employees receive adequate notice of a change in their regular shift. Typically, you'll find that where there is a unionized workforce, for example, the same kind of language generally applies. The act doesn't go to the extent that most contracts do, because most contracts provide a penalty provision -- overtime payment or the like. This does not. It simply, in a very declarative way, says that employers should advise their employees 24 hours in advance if they intend to change their regular shift. It doesn't deal with the issue of whether or not they want them to work overtime; that's covered under other sections. Really, that's all it is.
C. Serwa: I have a question, then. It primarily relates to employees working, let's say, full-time rather than part-time, because a lot of part-time working opportunities have a very staggered type of workday, or shifts, rather than a regular type of shift. In the case of a regularly scheduled, full-time worker working on a shift rotation -- not a day rotation but actually a shift rotation -- that's when this section is going to apply.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes. I would further advise members that there really, substantively, has been no change from the existing act that's been in place since 1980. I'm advised that the branch has not reported that this is an area where complaints are forthcoming. I think members should take some comfort in that.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to make sure that.... I agree that this hasn't been an area that has been prone to huge complaints, but I can say that at least in the restaurant industry, which I'm familiar with, it is a section that has been observed more by avoiding it than by actually complying with it.
Quite frequently, people working in that industry are in it because of its flexibility: the shortness of the hours and when the hours take place. In many cases it's students, particularly in a university or post-secondary environment. There are constant changes to the schedule that go back and forth as one person has a mid-term and they need somebody to come in and cover for them -- they'll switch shifts back and forth. Sometimes it's a real dog's breakfast of scheduling the changes that go on all the time.
For the most part, it's not initiated by the employer; it's initiated by employees amongst themselves with the employer. I guess that under the act, that is prohibited. I would assume, and I would expect, that it will continue as it has in the past: it will be broken and not be followed, and people will continue to make those kinds of changes. As long as there isn't some zealous drive to actually make those changes, I'm not terribly upset with it, but I am concerned about it.
The difference, I think, between what's in here now and what was in here before is that now the employer and the employee can't enter into any sort of an arrangement amongst themselves to come to a conclusion or to make a change. The difference now is that it's the employer's responsibility; they can be charged if they don't comply with that. If two employees, amongst themselves, switch shifts and it violates the act, it's the employer who's going to be in trouble for it.
In many cases, it happens without the employer even knowing. Somebody will just phone up a friend who works at the same establishment and say: "Look, I'm in a jam; I've got this paper due tomorrow, and it's not going as well as it has. Can you cover for me?" They'll say sure, and they'll go in and cover for them. The employer is the last one to hear about it -- not until the shift is halfway through.
That often happens. I'm just concerned that the employer is going to end up bearing the brunt of this, when it's really an agreement between two employees that happens very quickly. I'm concerned that we're going to lose some of that flexibility because of that provision that the employer and employee can't opt out.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I repeat that the section really remains unchanged from the way it has been for well over 20 years. I note that governments previous to ours have not attempted to change this section, and we're not attempting to change this section. Life seems to have gone on over the last 20-odd years reasonably well; I expect it will over the next 20.
Even here in this House we can only debate bills in, for example, second reading and committee, and we can only move from one to the other by leave. There has to be that
[ Page 15785 ]
period of time in moving from second reading, for example, to committee stage. Members will appreciate that sometimes they need that little advance notice, you know, if they're going to change -- or whatever they're going to deal with.
I think we've been around in circles on this one, and I've taken note of the members' concerns. They've certainly entered them on the record. I've answered the questions that were posed.
G. Farrell-Collins: The difference is that this House can give itself leave; we can agree to change. Under the act, they can't agree to change. That's the difference -- that there's no provision for flexibility here, when it comes down to it. When it comes down to it, this House can change its mind. Collectively we can say: "Does everybody agree? Has anybody got any problem with moving quicker, moving slower or doing whatever?" As long as we all agree, it's not a problem. We make the rules here.
The people out there in the workplace can't make those changes. This act restricts them from making those types of changes, even if they both agree. Even if all parties agree, they can't make those changes. The minister, by trying to deal with some issues that are probably relevant and do need to be dealt with in certain environments, is impacting in environments and industries where it's probably not going to benefit anybody.
As I said earlier, you're going to find that the industry will probably continue on the way it has in the past. They will just break these rules. They will just continue to avoid following these laws, because the employers -- and more importantly, in the case I mentioned, the employees -- will realize that it just won't work in their workplace. They will violate them.
I'm just concerned that in the end, when those violations continue and go on.... I don't want, two years or a year after the fact, for somebody then to come back for some other reason and nail the employer to the wall because of something that person may have done all of their own accord, because of the way the act is worded. That's my concern. I have raised that concern. The minister doesn't agree with me that it's a legitimate concern, and that's fine. But we'll see how it plays out as time goes by.
Hon. D. Miller: The act remains unchanged from the way it has read for at least 20 years. If the members want to create hypothetical scenarios in their own minds and spend an immense amount of time fearing that somehow dire consequences will result from an act that hasn't been changed in 20 years, then they're free to do so. They can construct any hypothetical nonsense they want to, but that's exactly what it is: hypothetical nonsense.
I just finally remind members that there is a provision in this act for variance. Where employers and employees agree, there's a provision for variance. The act is not intended to be an intrusive document that governs people's lives 24 hours a day. That's patent nonsense, and the tone that the members talk in suggests that's what it is. The act is here, and it represents a minimum standard for those people who are not covered by collective agreements -- a minimum standard.
I'm shocked that even with respect to some of those minimum standards, the members opposite on the other side of the floor have stood up consistently and voted against even minimal protection for working people. Once in a while, it would just be nice to hear one of them over there -- just one of them -- stand up for one question and speak from an employee's point of view. But not once. Every single question is posed as though this is some kind of draconian thing imposed on employers, fettering the right to run their businesses. People should just settle down a bit here and recognize.... I'm prepared to be a little more laid back here, but....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I will respond, whether they're implicit or explicit, to suggestions that the act does things that it doesn't do. I would never counsel, as the Minister of Labour, that people avoid this act.
But I am well aware that the government doesn't want to be and shouldn't be in everybody's life, and that probably thousands of arrangements take place that we never hear about. That's the way it's always been, and I suspect that's the way it always will be.
[3:15]
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know what provoked that outburst by the minister. I suspect he hasn't been for his jog yet today, or something. Or perhaps he's had too much coffee.
I just want to set the record straight on this section. My comments were coming from the employee's point of view, having spent years in that industry and seen it. I was raising those concerns and will continue to raise those concerns on the advice and on the side of the employee. Further, I have stood up in this House not once, not twice, but hundreds of times, advocating on behalf of workers for a whole variety of things, including, most notably -- as I'm sure the minister is aware -- the Workers' Compensation Board.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says that it's easy to be a critic. I'd love to have the chance to be a minister. I hope that will happen after the next election, and the minister will have a chance to have the easy job of being a critic once again.
Hon. Speaker, I just wanted to put my comments on the record. I'm glad they are out there. We'll see how this section of the act works over a period of time.
C. Serwa: Well, the hon. minister certainly is inciting more debate on this section with his auto-rant mode. The minister has to agree with this side of the House that when he talks about common sense, it's altogether too uncommon on that side of the House. That's what the concern is on this side of the House.
Although the minister is correct in indicating that this has been in this section for a long time, it depends how that particular element is interpreted now with respect to all the other changes in this act. If it is interpreted and utilized with a great deal of common sense, then I feel some comfort. However, knowing the minister and the particular concerns and viewpoint of government, I suggest that it will be very difficult for employers to live with this section if common sense is lacking.
If the normal administration of the act is what it has been in the past 20 years, I think we can relax. But if the minister is
[ Page 15786 ]
going to carry on in his vitriolic manner and assume that all owners or all employers are very rich, and the poor downtrodden are all workers, then the minister is really cruising for a bruising. He hasn't utilized much common sense; he hasn't utilized any common sense with respect to farm labour contractors. If the minister had used that, he would have ensured that farm labour contractors are not only licensed but bonded, and he's refused to do even that. So I don't have a great deal of confidence in the minister's outbursts.
The Chair: I think the cathartic experience is coming to an end, and we'll actually be moving on shortly. Okanagan East.
J. Tyabji: It's not often we see this minister filibustering his own bills. I think it would have been unfair for us not to have stood up and made a comment after that rant.
The PDA's voting record is certainly consistent with taking the middle ground. Sometimes we're on the side of the employee and sometimes on the side of the employer. I feel as if I opened up a can of worms with this section. It's important to note that the minister is oversimplifying this if he's trying to look at this section in isolation from the other sections he has just introduced. That was the point with which we began debate on this section. We think it's going to be problematic, especially because it's making it very unwieldy. Having said that, I don't want to say too much and provoke another outburst.
Section 31 as amended approved.
Section 32 approved.
On section 33.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know the minister has an amendment on 34, and we'll probably proceed first. But before we move off section 33, it ties in, I'm sure, with consultations the minister has been having, particularly with the Times Colonist. But it applies to other jurisdictions, too, in the issue of split shifts. It's something I hadn't thought of when I first saw the bill, but it's something that once brought to light does warrant a bit of discussion.
One doesn't think of split shifts, necessarily, when one thinks of delivering papers. You think you deliver the paper, and then it's not until the next day that you deliver the paper again. But there is another job that those paper delivery people do, and that is collect payment for the delivery. Oftentimes that is done in the evening, over the dinner hour or perhaps later, when people are generally at home The question that was posed to me and that I'd like to pass on to the minister is: what about the times when the person is out there collecting until 9 o'clock at night or whatever, and then they have to get up the next morning? In compliance with the other sections of this bill, they would likely have to start delivery possibly as early as 3 a.m. -- not likely, but possibly as early as three in the morning -- or maybe 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. Is this section going to have some impact on that? If so, is that part of the negotiations and discussions that are taking place between the ministry and the Times Colonist particularly, but certainly also the industry?
Hon. D. Miller: No, it's not.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that no, it's not part of the discussions. I asked a series of questions. Perhaps I'll ask the first question again. Will this section impact on the ability to do collections in the evening and then turn around in the morning and start paper delivery at 6 a.m.? If one were to collect until 9 p.m., and then start delivering papers at 6 o'clock in the morning -- which isn't an unreasonable hour at all -- you're not meeting the requirements of 12 hours as designed by this section of the act. Is there likely to be an exemption made in the regulations portion, or is there some other way of dealing with that in this bill or in this section?
If we don't deal with it in some capacity, then in fact, by legislation, we are probably pushing the Times Colonist and others, as I said, to a model similar to what's taking place in Vancouver, where they have prepayment only. They don't come around and collect anymore; you pay in advance by credit card or whatever. Is that where we're heading? I think if we make these changes you'll have to do that, or you'll have to have a different person collecting than the person who is delivering the paper.
Hon. D. Miller: I can advise that staff are continuing to work, as I outlined in the previous discussion, with the newspaper people in terms of the issues that are raised here. The only comment I would make is that typically -- and I guess I'm really reflecting more on the student deliverer -- the real issue is on-time delivery, whether it's a morning newspaper or evening newspaper. Typically, again, the collections are left to the individual delivering the newspaper. For example, all of us, I think, recall a kid knocking at the door, saying: "Collecting at the end of the month." That is in a sense, if you like, less of a described time of work, typically or historically. But I don't think that this section has any negative consequences or prohibitions in terms of the other issue, which is the impact of bringing newspaper carriers under the act.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's slightly different than the first answer, and I assume it's because some consultation took place there. But if that is part of the negotiations or discussions that are taking place, I'm glad to hear that; hopefully it can be somehow circumvented so as not to cause a large impact here. But I am still concerned, because I don't see how a person -- particularly where the delivery takes place seven days a week, for example, or even six days a week -- can comply with that and still collect effectively and deliver effectively without violating this section of the act.
If that is under discussion and that's not the intent of this section, and there is an attempt to get around that in some way, then I'm glad to hear that. I'll await the outcome of those negotiations, but I do believe that this section, as worded, would cause those problems.
Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's comments. Again, I don't see this as being particularly problematic in the context of the discussions that staff are continuing to have with people in the newspaper business.
R. Chisholm: I realize that this section is basically the same as the old section in the old act; there are a couple of word changes. But in the agriculture picture, you could have split shifts that would go over the 12-hour period. I'm just wondering how the minister is going to handle that, because technically, if a farmer has a hired hand who milks cows at 4
[ Page 15787 ]
o'clock in the morning, say, and has another task at 6 o'clock the next evening, that would not be within the 12-hour time frame. How is the minister going to confront that situation, when technically the farmer is breaking the law as far as the Labour Code is concerned? Maybe he could clarify this a bit for me.
Hon. D. Miller: The agricultural sector is excluded from this provision of the act.
Section 33 approved.
On section 34.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, I would move the amendment to section 34 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 34, in the proposed section 34 (2) (a) and (b) and (3) by deleting "regular rate" and substituting "regular wage".]
Amendment approved.
On section 34 as amended.
J. Tyabji: It would appear to me that there's a bit of a sleeper in this section, unless I'm misreading it, and that is section 34(1)(b), which reads: "If an employee reports for work on any day as required by an employer, the employer must pay the employee for...(b) if longer, the entire period the employee is required to be at the workplace."
Are we talking about being required at the workplace for commencement of a shift or being required at the workplace if the employee has begun work...? The reason I'm asking that is that it would appear from the way it's worded that that could be a period of time longer than four hours, which was the maximum before. That's what I need to know: is it possibly longer than a four-hour time period?
Hon. D. Miller: The pay requirement is really for the entire period the employee is required to be at the workplace; in any event, it's a minimum of four hours.
J. Tyabji: For example, if someone is scheduled for an eight-hour shift, would we assume that that eight-hour shift is deemed to be the time that they were required to be at the workplace? Therefore they could conceivably show up for an eight-hour shift; if they're not required to work, they leave, but they are still paid for that time.
Hon. D. Miller: That's a misinterpretation. The explanation I just offered is the one that would prevail.
J. Tyabji: This is a new section, and I would like the minister to explain how it is to be read, then, where it says: "...(b) if longer...." Are we talking about a period of time where the employee shows up for work and then is not required for work? Or are we talking about being paid for a shift that the employee works?
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I think for the third time, if an employee reports for work.... The act is very clear. Four hours is the minimum. If the employer, for example, says, "I do not need you; I don't want you to stay here," you're entitled to four hours' pay. If, on the other hand, the employer says, "I only want you to work for four hours," you'd get paid for four hours. In those circumstances it would seem that most prudent employers would say: "Well, even though I don't need you, I'm going to use you for some kind of activity, because I'm required to pay you four hours anyway."
J. Tyabji: Is the minister, then, saying that there aren't cases where an employee would show up for work, not work over four hours and be paid for more than four hours? If the employee doesn't actually do any work, four hours becomes the minimum and the maximum. If they commence work.... For example, the employee is scheduled for eight hours and works for one. The employee is paid for four hours, regardless. It couldn't be more than four unless the employee works five hours. Is that correct?
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Okay.
[3:30]
G. Farrell-Collins: I think that 34(1)(b) is just the safety valve to make sure the section isn't misinterpreted, that somebody could work for eight hours and only have to be paid for four hours. I think that's all it is.
I could get into the newspaper stuff again and apply my question there, but I understand the minister is negotiating that -- I assume that is one. There is a whole series of implications of going to the four hours, which we sort of discussed a little earlier also.
The question I have is with subsection (3) in particular, where it talks about school students. Is that K to 12, or does that include university or post-secondary students also? Or is it strictly school students?
Hon. D. Miller: Typically K to 12, but the regulations that we.... Under the regulations, it does not apply to a post-secondary student who is employed by the university vocational school or other institution, or as defined in the College and Institute Act.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's probably a small question and probably won't occur very often, but there are students who will be taking post-secondary and going back at the same time and upgrading in certain areas at a K-to-12 school. Perhaps they are redoing their algebra or chemistry or something. What is the requirement in that case? Would age have something to do with it? Would it just be determined that if they had any courses at all in the K-to-12 system they would be excluded, or would we just wait until that happened and make a decision on it through the tribunal?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, probably. There may be some peculiar circumstance where the person is straddling the K-to-12 system and the post-secondary system, but the definitions section of the bill defines a school student as a person enrolled in a school as defined in the School Act.
G. Farrell-Collins: There are occasions when an employee may be called in for work -- business isn't what was expected at the time of scheduling and the employee may have other things they'd rather be doing. Can they voluntarily
[ Page 15788 ]
waive the four hours and say, "I've been here two hours, and I'd really like to go home; I've got other things to do," or "My kid's at day care, and I'd like to spend time with my kids," or whatever the case may be? Can an employee voluntarily waive that four-hour provision, as I believe they were able to do in the past?
Hon. D. Miller: I want to be careful how I phrase this, because I've said earlier -- and I want to reinforce it -- that you can't, even by mutual agreement, waive the act. But there may be a circumstance where the employee says, for example: "I didn't really want to come to work today. I was kind of hoping I'd get the day off. I'm going home on my own volition." In that case, you'd appreciate that it would be more of a circumstance with the employee saying, "I'd rather not be at work," than the employer saying: "There's no work for you." But I want to be very cautious in giving that explanation, so I hope the member appreciates my response.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad for that explanation, because I know there are cases, for example -- again in the restaurant industry, which I'm familiar with -- where somebody comes to work, and, if it's busy, you can make $30 or $40 an hour including gratuities, and that's more than enough to pay for day care and whatever other expenses may exist -- babysitter, travel expenses or whatever. But if one is there and making minimum wage, it's not worth it to stay when you're paying $5 or $6 an hour for babysitters. So there are options there. I'm glad to hear that if an employee feels that it's to their benefit to leave work, that's not going to be held against the employer as time goes by.
Hon. D. Miller: I think the member and I see eye to eye, and I'd just like to inform the House that I, too, was part of the restaurant industry at one time. I was the second chef in the Cafe de la Rose. There were two of us, and I certainly learned quite a bit from that valuable work experience.
G. Farrell-Collins: Having a bit of experience, I'm glad he was in the kitchen and not at the front door.
Section 34 as amended approved.
On section 35.
J. Tyabji: Since we're in a mood of levity, I want to point out that as we get into the late days of the House, I think the schedule of the Legislature would probably be in violation of this section of the act.
Section 35 approved.
On section 36.
J. Tyabji: I'm a bit confused about this section, because we've gone through so much detail in the previous sections. I understand that section 35 says that flexible work schedules are an exception. We're talking about averages. But, for example, in subsection (1)(b), where it says: "An employer may adopt a flexible work schedule...if the employer has followed the procedure in the regulations...." Will that procedure outline a process to adopt a work schedule similar to what we see in the Labour Code for people who are under collective agreements? How are those regulations going to be drawn up? Is there going to be a voting process? Is there going to be a meeting process? Is there going to be a quorum? Is there going to be evidence? Does it have to be filed with the director after a flexible work schedule has been adopted? What kind of parameters could we see around the flexible work schedule?
Hon. D. Miller: Just to clarify, since we're really dealing with section 37, I'm quite agreeable to doing this and passing them both together for the convenience of the House.
The branch will, first of all, develop common flexible work schedules. They will be, if you like, on the shelf. The requirement is that 65 percent of the employees would have to agree to bringing in a flexible work schedule. In terms of how that's obtained, that will be something that the branch will determine in conjunction with the employer and employees. Rather than prescribing, for example, that all must sign or vote -- or whatever the form might be -- the branch would have to be satisfied that 65 percent support was there.
J. Tyabji: I'm assuming that we've had an agreement to do sections 36 and 37 at the same time. Is that correct?
The Chair: Somehow we slipped into section 37, but if it's....
J. Tyabji: I thought we actually passed section 36 after my crack about us being in violation of the Labour Code in our debates.
The Chair: No, I don't believe so. Shall we deal with section 36 first? Is that preferable? Shall section 36 pass?
Section 36 approved.
On section 37.
J. Tyabji: To follow up on that point, when the minister says that the employers will be helping to prescribe the regulations for the flexible work schedule, is he saying that the branch will be undertaking to actually write up forms or templates for work schedules, depending on the profession or the work environment? If that's the case, are there any precedents in existence right now for a flexible work schedule that the branch is currently dealing with? We know that this act is going to be a lot more stringent than in the past about flexibility of hours worked within a work cycle. I'd just like to know if there's any preliminary work out there. If there is, how close is it to being finished? How soon after this act is passed will the industry have some expectation that they will be able to have something to work with under this section?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we are incorporating the body of knowledge obtained by the branch with respect to the kinds of variances that are in place and the various work schedules that are the common, if you like, variances from the traditional five days a week, eight hours a day. We have shared that with employers, and we will have four prototype, if you like, variations that employers can take off the shelf.
[ Page 15789 ]
J. Tyabji: Earlier in the debate, on another section, I asked if there would be some software available. Is that how the minister sees this happening, or is this going to be paperwork? How does this work out? What are the industries where there are discussions going on right now, where there is some sort of prototype?
Hon. D. Miller: I don't believe any software is required. Here on one page are four flexible schedules that are available. We have worked with an organization that.... I've spent considerable time consulting with the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, the Business Council of B.C. and others. They're aware of this work.
G. Farrell-Collins: My question to the minister with regard to section 37 is relating to subsection (1)(c) -- the 65 percent. I know he has probably been expecting this question. Can the minister tell me why it is that in a non-union workplace we require the employees to approve this type of a provision by 65 percent, whereas in an organized workplace we expect employees to ratify a collective agreement by 50 percent plus one? Can the minister tell us why there is that 15 percent difference here? Where is the harmonization in this case between the organized and the unorganized workplace?
Hon. D. Miller: First of all, we looked at other jurisdictions. The federal legislation, for example, requires 70 percent. We reduced it from that. The existing act requires virtually 100 percent, and we felt that 65 percent was reasonable. I think there's another argument between the organized and the unorganized sectors. There is a form and structure with respect to the organized sector that is not there with the unorganized. There are officers, there's an organization and there are methods of doing business -- taking votes, for example, on various issues. But there are not in the unorganized sector. There is a collection of employees, and with respect to a shift schedule that governs peoples' lives, I would think any employer would want the comfort of knowing that somewhat more than 50 percent approved of it. I would suggest that if you only had 50 percent you might have some issues around management and unhappy workers. So 65 percent seemed to be a reasonable standard, looking at those kind of issues and looking at what other requirements are -- including the existing requirement in the act, which is somewhat more onerous than the section we're debating.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess the minister has come to the 65 percent for a variety of reasons. I still find it unusual that one would ask for 65 percent approval from an unorganized workplace as opposed to an organized workplace where 50 percent is sufficient.
Moving down through the section, subsection (2) allows the employer to cancel it at any time. But more importantly, subsection (3) says: "The director may cancel a flexible work schedule if...an employee affected by the schedule complains in writing to the director." I guess they have to prove -- or the director has to be satisfied -- that there was coercion or some other form of intimidation there. The employee would not.... One complaint wouldn't necessarily overrule all the other 65. There would have to be some other violation of the provisions of arriving at that agreement before that schedule was overturned. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Miller: This recommendation was made by Thompson, and I understand that under this change in our act -- in fact, in our Employment Standards Act here in British Columbia -- we will have the most flexible system of any province in Canada, and the federal state.
L. Hanson: I listened with interest to the minister's remarks about the 65 percent versus the 50 percent. I just want to point out to the minister that in the case of the 50 percent in the organization where there's a provision for voting as a result of that, it is only after that vote is held. I have expressed many times in debate over another bill that that preliminary vote is very similar to this preliminary vote where the people agree to a flexible schedule. I find it difficult to accept the minister's explanation that there is a different circumstance in the decision to become certified. After that, there is certainly a formal voting procedure and a formal organization that does cover it. But the initial one I see as very little different from the 65 percent.
[3:45]
Hon. D. Miller: I'm tempted to go back and recreate some of the debates that were held under the old legislation. As I recall, I reminded the member opposite, who was then in the cabinet of the last government, that when it came to the issue of a secret ballet to determine the leadership of Mr. Vander Zalm at a convention held up in the interior, I believe he was on the side of those who said: "No, no, we can't possibly have a secret ballot." That issue was defeated. There was no secret ballot, and we all know the history.
I think we've tried to lay down a very fair, flexible and easy system. We'll have four of those variations on the shelf. It's intended to reduce the paperwork burden. It's intended to make it easier for employers and employees to resolve these kinds of issues. I don't think there's anything wrong with having the most flexible system in Canada. I think it's what we would all like. Therefore, really, I don't know what more I can say about this section.
L. Hanson: Actually, I can't let that pass without some comment, because we are here discussing the initiative of this government. I expect the minister to defend the initiative of this government, not tell us how well it compares to the other governments and past governments. So I just remind the minister to defend what he is putting in front of us, not what happened in the past.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that in section 37(1)(b), where it talks about the procedure to be followed in the regulations, it will be a procedure whereby authorization is sought from the employees in some capacity. Do we have any idea what that might be? Or is that still in the drafting and consultation stages?
Hon. D. Miller: That's still work in progress. Some of the issues that might be contemplated are, for example, a sign-up sheet.... But I did deal with that. Yes, that does deal with it.
J. Tyabji: I just want to make sure I get on record that the Progressive Democratic Alliance is the only party in this House that actually stands for a secret ballot vote. We hope that the debate we carried forward -- at that time I was with a different party, and I fought very hard for a secret ballot vote -- on the Labour Code, which this government did not accept.... I hope that in drawing up the regulations there
[ Page 15790 ]
would be some recognized procedures for allowing ratification of an agreement. I'm be looking forward to those regulations.
But I actually had started off the questioning on this section by asking the minister if there were any procedures in place right now, which he says are in the draft process. I had asked if they would be modeled on the Labour Code. I don't know if the minister heard that part of the question, but he certainly hasn't answered it. The Labour Code has a fairly detailed outline of ratification and voting. I'm just wondering if that's going to be the model they draw on for this. If not, why not?
Hon. D. Miller: The answer to the question is no. I'm sure the member and members of her party had a substantive policy debate before arriving at the position to support the secret ballot. I don't know how divisive it was; maybe it was unanimous. But the answer is no.
I've talked earlier about the difference between an organization that has processes, rules and all the rest of that versus a simple group of employees. The challenge is to find a mechanism that is effective but maintains what we wanted to maintain in this section of the bill, and that is the flexibility that both employers and employees have called for. The bill does reflect that.
J. Tyabji: In the regulations, is there any provision for an appeal that would be in the process of the employer's and employees' domain? For example, before the employee would go to the director, do the regulations allow for the employee to actually challenge it within the other employees' framework?
Hon. D. Miller: No. That's covered in sections 37(3)(a) and (b), and in 37(1)(b).
Section 37 approved.
On section 38.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment to section 38 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 38, in the proposed section 38 by deleting paragraph (d) and substituting the following: (d) has been approved by a trade union representing the affected employees.]
On the amendment.
Hon. D. Miller: With respect to an explanation, the amendment clarifies that work schedules are approved by the trade union through a ratification of the collective agreement or through negotiations with the employer outside the collective bargaining process. If reference is not made to the trade union, it may be possible for a group of affected employees in one part of a plant to reject work schedules for the majority of the employees.
J. Tyabji: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Tyabji: On behalf of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I'd like to introduce a class of grades 4 and 5 students with their teacher, Ms. D. Zurcher. They're from Signal Hill Elementary School in Pemberton, B.C. They've come over to see how the Legislature works -- or a loose interpretation of it. There are up to 28 of them. The emphasis they'd like to see today is on government and history. Perhaps that would be a reminder to all members participating in the debate of what the people from Signal Hill would like to hear. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Farrell-Collins: Governments and history -- I won't touch it; I'll let it lie.
As for section 38, I didn't hear the last sentence of the minister's remark. There was some conversation; I didn't hear the last sentence or so. I'll ask my question. If it was covered in his comments, then I'll be glad to hear it again; otherwise, perhaps he can advise me. The way section 38 was written before the minister moved his amendment, it had a subsection (d) which said that changes in the work schedule of organized workers had to be approved by the affected employees. In some organized workplaces, the scheduling may be in one office or one plant at one location, yet the collective agreement may cover ten plants -- or hundreds of offices, in the case of the BCGEU.
Is it the intent here that we have to take those changes to all of the people who ratified the collective agreement? Or can you take people in a particular office or site who are actually the affected employees? Will they be the ones who have a say? I would think that the original intent was that they would be the ones who would approve it. But with the way the amendment reads now, it requires the approval of the trade union -- as their representatives, I assume. Does that mean that we're going to leave the ratification process to some internal structure of the trade union itself, and that within their constitution they're going to now have to provide for consultation with the workers in a particular workplace on these variations by some means of their own internally, and that we're just going to stand back and let that happen within the trade union itself, rather than have it from the employer directly to the employees?
Hon. D. Miller: Typically, you'll find.... I'll just cite my own experience. I worked in a pulp mill, and with various departments in that mill: the yard department, the wood room, the powerhouse, the pulping plant and the water filter treatment plants. Typically, you might find different schedules in each of those locations, for a variety of reasons. But the trade union is the authorized agent, and it deals with employees, in that case, from each particular branch.
Amendment approved.
Section 38 as amended approved.
On section 39.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to highlight the possible conflict with the four-hour minimum in section 39; in some cases, by imposing a four-hour minimum requirement for a call-up of an employee or a four-hour minimum shift, one may well preclude people who have a medical condition from having any form of employment whatsoever, because it becomes prohibitive for an employer to hire somebody for four hours of work when the person is only able to do one hour.
[ Page 15791 ]
I know there is a provision in that last section for a two-hour minimum, when the Workers' Compensation Board, I believe, is involved, and health and safety guidelines. Does that affect all employees? If someone has a pre-existing medical condition or develops that medical condition while working.... It may not be as the result of injury, but completely disassociated from the workplace. If they develop some medical condition that precludes them from working four hours, rather than having to withdraw themselves from the workplace, would they be able to make some accommodation to allow for a shorter period? Maybe it's not even the two hours that's prescribed. Maybe it's one hour; maybe it's three hours; maybe there is something else there. If so, is that being taken into consideration?
Hon. D. Miller: Really, the issue of the minimum is covered in other sections, and particularly by the ability to seek a variance. This section really does deal with excessive hours, and I think it has to be taken that way. Essentially, notwithstanding any provisions of the act, we don't want people to work excessive hours. There are some pretty good reasons. Again, I reflect on my own experience, but there's certainly a significant health and safety problem when people work too great a number of hours, even over a short period of time. I've seen the results of not following that in terms of workplace accidents, etc. So that's really what it's there for, not to deal with the issue that you raise.
G. Farrell-Collins: I agree entirely that there has to be some restriction on excessive hours of work. Coming from an aviation background, I know that there are very strict requirements on the number of hours worked, time periods and rest periods, because performance and judgment drop off significantly when one has worked or been awake for an excessive period of time. All one has to do is tune into the Legislature channel about 11 o'clock at night to see examples of that -- or look at some of the legislation that's gone through during those late hours. I don't have any problem with that.
In addition, I know there was a big discussion when the initial recommendations of Mr. Thompson came forward, and he recommended that it apply to professions. While I support the restriction on excessive hours, I do believe that professions should be able to regulate themselves. I wish, in some cases, that they would do it a little more effectively. If you look at the medical profession, for example, interns are required to work 36 hours straight. I can tell you that if I were in a car accident and ended up in an emergency ward, the last person I'd want checking me out would be somebody who'd been awake for 36 hours. Perhaps that's something we should take up with the Minister of Health. There are some excessive provisions in the professions that need to be dealt with. I don't imagine accountants work 36 hours, but I do know that physicians do. I hope there is some change there.
I just want to caution the minister here. The way the section on excessive hours reads, if you take an able-bodied person with no obvious handicaps and apply it to them, then it's one measure. You may be thinking in the range of 12 to 14 hours or eight hours or whatever it may be; there's some sort of level beyond which we shouldn't tread. But if one looks at somebody with a pre-existing medical condition, then the clause here that talks about the employee's health could bring that hour level down to a significantly lower number, to the point where we're actually within that four-hour range -- perhaps within a two-hour range.
I just want assurances from the minister that variances are available for those employees, so they won't find themselves in a position where they may be able to work a bit for esteem, exercise or just mental well-being -- to be out there in the workplace rather than being confined to the home or not have any sorts of activities -- and this isn't designed to preclude that from occurring; that those variances are available, and they'll be granted in a reasonable way.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, variances are available under the existing section, and they will be under this. The tests that have to be met are: (1) are the hours excessive, and (2) are they detrimental to the employee's health and safety?
J. Tyabji: Just quickly on this section, I note that this is a new section of the act. The minister is saying no. I've looked through the old act. Perhaps he could direct me to which section....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Section 29(1) of the old act? Then I defer to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
K. Jones: To the minister with regard to section 39.... With regard to excessive hours, it says: "...directly or indirectly allow an employee to work excessive hours." Is that in a day, in a month, in a week? It's not defined in this. What actually does define excessive hours? I don't find it in the definition, and I don't find it further here.
[4:00]
Hon. D. Miller: I refer the member to section 79. This is not a new section; it is a rewrite and part of that attempt to put the bill into plainer and more understandable language. Some of the issues have been separated. Section 79 deals with the issue of hours. The old act.... If I could, I'll just very briefly read sections of the existing act, which has remained unchanged, in essence:
"Where an officer is satisfied, after an inquiry he considers adequate, that the hours of work of an employee are excessive or are detrimental to the employee's health or safety the officer may, by order...require an employer to limit the daily or weekly or both the daily and weekly hours of work of his employees to 8 in a day or 40 in a week...."
So that kind of illustrates it. If you look at section 79 in the bill, you will be able to follow how that is handled there.
K. Jones: The section you're referring to is 79(5), I believe. Is that correct, minister? The reference there is: "...if the employer has adopted a flexible work schedule...an average over the shift cycle of 8 in a day or 40 in a week." But are you saying that anything over those amounts is excessive? What becomes excessive?
Hon. D. Miller: As I've indicated in one of my previous answers, the two tests are that the hours indeed are excessive, and that they are detrimental to employees' health and safety.
[ Page 15792 ]
L. Fox: Just for my own comfort, perhaps the minister could tell me whether section 39 negates the previous act where it allowed for a director's office to investigate whether there was an excessive-work condition. This particular section, as written, seems to negate the need for the director to investigate. Is that the intent?
Hon. D. Miller: No.
L. Fox: Then it will still be the responsibility of the director to ascertain whether the employee has been pressured into working excessive hours?
Hon. D. Miller: That's correct.
J. Tyabji: The minister has directed me to section 29 in the act, and the member for Prince George-Omineca, I think, has begun the questions. But the way I read the change is that in the old act, there had to be a complaint first, then an investigation and then an order determining that there had been excessive hours. Section 29(1) says: "Where an officer is satisfied, after an inquiry he considers adequate, that the hours...are excessive or detrimental...." It's the reverse order now. Before, there was no provision for it just being excessive hours. You have a workplace; someone makes a complaint; the director asks for an officer to go in and investigate; and after an inquiry considered adequate to the determination, there may be an order to set a standard of work. Then there's a provision for contravention of the order.
My question is: why is there a change in the model? I think that in terms of what it accomplishes, it may accomplish the same thing; I'm not sure we'd agree on that. I know the whole act is complaint-driven. But in the old one, the employer was not automatically liable, or the employee wasn't even in a situation where there could be a consideration of someone being excessive.... In the new act, section 39, where it says, "an employer must not require or directly or indirectly allow an employee to work excessive hours or hours detrimental to the employee's health or safety," I just don't buy that that is just a simplification of the language; it is a totally different model of doing things. What we've got in this act is an automatic determination that if an employer may have allowed an employee to work what may be deemed excessive hours by the director, that employer becomes liable. There is no order provided under section 39 in this act, except what may come in under 79 -- but we'll get to that later, about the director and the tribunal and all the powers that they have.
But in this act, what the minister has chosen to do is have a new model, where, rather than there being an inquiry first with an order afterwards, it's a unilateral standard of all employers having to ensure that their employees may never be in a position where someone may deem them to have worked excessively. I'm just wondering: why move to a different model? Is this to reduce the workload on the director or the Employment Standards Tribunal, or is this something that will make it easier, when they get to the director's investigation stage, to add it to the list of things that an employer may have done?
Hon. D. Miller: There's absolutely no change in this from the existing legislation.
Section 39 approved.
On section 40.
J. van Dongen: I have a question for the minister from the perspective of seasonal agriculture: does this section apply to seasonal agriculture -- harvesting of crops, etc.?
Hon. D. Miller: It does not apply. We have made some decisions with respect to hours of work as they pertain to the agricultural sector -- for example, 120 hours over two weeks, as opposed to what's laid out in the bill.
Sections 40 and 41 approved.
On section 42.
The Chair: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: I was just trying to make sure it didn't pass. The member, I believe, has an amendment.
J. Tyabji: I guess we had our amendments backwards there. On this section I move the amendment under my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 42 (3) (b), strike the words "agreed by the employer and the employee" and replace them with "requested by the employee which does not result in any undue disruption of work."]
We think the amendment is a better form, and it accomplishes the same thing that the minister wants. The minister wants it to be something that's in the best interests of both parties. The difference is that the amendment will allow the employee to decide when there's a change, but it gives the employer the protection of there not being an undue disruption of work. The reason is.... This amendment is actually modelled on a number of collective agreements. I think the minister may be aware that the UFCW collective agreement, for example, has a provision for the banking of overtime wages or of time. Anyway, we think this would be a better way of expressing it. We hope the minister will support the amendment.
On the amendment.
Hon. D. Miller: I cannot support the amendment. This simply vests the employee with superior rights with respect to when that day off would be taken. Our act, I think, is balanced in that it talks about a time agreed to by the employer and the employee. I think the employer, perhaps, may be in a somewhat better position to determine whether or not the individual taking a day off is a disruption of the workplace.
J. Tyabji: Obviously the minister has made a decision on the amendment, but I think he should be aware that one reason that a lot of collective agreements have this provision in them is that quite often employers and employees can't come to an agreement that easily. The employer would actually rather have the employee say: "These are the days I'd like to have for my time bank." Then the employer can say: "Okay. Well, this day is too busy; you can't have that day. Here's a day that is free." That's why it is actually employee-driven; it's designed to be employee-driven. But it is employer-friendly because the employer is protected.
The problem with the way it's worded right now is that it could end up with them being almost at an impasse as to
[ Page 15793 ]
when they agree to the employee having some time off. Alternatively, the employer could end up being fairly vulnerable. If the employee continues to bank time, there could be quite a bit of time banked by the end of that. The employer is left very vulnerable, because there could be an undue disruption of work by the employee cashing in all the time that has been banked at the same time, without the employer having a lot to say because the employer is stuck, under this section of the act, with giving the employee that time.
Hon. D. Miller: I think I've cited substantive reasons why we oppose the amendment. I would only add that under a unionized situation, the employees have access to a grievance procedure to pursue and a trade union to represent their interests if they feel that the employer is not being fair about giving a particular day off. I've had some experience with that. On balance, I would have to say that giving the virtually arbitrary right to the employee is not something that I could support.
Amendment negatived on division.
J. Tyabji: The second amendment is to allow a one-year period for time-banking. The reason we would like to have that is that many people actually only have one family holiday a year, or they'll have one time of year when they will be able to schedule their time away. I mean, they may have more than one in a year, but a six-month period of time is a fairly short period of time, and this allows for more flexibility. So I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 42(4), in this paragraph, replace "6 months" with "1 year".]
The amendment would allow overtime wages or a time bank to be paid off within a 12-month period. We think that's a slightly better model. It does allow for more flexibility.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
On the amendment.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, again I oppose the amendment. It's not something that.... In fact, I gave quite a bit of consideration to this particular issue because I didn't want to, in a sense.... By having a six-month period, it did limit to some degree some flexibility on the banked time. But on the other side -- and this is really looking at the protection of employees -- was the risk. In the event of a bankruptcy, for example, over $2,000 of wages have preferred status, and these wages must have been earned, because banked time has a status in wages in the six months prior to the bankruptcy. The real risk is not cashing out banked time in an appropriate time frame. In the event of bankruptcies, workers would lose that earned income. So that's really what compelled me in the final analysis to choose the six-month time frame.
J. Tyabji: I wonder if that was the limiting factor that made the minister prefer six months to a year. For the sake of the employees who might have wanted more flexibility, why wouldn't he have tried to get an amendment to the $2,000 ceiling? That's probably another debate for another day. I know that in my own work as an MLA that ceiling has already become a problem in pursuing lost wages through the existing act. I've had one case where that has been a limiting factor, and it actually should be amended. If it were amended, then the employee could have more flexibility by accepting this amendment to allow a 12-month period.
Hon. D. Miller: We've been trying for 40 years to get the federal government to agree to change that legislation, and they won't. We'll continue to try, but it's federal legislation.
G. Farrell-Collins: In looking at the section and this amendment -- and I, too, have considered it -- by putting in the provision to extend it to one year, you would probably be affecting a great number of employees who may well want to do just what the member said, which is bank that time for the annual Hawaii vacation or the annual summer vacation, where the family goes in the tent trailer or whatever it may be, even if it's just the annual vacation where you stay at home. There may be a reason for that. I can see where an employee may want to bank that time on an annual basis and use it during the summer months when the kids are home from school, as opposed to having to pay for day care or babysitting. So that's an option also.
I understand the minister's comments; I understand the rationale behind his view. I just feel that the minister would be benefiting more employees by making the amendment to 12 months than he would be putting employees at financial risk by keeping it at six months.
I think employees, as part of the employment standards.... We're certainly informing people; we're making a huge effort. My understanding, under this act, is to continue to inform people about the requirements and the new provisions of this act. This would be an opportunity to advise them of the 12-month provision, where they would be able to bank it, but warn them also that six months of that isn't covered by the statute in the event of a bankruptcy. I think you would find that you were benefiting a larger number by putting in 12 months than you are putting at risk by keeping the six months. I certainly agree with the logic applied by the member for Okanagan East, and while I understand what the minister has to say, I think he should take a careful look at that.
[4:15]
Hon. D. Miller: I am quite conservative by nature. [Laughter.] I don't know why that produced a chuckle; I thought the joke I told earlier was funnier.
Prudence certainly dictates that when I construct an act, it should be for the protection of the employees. For that reason, members might appreciate that if we put in provisions for banking without the time constraints that are in the act, as a minister, I can't protect employees who might be caught in the circumstance of a bankruptcy. I know that members fully appreciate that minimum-wage earners are not taking their annual vacations in Hawaii.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Precisely; and for that reason, prudence dictates that we write the bill for the best protection of employees.
I would also point out that while banked time is relatively new in our society, in a sense, it is extra. It's over and above the time available for annual vacations. So I think on balance,
[ Page 15794 ]
in terms of protection of workers and my being able to protect workers in certain circumstances, I would prefer to maintain the six months as it is in the bill now.
C. Serwa: In listening to both perspectives, there is merit for the type of latitude that could be allowed. In listening to the minister with his concern for the employees, he's very right, and there is merit there. Perhaps this section could be changed slightly with the latitude allowed to the employer; but it's incumbent that there be notice that there is some risk to the employee in that specific case. I don't think it will occur very often, but it seems to me that to satisfy the needs of the employers as well as the employees, it would be logical to be reasonable in this and enable some latitude. The minister can protect the employee, as he indicates, but that latitude could be drafted into this particular section to enable it. Not all of the people covered by this act earn minimum wage, and many do take vacations on an annual basis -- whether to Hawaii or at home -- and would enjoy the utilization of banked time.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I prefer to take a more prudent and conservative -- perhaps a more cautious -- approach. This is a new provision in our act and I would think members might appreciate that. If over time the federal government sees the wisdom of modernizing federal legislation with respect to the protection of employees' wages -- I don't know why they haven't -- then it's certainly something that could be reconsidered. But given that it is new, it's there.... The act itself is there for the protection of the employees; I think six months is quite prudent.
J. Tyabji: It strikes me that in order for there to be a $2,000 ceiling within this six-month period, that's quite a bit of overtime, unless we're talking about $25 an hour. It's overtime wages, and overtime wages would be time and a half or double time or double time and a half. I was going to recommend that the minister perhaps consider allowing a $2,000 cap so that within the period of six months, anything.... If he's worried about bankruptcy and that the employee is only going to be covered to a maximum of $2,000 in overtime wages, then in order to allow the flexibility and have the protection of the $2,000, the minister would ensure that any value accumulated over the $2,000 would have to be used up in that period. But the employee could carry over the equivalent of $2,000 in overtime hours to a 12-month period. That way, the employee is covered both ways -- they have some flexibility and they have the ability to carry over to a 12-month period in case they do have an annual summer vacation, and the six months would expire before that. I know people who have been in the situation where they have to take the time with pay and they don't want to; it doesn't work out with their family get-togethers, and it just seems silly. If we want to protect the employee, maybe we can do that and give flexibility.
Hon. D. Miller: I think that the member's proposal would be an administrative nightmare, which is what I'm trying to get away from in this bill. Second, one of my staff just reminded me of a case that they had to deal with where an employee in a non-union setting was owed $10,000 in banked time and couldn't collect it. In fact, they ended up settling for 35 cents on the dollar, and I just think....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Let's not spend too much time here. I appreciate that you've offered some viewpoints that say that six months is somewhat limited. You're arguing for a year; I'm on the other side, saying that there are reasons for the six months. It's a new provision.
Hon. Chair, perhaps we have gone around on this one.
Amendment negatived on division.
J. Tyabji: Are these records, in section 42, part of the records that have to be kept for seven years?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, they are part of payroll records.
J. Tyabji: I just want to put on the record as a point of clarification to the minister that we are in support of this section of the bill and commend him for having brought this in. It is an improvement.
G. Farrell-Collins: I too would make those comments. I think the section is good. It's a start. There are little things that we'll have to tinker with a little bit to improve it as events arise, as with all legislation. On the whole, it's a good option and will be a benefit to both employees and employers. I hope it works well. We'll wait and see what the fallout is, but I think it's nine-tenths of the way there.
Section 42 approved.
On section 43.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment to section 43 standing in my name in Orders of the Day. Briefly running through the explanations, first of all, I added the phrase, "when considered together," to clarify that there has not been a policy change from the current act. I want people to be aware of that. The provisions of the collective agreement, when considered together, constitute a package, and the requirements of a part, when considered together, constitute a package. Both of these packages are compared to ensure that the collective agreement meets or exceeds the minimum standards of the applicable part. This is to prevent cherry picking, which would enable parties to pick the most favourable statutory requirement and have it replace the inferior provision in the collective agreement.
[SECTION 43, in the proposed section 43:
(a) in subsection (1) by adding "when considered together" after ", meet or exceed the requirements of this Part and section 25", and
(b) in subsection (2) by adding "when considered together" after ", do not meet or exceed the requirements of this Part and section 25".]
Amendment approved.
On section 43 as amended.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 43 talks technically about somebody deciding whether or not the provisions meet or exceed when applied together. Is that going to be a ruling of the director? That would be subject to a tribunal, I suppose. There is a grievance procedure, however, under subsection (2)(b). Perhaps the minister can talk about how that grievance
[ Page 15795 ]
procedure would work with regard to this, particularly in a case where the employees.... Let me put it this way. The minister would say that the employees aren't necessarily in control of the collective agreement. How is this going to apply? If the only recourse here is the grievance procedure, are we not leaving the door open for individuals to go around that if there is no other recourse for a ruling?
Hon. D. Miller: The practice is that the director will work with the parties to try to assist them in determining whether the test imposed by the section is met -- in other words, "meet or exceed." Issues where there is a collective agreement can be taken up through the grievance procedure, in which case that is something which the parties to the grievance.... Presumably they would take it to arbitration if they felt strongly enough. In that case, our branch or the director would not be involved.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this. If there is, under an existing collective agreement, a disagreement between the worker and the employer -- or in this case, the union and the employer -- there is a process through.... Whether or not these items when measured together meet or exceed, they can take that issue through their own grievance process. But in the event that this grievance process isn't something they're comfortable with, doesn't go far enough or doesn't provide a positive result or any result, there is another recourse. That recourse would be to go to the director and file a complaint under this section. Or is the only recourse, under section 43, the grievance procedure in the collective agreement?
Hon. D. Miller: In the event of a dispute between parties -- for example, a trade union and an employer -- their recourse is through the procedures that they have: through the grievance and arbitration procedures. If there's a dispute about whether the collective agreement meets or exceeds the Employment Standards Act, the director would not be involved in that process.
I'm also advised, just for your information, that since Bill 65 there have only been three arbitrations -- in other words, a process initiated between a trade union and an employer -- on this particular issue, the "meet or exceed" test.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to raise the concern or the issue with the minister, because the minister is the one who talks a lot about the employer-dominated unions. If there is....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, perhaps it was the previous Minister of Labour; it may well have been. But certainly that issue comes from that side of the House a lot.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The other minister says it should.
But I want to raise the issue, if I can, with the minister, because if the grievance procedure in the collective agreement is seen to be inadequate or not sufficient to resolve these items, under subsections (1) and (2) in particular, what recourse is there for the employee -- or the employer, for that matter -- to take it outside the collective agreement? Can they file a complaint with the ministry, with the employment standards branch, under section 43? Is there that recourse for them, a recourse outside...?
I'll repeat my question, because the minister was consulting. Is there a recourse outside the collective agreement for either party to rely upon in the event that either party feels the collective agreement does not provide sufficient procedure or sufficient methods to deal with the grievance?
Hon. D. Miller: The Labour Code governs those kinds of activities. I don't know that I could accept the notion of an "inferior" grievance procedure, since all grievance procedures, regardless of the process, can lead to the right to arbitration. Individual employees have the right under the labour legislation to complain about unfair representation. Those are issues dealt with by the Labour Relations Board.
I just want to go on record, though, because the member didn't.... I, from my seat, made some statements, but I want to clarify positions I've taken with respect to labour relations issues around the province. My job as the Minister of Labour is to appoint the Labour Relations Board. The Labour Relations Board essentially gives life to the statute -- interprets it, etc. I don't determine, and never have in any way, between trade unions as to which may be a "legitimate" or an "illegitimate" trade union. I have taken great pains as the Minister of Labour not to do so, and I never have done so. Unions stipulated as unions under the provisions of the code by the board, etc., are trade unions. I'm very, very careful in terms of dealing with that issue.
[4:30]
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm encouraged to hear that from the minister. That certainly wasn't the case with the previous minister. That's obviously something, I guess, that I don't take up with him; but I'm glad to see there has been a slight change in attitude on that side of the House.
Section 43 as amended approved.
On section 44.
C. Serwa: There are a few things that need clarification, as far as I'm concerned. There are a number of different interpretations, starting with section 44, which says: "After 30 calendar days of employment...." It's not clear in my mind whether that's from the start of employment, or if the employee has worked for 30 calendar days. What is the actual intent of the words "after 30 calendar days of employment"?
Hon. D. Miller: The section, very simply, says that after an employee has been employed for 30 calendar days they are entitled to statutory holiday pay -- or to comply with section 46, which is the issue around what takes place if you're required to work on a statutory holiday.
C. Serwa: Again, listening to the minister, that means that if an employee was hired on May 1 and worked part-time for a week or two weeks -- four-hour shifts or something like that -- at the end of the month, he or she is entitled to statutory holiday pay. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes.
[ Page 15796 ]
C. Serwa: Then in this particular case, this has horrific implications. If a person works less than two days a week for that period of time -- one or two days a week, four hours a day; in four weeks they may only work 16 or 18 hours, or something like that -- now they're entitled to full holiday pay for a statutory holiday. Small business is not going to be able to afford that, if that interpretation is correct.
Hon. D. Miller: Just to advise the member, I do have an amendment to section 45, which is where this issue should be more properly canvassed. If the members could see themselves to allow section 44 to pass, which simply, in the very simplest essence, is very simple language.... It says if you have been employed for 30 days, you're entitled to statutory holiday pay or the other provisions under section 46. The issue of part-time workers and prorating, etc., is going to be dealt with under section 45, and I do have an amendment.
Section 44 approved.
On section 45.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment to section 45 standing in my name on the order paper:
[SECTION 45, by deleting the proposed section 45 and substituting the following:
Statutory holiday pay
45. An employee who is given a day off on a statutory holiday or instead of a statutory holiday must be paid the following amount for the day off:
(a) if the employee has a regular schedule of hours and the employee has worked or earned wages for at least 15 of the last 30 days before the statutory holiday, the same amount as if the employee had worked regular hours on the day off;
(b) in any other case, the amount calculated in accordance with the regulations.]
The amendment really is, by clarification, to ensure that employees who are not actually working are not entitled to be paid statutory holidays -- for example, employees on sick leave or on maternity leave. With regard to subsection (a) and working 15 out of 30 days prior to the statutory holiday, it is the same requirement as now for qualification for the statutory holiday.
Amendment approved.
On section 45 as amended.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to state that obviously, without that amendment, this section -- and, I guess, these three sections considered together -- is somewhat open-ended, and I'm glad to see that the amendment has come forward and has tightened that up a bit. Beyond that, with the exception of some comments I have on section 46, I'm glad to see that they're there.
L. Fox: I would like just a bit of clarification. I'm trying to understand. It seems to me that the member for Okanagan West raised some issues here, and I want to clarify. It seems to me that if you have a part-time employee working 12 hours a week who falls under this section, after 30 days -- whether he or she works all 30 days is not important, but if they're employed, even on a part-time basis for 30 days -- that individual is then eligible for a full day's pay for the statutory holiday. Or would they be prorated and paid according to...? For instance, if they were a four-hour-a-day employee, would they be paid four hours for the statutory holiday, and not the whole holiday pay?
Hon. D. Miller: The pay would be prorated, based on the hours that they would normally work. In other words, part-time workers who may work two days a week would have their pay for the statutory holiday in question based not on the full day's pay of a worker who worked eight hours a day, 40 hours a week, but rather prorated as a percentage of the hours they have worked.
L. Fox: That would happen whether the statutory holiday fell on a day that they typically worked or not; and whether or not they worked the day before it or the day after has no bearing. For instance, if I had an employee who worked 12 hours a week on Monday, Tuesday and Friday, but the statutory holiday fell on a Wednesday, they would still be eligible, irrespective of whether that fell on their day of work or not.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes.
Section 45 as amended approved.
On section 46.
G. Farrell-Collins: Subsection 46(4) requires the employer to schedule a day off with pay, and then it lists some options: "...before the employee's annual vacation...before the date the employment terminates, or...if the pay for the day off is credited to the employee's time bank, within six months after the statutory holiday...." That's a lot of work for small businesses to try and figure out. Is there not an easier way to account for that? You don't necessarily know.... If somebody quits on you all of a sudden, is it now considered that you owe them for that stat holiday they have yet to take? It happens; sometimes employees don't give two weeks' notice; they're just gone the next day. Is that stat holiday now required to be paid out in some form, along with outstanding holiday pay, etc.? There's also: "...before the employee's annual vacation...." Could it not be part of the employee's annual vacation -- or the day after, or some portion, to fold it in with the annual vacation? Is there not some way that this can be dealt with? Right at the very end it says, "whichever is earliest," of those three options. Perhaps the employee would rather wait beyond the six months. Is there no option there for the employee to have any determination as to when that day can be credited, or is it all to be dictated by this section?
Hon. D. Miller: The only new section here is subsection (c). That deals with the issue we canvassed previously, and that's the banking and the withdrawal within the six months. It's really there to give greater flexibility to employers. The provisions under subsections (a) and (b), of course, are part of the existing act.
C. Serwa: There are some interesting questions with respect to this section. It partially goes into the previous section, but it can be applied in this section. There are a number of individuals who work in the public sector -- and I'm thinking primarily of firemen -- who seem to often hold virtually a full-time second job, with the shift work that they have. Depending on what shift, that seems to occur. With the
[ Page 15797 ]
legislation the way it's written here, what we're looking at is that these individuals -- firemen, for example -- are entitled to statutory holiday pay, and they would also be entitled to full holiday pay at the second full-time job. It's like double-dipping on holidays. Is that appropriate? Is that correct under this particular section?
Hon. D. Miller: My staff are telling me not to bite, but gee, I thought we tried to reward initiative. I'm not commenting on what people do with their time off. Believe me, I have no knowledge -- nor do I care to have any knowledge -- about what people do, regardless of their occupation and regardless of the hours they are required to work in their occupation; I quite honestly don't care. The law is very clear: if you work, there are certain provisions that apply. One of those provisions is with respect to holidays. If you work for six employers, they are all, under the law, obliged to pay you a certain percentage of your income as holiday pay.
I don't think we should get into.... I don't know what airline pilots do. Some of them, I guess, have a lot of time off and perhaps run small businesses. Is that individual initiative or individual enterprise in that case and perhaps not in another? I'm not interested in what people do with their time off, and I don't think anybody else should be interested in what they do with their time off.
C. Serwa: Well, I'm not particularly interested in what the minister thinks. If he's getting a bit testy, that's fine and dandy. I remember labour legislation that our government put through that set a record for debate. The minister then was at least good enough to stand there and take that pointless, stupid debate that was voiced when you were on the opposition side of the House. So I suggest you just better cool your heels and listen to it, because this is going to go on for a while.
The fact remains that what the minister is doing is condoning double-dipping in awarding double holiday pay. There are two full-time jobs. Is the purpose of the legislation...?
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Labour on a point of order.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, the member is wildly off-topic.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. I would remind the hon. member for Okanagan West -- in fact, all hon. members of the House -- that we are on section 46, in committee.
C. Serwa: That's right, and I am discussing section, 46 in committee. What we're doing is talking about whether the employee is required to work on a statutory holiday. The example I'm giving is that of a fireman who is not on shift as a fireman on a statutory holiday; he's working at another full-time job on the holiday. I'm saying that he gets paid for the holiday as a fireman, and that this legislation indicates that he must also be paid for the holiday at his other full-time job. I'm just asking the minister if he deems that appropriate.
Hon. D. Miller: The act doesn't deal with what people do on their time off.
L. Fox: Just briefly, it would appear to me that this is a bit of a departure from what we had before. I'm somewhat concerned for the student. Many businesses choose to operate on statutory holidays, and through that have part-time employees. That enhances opportunities for school children, students and so on. If employers are required under law to pay overtime for statutory holidays, even though those individuals work less than 40 hours a week, many businesses may choose to close rather than meet those higher expenses.
I can see a number of situations -- in agriculture, for instance, with part-time berry pickers -- where this might indeed be counterproductive. While I understand the intent, and I don't argue with the intent -- it's something I've done as a businessman in practice for years -- I think we should be concerned. Maybe if I'm overconcerned about this aspect of it, the minister might indeed tell me that. But I'm concerned about a loss of opportunity here for students and those individuals who only work a few hours a week to enhance their own quality of life, their educational opportunities and so on, and how this might apply to them.
[4:45]
Hon. D. Miller: Well, the member is correct. If you qualify -- in other words, if having worked 30 days for the employer, you are considered a full-time employee, even if you only work part-time -- having obtained that qualification, if you work on a statutory holiday, then you are entitled to overtime for that day. That is a change; you're absolutely right. I would suggest that the qualifier would not be the casual worker, because the 30-day requirement has to be met.
Again, it's really a matter of opinion, but statutory holidays are days that we have declared national holidays, and historically, people like ourselves have those days off -- except when we have to ride in parades and do all those other things, but I don't know if that constitutes work. People who have to work on those days are covered under the act; those full-time employees who have to work on a statutory holiday are paid overtime.
All we're saying is that with some reflection of the changing nature of the workforce and the hours worked, there are an increasing number of full-time part-time workers. We feel that even though they only work part-time -- sometimes not as a matter choice; sometimes as a matter of choice -- nonetheless, if they work on a statutory holiday, they should be given the same consideration given to any other worker who qualifies. I'm mindful.... I think the balancing act is not one that is a cost-driver. There have been some complaints about the minimum wage, but I neither think that our minimum wage is going to drive businesses out of the province, nor that these modest provisions that affect some workers on a statutory holiday will have a material impact on businesses or employees in B.C.
Sections 46 to 48 inclusive approved.
On section 49.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 49 that is on the order paper.
[SECTION 49, in the proposed section 49:
(a) in subsection (1) by deleting "meet or exceed the requirements of this Part," and substituting ", when considered
[ Page 15798 ]
together, meet or exceed the requirements of this Part when considered together,", and
(b) in subsection (2) by deleting "do not meet or exceed the requirements of this Part," and substituting ", when considered together, do not meet or exceed the requirements of this Part when considered together,".]
Just in terms of an explanation, it's really the same rationale provided under section 43 to add clarification. Adding the phrase "when considered together" is to clarify that there has not been a policy change from the current act. The provisions of the collective agreement, when considered together, constitute a package; and the requirements of a part -- that's a part of the act -- when considered together, constitute a package. Both of these packages are prepared to ensure that the collective agreement meets or exceeds the minimum standards of the applicable part. Again, as I've indicated, this is to prevent cherry picking, which would enable parties to pick the most favourable statutory requirements and have them replace the inferior provisions in the collective agreement.
Amendment approved.
Section 49 as amended approved.
On section 50.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment to section 50 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 50, in the proposed section 50 (1) by deleting paragraphs (a) and (b) and substituting the following:
(a) beginning no earlier than 11 weeks before the expected birth date, and
(b) ending no earlier than 6 weeks after the actual birth date unless the employee requests a shorter period.]
Amendment approved.
On section 50 as amended.
J. Tyabji: I recognize that some provisions in section 50 are the same as they were in the other act and that the amendment has now clarified the intent of section 50. But I note that even in the old act, and now again in this new act, there seems to be an attitude toward maternity leave that, philosophically, I don't share, and certainly many of the women I've talked to don't share, where the minister has set the parameters around maternity leave fairly stringently.
I move the amendment to section 50 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 50 (1), by adding "ending no sooner than 1 week after the actual birth date, at the discretion of the employee." to the end of this paragraph and repealing paragraphs (1) (a) and (1) (b).]
On the amendment.
J. Tyabji: The reason I did that, even though we've got an amended section now, is that I don't understand why the government would tell a woman who is choosing to take a maternity leave that she could take it roughly 11 weeks before the due date. We've got a new amended section now, so let me get the words exactly right: "Beginning no earlier than 11 weeks before the expected birth date and ending no earlier than six weeks after the actual birth date." Where did those numbers come from? I don't know. In actual fact, I don't know too many women who wait six weeks if they're going back to work. Unless they've chosen to and have the opportunity to take time off, I don't know many women who can actually wait six weeks to get back to work. Prior to my election I certainly couldn't afford to. The 11 weeks before.... I don't know why it would be that stringent. Could the minister explain?
Hon. D. Miller: The time frames really do mirror federal UI rules, which most people want to avail themselves of in order to time the period during which they're away from employment to have and to nurture their baby in the early stages. With maternity benefits under unemployment insurance, they have that time off covered.
With respect to the time, the member talks about the discretion of the employee in a somewhat similar sense to the last proposed amendment from the member. We argue that in terms of backfilling or hiring a replacement for a worker off on maternity leave, employers would want to have some sense of certainty. If it were 16 weeks or whatever, they would hire someone to fill in for that period of time, rather than have that at the absolute discretion of the individual who's taking maternity leave.
I just think it's practical. In the event that the employer and the employee can agree on a different time frame, they are free to under this section of the act. It mirrors what most people would like: while they're off having and nurturing a child, particularly in those early days, they have the security of knowing that there is a provision to provide coverage under unemployment insurance and Canada's social safety net.
J. Tyabji: Much of what the minister said in speaking against my amendment is actually covered by his own act in subsection (4). The minister said that an employer would want to have some idea about when an employee would be leaving for maternity leave, and that is subsection (4). We're dealing with subsection (1). All we're dealing with is this: why would the minister determine when in that 18-week period of time a mother would choose to take her leave? I'm assuming that we can be gender-specific in this one section of the bill -- for the purposes of this bill, anyway. If a mother has 18 consecutive weeks, why wouldn't it just be up to her? In subsection (4) she can be discussing the written notice and the four-week time frame ahead of time with her employer.
I would obviously like to encourage the minister to consider this amendment. Some mothers will be grateful to have that choice. Obviously, the 11 weeks before and the six weeks after.... Why couldn't it be 12 or 13 weeks before and three or four weeks after? It just seems silly. Or the reverse. Maybe the mother would like to work until two weeks or so before she is due, and then have a couple of months off afterward. It seems a little bit silly. Most of the women I know actually do work until they're about two weeks away from their due date, and then they choose to nurse for the first few months before they go back to work. They would rather have more time after they have the baby than before they have the baby. Maybe the minister could speak to his experiences with this.
Hon. D. Miller: I've had a lot of experiences, hon. Chair, but none of those experiences have been giving birth to a child -- and I hope the members appreciate why.
[ Page 15799 ]
Nonetheless, I do believe that I've answered the question. There's a provision under sections 1(a) and 1(b) for employees, with the agreement of employers, to change the specific time periods laid out in the bill. It's a practical approach that allows people to make choices about when they want to leave work and when they want to return to work. I really don't see it as particularly problematic. If it were arbitrary....
Look, I've got to tell you that I've spent a good deal of my life as a trade union activist arguing grievances in the plant about people wanting to have days off and all the rest. I was the agent of those individual employees. I made an aside to one of my staff that if some of them could hear me now, they'd shoot me, but that's a cross you bear. It just seems to me that we want an act dealing with the right of women to have pregnancy leave. We want to have an act that is flexible enough to suit individual circumstances that might arise as to when they might want to leave work and return to work. We've got a provision here that allows that to happen in consultation with the employer. On the face of it, it seems pretty straightforward; I don't really see any problems with it.
J. Tyabji: Just a quick question, then, to the minister: is the minister saying that if the employer and the employee choose to waive a provision of this section, they can do so? If the employee chooses to work until two weeks or one week before her due date or up to the day before she has the baby, could she then have the full 16 or 17 weeks following the birth of the baby?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm surprised that the member, having put in an amendment, hasn't read section 50(1), but I'll do that: "...(a) beginning 11 weeks before the expected birth date or later if requested by the employee, and (b) ending 6 weeks after the actual birth date unless the employee requests a shorter period." Unless I've tripped myself up here, the section does cover it.
The Chair: The member for Okanagan.... I mean the member for Prince George-Omineca.
L. Fox: Thank you. I said earlier today, hon. Chair, that if I felt any better, I'd change my postal code. Well, you were just going to do it for me.
Anyway, I know that the minister isn't going to allow this amendment to go forward, but I would suggest that if.... My experience tells me that for the most part, in 99 percent of the cases, the pregnant employee and the employer usually get together and iron out what's in the best interests of the employee. Then they come into some certainty in terms of what action they have to take to replace that employee for a certain period of time. In fairness to the individual who takes that job for that certain period of time, they also have to have some satisfaction that they have a job for eight weeks or ten weeks or whatever. The flexibility of the amendment, while I understand the intent, would take away from that certainty, and I would want to see that certainty retained.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, this is a big act, with lots of amendments now, and I inadvertently and in error cited the bill as it currently reads. You have to remind me: are we dealing with the member's amendment?
The Chair: Hon. minister, we are currently dealing with the amendment of the member for Okanagan East.
Hon. D. Miller: All right. I haven't made an amendment yet, have I?
The Chair: Hon. minister, you made an amendment that has been passed.
Hon. D. Miller: Okay.
[5:00]
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, the minister said, before he sat down, that subsection (1)(a) allowed for the discretion of the employee if the employee requested a shorter period of time prior to giving birth. I recognize that. Then he said that subsection (b) allows for a shorter period following the birth. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. What I'm interested in is a scenario where not only is there a shorter period prior to giving birth, which is allowed for in subsection (a), but we take the maternity leave so that it follows the birth of the baby. I don't see that this section allows for that. If the minister could point that out.... When he read it through before, he allowed....
We do know that in the next section there's a potential for 12 weeks of parental leave. Unless I'm mistaken, parental leave is very different from maternity leave, especially when it effects unemployment insurance. To put it in the most specific terms I can, if a mother chooses to have a couple of months -- say two and a half months -- off after having the baby so she can nurse, and she wants to work right up to the time that she gives birth, and she wants her maternity leave to be following the birth of the child, where does this section allow for that? I don't see that.
Hon. D. Miller: I asked for that clarification earlier because I inadvertently read into the record the section as it was originally and not as it now has been amended. I'll just try to run through that. The amendment says that a pregnant employee who requests leave is entitled to up to 18 consecutive weeks of unpaid leave "(a) beginning no earlier than 11 weeks before the expected birth date, and (b) ending no earlier than 6 weeks after the actual birth date unless the employee requests a shorter period." In other words, the employee does not have to take all of the 18 weeks.
Secondly, under section 50(5), "A request for a shorter period under subsection (1)(b) must (a) be given in writing to the employer at least one week before the date the employee proposes to return to work, and (b) if required by the employer, be accompanied by a medical practitioner's certificate stating the employee is able to resume work." There's lots of flexibility within the scope of the act to accommodate the individual situations that people experience.
I was actually quite struck, driving in from the airport last night listening to "As It Happens" -- they have a talk-back that is quite interesting. People were phoning in and talking about recent developments with respect to the time that women spend in hospital. I was amazed, actually. There were three women who phoned in on the talk-back line and said that in all three cases it was a same-day experience. They felt a lot better. That's just a side commentary, apropos of nothing.
G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding, then, if I can just clarify this for myself and perhaps others, is that this box of time -- which may well be up to 18 weeks -- surrounding the
[ Page 15800 ]
actual date of birth can be shifted inward, outward and left to right. It's very, very flexible and really can be determined by the employee to whatever extent they want -- shorter, longer, wider, thinner, left or right. It's really at the discretion of the employee.
J. Tyabji: One last point, then, on the amendment is that.... It would appear that the minister's amendment has taken away most of my concerns and why I moved the amendment. The only thing I am curious about, before stopping speaking on the amendment, is why the minister would only allow the employee to shorten the period of time before returning to work if a medical practitioner said she was able to resume work in less than six weeks. Where did the six weeks come from? Why does a medical practitioner have to say she's able to go back to work?
The Chair: Just so that hon. members are aware, we are still on the amendment moved by the member for Okanagan East.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, it's really just to provide that kind of comfort to the employer, that....
J. Tyabji: More bureaucracy....
Hon. D. Miller: I don't think it's bureaucracy. If you look through the....
J. Tyabji: It's paternalistic, arrogant.
Hon. D. Miller: God, no one's ever accused me of being paternalistic -- ever. You're the first.
So, hon. Chair, I don't know what else I can say.
C. Tanner: There's one other area of this debate that I'd like to ask the minister's advice on. Other than the four weeks before the day the employee proposes to begin leave, other than that stipulation, is there any stipulation about the amount of time an employee can be employed before she can ask for leave? In other words, could an employee be employed for four weeks and then ask for pregnancy leave?
Hon. D. Miller: No. In fact, going back in time, I was able to point out to Rafe Mair when I did his program a number of weeks ago that, in fact, he was in the cabinet at the time the Social Credit government of the day brought in the pregnancy leave rights without qualification -- in other words, without reference to the time in which a person was an employee of a particular firm; regardless of that, they had the right to take maternity leave. I commended him for his, I think, foresight. As a result, we had a very swell program.
Amendment negatived on division.
J. Tyabji: I think I'd be remiss if I didn't put on record the comments I made from my seat earlier. I think that to force a woman to have a doctor approve her going back to work in less than six weeks after giving birth is really paternalistic and unnecessary. I think it could be taken out, and no one would be the worse for it. I want to get that on record.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
L. Fox: I just want to ask a question. I notice now that a request for leave -- I speak on section 50(4) -- must be given in writing to the employer. Is this a new provision? In my whole history of management, I've never ever had a written agreement with an employee as to what the maternity leave would be. In fact, we had an understanding that was usually very flexible: when the employee was ready to come back, she came back. But now I see a more formal situation here. Perhaps that's always been there; I'm not sure. It comes up in two places: sections 50(4) and 50(5). Subsection (4) is requesting the leave from the employer in writing, and subsection (5) is bringing a request back for a shorter leave. Is this something new, hon. minister?
Hon. D. Miller: No, it's not new; it's in the existing act.
L. Fox: I guess one would ask, then, unless something arose where there was a misunderstanding or, perhaps, in the view of the employee, her rights had been denied.... Would that be the only time an inspection would take place to look for something in writing? The normal practice out there in small business is not to have a written agreement around these kinds of things. I'd want to be sure that there wasn't going to be some kind of inspection of payroll books to find out whether or not a written request had been put forward or, if it hadn't been, there would be some kind of action taken against the employer.
Hon. D. Miller: No, I can assure you that we are not preparing the maternity-leave-request-form police to scatter about the province. I'm quite sure you're absolutely right: probably many employers and employees don't bother with the provisions of the bill. But the bill, under section 51, says "on her written request" -- times have changed, perhaps. So it has always been there.
J. Tyabji: To follow up on that, I just have a point of clarification. Are these written notices part of the permanent records that have to be kept for seven years?
Hon. D. Miller: No, not the written requests -- although I would say that, really, protection of the employer is involved here. It's to their advantage, I think. But the time periods with respect to maternity leave.... Those records might be.... If someone could potentially file a complaint claiming unpaid wages or things of that nature, the employer, for their own protection, would want to maintain records.
Section 50 as amended approved.
On section 51.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to move an amendment to section 51:
[SECTION 51, replace paragraph (a) with the words "for a birth mother or father, after the child's birth and within 52 weeks after that event, and" and strike paragraph (b).]
Under parental leave, this allows for 12 consecutive weeks of unpaid leave, beginning, in the case of both the birth mother and the birth father, in that 52-week period so that they would both have the same opportunity to choose. The way it reads right now is that for a birth mother, it is immediately after the end of the leave taken under section 50, unless they agree otherwise; whereas the father has an open-ended opportunity
[ Page 15801 ]
to take it at any point within the 52 weeks. Of course, the same thing with an adopting parent. So we'd like the mother to have the same choice of opportunities as the father.
On the amendment.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, as I've said with respect to several other amendments, this is really something that.... With respect to the smooth operation of a workplace, employers will, as I indicated, hire someone to take the place of an individual on parental leave. Taking some time off and then coming back and then perhaps taking some future time off is disruptive, and it makes it pretty difficult for the employer. We think that the way the legislation reads now is quite adequate.
Amendment negatived.
J. Tyabji: Under subsection (4), could the minister give some clarification on this? I note that the combined entitlement to leave under sections 50 and 51 is 32 weeks, but we have 18 and 12, which, last time I checked, equals 30. Is that a math problem, or are we giving two weeks' leeway? If we are giving two weeks' leeway, where do they come in?
Hon. D. Miller: It does tie in with the UI entitlement. If the member will recall, for the first two weeks no payment is made under the unemployment insurance rules.
J. Tyabji: Well, under section 50, we're talking about 18 consecutive weeks of unpaid leave. Is the minister now saying that that is notwithstanding the first two weeks of unpaid leave, which would be the first two weeks of an unemployment insurance maternity benefit application? That would make it 20 weeks, and then there's the 12 weeks of unpaid leave following that. Where do the extra two weeks come in?
Hon. D. Miller: No, the 32 weeks simply reflect the UI entitlement. Two of those weeks are not paid for. The total of 18 and 12 is the UI entitlement -- plus the two that are not paid for, which adds up to 32.
J. Tyabji: I'm still confused. Are those two weeks that are not paid for under section 50, section 51(1) or in addition to that? I hear the minister asking: "What's the problem?" The problem is that section 51(4) says that the combined entitlement leave under sections 50 and 51 is limited to 32 weeks. I don't know where the extra two weeks are coming in, and I think that should be clarified, because section 50 is 18 weeks, and section 51 is 12 weeks. The minister is saying that there are also two weeks of unemployment insurance that are unpaid. Well, that would be fine. I would assume that would have been the first two weeks of the 18 weeks in section 50. If that's wrong, then I think we should know about it, because that seems to imply that the first two weeks of the 18 weeks is actually the first two weeks of 20 weeks.
Hon. D. Miller: If I stay in this debate long enough, I'll confuse myself. The act has always talked about 32 weeks -- I talked about the basis for that essentially being grounded in UI. But there are other provisions in the act that provide for additional leave, and depending on the circumstances around that additional leave, it's obtainable.
[5:15]
G. Farrell-Collins: Just to be specific, there are two places in sections 50 and 51 where additional weeks over and above the 18 and the 12 are granted as an option, and they appear in sections 50(2) and 51(2). In section 50(2) an additional six weeks can be requested, and in section 51(2) an additional five weeks can be requested; that normally would be 30 plus 11, which would be 41. Then subsection 51(4) says that despite those additional 11 weeks that could be requested, there is a cap, which is 32 weeks. So you may be able to accept a few extra here and a few extra there, but all combined, it adds up to 32.
Section 51 approved.
Section 52 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Section 53 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
On section 54.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment to section 54 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 54, by deleting the proposed section 54 and substituting the following:
Duties of employer
54. (1) An employer must give an employee who requests leave under this Part the leave to which the employee is entitled.
(2) An employer must not, because of an employee's pregnancy or a leave allowed by this Part,
(a) terminate employment, or
(b) change a condition of employment without the employee's written consent.
(3) As soon as the leave ends, the employer must place the employee
(a) in the position the employee held before taking leave under this Part, or
(b) in a comparable position.
(4) If the employer's operations are suspended or discontinued when the leave ends, the employer must, subject to the seniority provisions in a collective agreement, comply with subsection (3) as soon as operations are resumed.]
The amendment simply adjusts the wording to make sure it fits in with the complaint procedure. That is, the employer must comply with a requirement. The Bill 29 language is worded as an entitlement, not a requirement.
Amendment approved.
Section 54 as amended approved.
On section 55.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment to section 55 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 55, in the proposed section 55 by deleting "section 54" and substituting "section 54 (2) to (4)".]
It really is just a change in numbering due to section 54.
On the amendment.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know I'm out of order. I'm going to ask leave of the minister to ask him one question, and that is for clarification on 52 and 53. I assume that those are cumulative over the year. That's all I want to say; they don't all have to be taken at one time. Is that correct?
[ Page 15802 ]
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll repeat myself. One of my caucus members asked me to ask this question, and I think it's a valid question. I think I know what the minister's intent was. In sections 52 and 53, the five days and three days, respectively, need not be taken all at once but can be taken over a period of time throughout the year. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, although I want to ensure that the members understand that bereavement leave is triggered by a death in the member's immediate family. In other words, if in horrible circumstances you have three or four deaths of people who qualify, then you would be entitled to three days in each instance. But the member is correct.
Amendment approved.
Section 55 as amended approved.
On section 56.
J. Tyabji: I'm not sure if I'm allowed to move an amendment on the order paper that is standing in someone else's name. Perhaps I should just read it into.... I may do that?
The Chair: I believe that's allowed, yes.
J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Chair. Then I would move an amendment to section 56 that is standing in the name of my colleague for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
[SECTION 56.1, by adding the following section:
56.1 (1) If the leaves' provisions of a collective agreement meet or exceed the requirements of this Part, those provisions replace the requirements of this Part for the employees covered by the collective agreement.
(2) If the leaves' provisions of a collective agreement do not meet or exceed the requirements of this Part,
(a) the requirements of this Part are deemed to form part of the collective agreement and to replace those provisions, and
(b) the grievance provisions of the collective agreement apply for resolving any dispute about the application or interpretation of those requirements.]
I'm sure the minister recognizes the language of this amendment, because it's identical to the language of the similar sections of this act as they deal with collective agreements. The reason for this amendment is that there hasn't been an allowance made under section 56 for collective agreements specifically. Just as the minister allowed for them specifically under some of the previous sections -- and I refer most specifically to sections 43 and 49 -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast wanted to make sure that when we talk about jury duty or leave, there would also be a specific provision for collective agreements.
On section 56.1.
The Chair: I'm going to allow the minister to comment on the amendment, though it's my fault: we should have dealt with section 56 first, because this amendment adds a new section. Having said that, however, I'll go to the minister on the amendment.
Hon. D. Miller: Unlike the areas where we discussed this meet-or-exceed test, we don't feel that should be the case here. One of the potential impacts of the member's amendment is that parties to a collective agreement could negotiate below the minimum prescribed for pregnancy leave in the Employment Standards Act. We wouldn't want that to happen. Under your amendment, it would be possible to negotiate below the standards contained in the act with respect to pregnancy leave. Why would we want to create a situation where that would even be possible?
[5:30]
J. Tyabji: I don't understand how that could be possible when the amendment is talking about meeting or exceeding. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage because I didn't draft the amendment, so I'm not as familiar with it as the member who drafted it. But the language being the same, it says specifically that if the collective agreement does not meet or exceed the provisions in this act for leave -- which could be maternity leave or jury duty -- this act then would take the part of those provisions in the collective agreement. It's identical to the language in the other sections. I don't understand how the minister would say that the amendment could possibly say that maternity would be less, because we're talking about meeting or exceeding. As I say, the language is identical to the other sections, and I don't see how there could be any difference. I don't understand the minister's argument on it.
Hon. D. Miller: The way the amendment is constructed, it deals with leaves. For members' information, I'll go back and read a section and the amendments we made and passed. I'm just picking section 43 arbitrarily here. I'll read this again, because I think it's important. It says that the provisions of a collective agreement, when considered together, constitute a package, and that the requirements of a part, when considered together, constitute a package. Both of these packages are compared to ensure that the collective agreement meets or exceeds the minimum standards of the applicable part.
If you take that rationale and apply it to what you have here, you deal with the leave provision of a collective agreement in your amendment. Therefore, if you took it as a package, it's conceivable that the maternity leave provision could be less than what is contained in the act, and other leave provisions could be superior, but it's the package. Don't you see that by proposing this amendment, you are in fact creating a situation where -- I don't know if it would happen, realistically, but it's conceivable that it could -- the maternity leave provisions would be inferior to the act? In that sense, I'm sure you wouldn't want the amendment.
N. Lortie: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
N. Lortie: Leaving our gallery today are 30 visitors in grades 7 to 12 from the Jacklin County 4-H Club in Central Point, Oregon, U.S.A. They are led by their instructor Ms. A. Manlove. Would the House please make them very, very welcome and give them a good send-off.
J. Tyabji: Given that the minister is saying that the amendment would somehow weaken the provisions for maternity leave -- and he hasn't spoken to jury duty -- could he explain to me how, if a collective agreement does not make these minimum requirements for maternity leave or jury duty
[ Page 15803 ]
as outlined in the act, there will be an allowance for this level within all collective agreements, just as he has had an overwriting of those provisions of collective agreements for statutory holidays, I think it was, and overtime wages? How do we ensure that the standards in this act will also be protected within collective agreements?
Hon. D. Miller: Part 6 of the bill deals with leaves and jury duty. The member's amendment refers to the leaves provision of a collective agreement. Therefore, going back to my original point, using the meet-or-exceed test, it's conceivable that under the amendment being proposed, maternity leaves that are inferior to those contained in the act could be negotiated in a collective agreement. We would not want that to happen, and that's why we must refuse the amendment.
G. Farrell-Collins: Far be it from me to imagine what the intent of the amendment might have been, but just by reading it and listening to the member I would suspect the intent was to try to restrict this to the jury duty section, as opposed to the whole leave. In that case, I think it's a drafting problem with the amendment, and the member could perhaps make some changes to have that clearer, although we're moving relatively quickly. I think it would merely be replacing where it says "this part" with "this section." There could be some changes there. I'm not sure what the goal of the amendment was, but I think the intent was to try to restrict it to the section on jury duty and not include all the other leaves. Perhaps the member might want to attempt an on-the-run amendment to her amendment or to introduce another one.
J. Tyabji: I do believe that the member is right: it was directed toward jury duty. I would go back to the question I asked the minister earlier: given that there is no reference to collective agreements in this section, how do we ensure, without an amendment, that this section of the act becomes the minimum standard for collective agreements?
Hon. D. Miller: Where it's silent, the rest of the act is the minimum standard. Under section 4 it says: "The requirements of this Act or the regulations are minimum requirements, and an agreement to waive any of those requirements is of no effect, subject to" -- the meet or exceed provisions in various sections -- "sections 43, 49, 61 and 69."
J. Tyabji: Given that there had to be something written out in 43, 49, 61 and 69, why would the provisions for jury leave, for example, be different from the provisions for overtime wages?
Hon. D. Miller: There is really nothing to balance out. It's simply not required. I don't know what other explanation there is.
J. Tyabji: Maybe the minister can answer this question. What happens if a collective agreement has lower standards of jury leave than what is outlined in this section of the act?
Hon. D. Miller: The act applies. The other sections deal with what are often negotiated issues. Certainly jury duty is contained in many collective agreements, but this is a pretty standard approach. Really, the act re-enacts the existing sections; it's not new. It simply says that if you're required for jury duty, you have protection in terms of your job. But it doesn't deal with the time off that you're allowed.
Section 56.1 negatived.
Sections 56 to 60 inclusive approved.
On section 61.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment to section 61 that is in the possession of the Clerk.
[SECTION 61, in the proposed section 61:
(a) in subsection (1) by deleting "meet or exceed the requirements of this Part," and substituting
", when considered together, meet or exceed the requirements of this Part when considered together,"
and
(b) in subsection (2) by deleting "do not meet or exceed the requirements of this Part," and substituting
", when considered together, do not meet or exceed the requirements of this Part when considered together,".]
Just some rationale, the amendment is for the same reasons as sections 34 and 49. In fact, we've just canvassed this in a general way. I want to clarify that there is not a policy change in this wording. Again, it goes on to deal with the issue of the package and the requirements of a part that, when considered together, constitute a package. I'll leave it at that.
Amendment approved.
Section 61 as amended approved.
On section 62.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 62 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 62, by deleting the proposed section 62 and substituting the following:
Definition
62. In this Part, "week of layoff" means a week in which an employee earns less than 50% of the employee's weekly wages, at the regular wage, averaged over the previous 8 weeks.]
On the amendment.
Hon. D. Miller: To clarify the amendment, it ensures that a week of layoff is calculated based upon a reduction in the weekly wages, not the regular wage. The regular wage is always calculated back to an hourly wage rate. Therefore, I would not want a person to be deemed to be on a week of layoff because the equivalent of their hourly wage rate was reduced by 50 percent.
Amendment approved.
Section 62 as amended approved.
On section 63.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment to section 63 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[Section 63, in the proposed section 63 (4) by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting the following:
(a) totalling all the employee's weekly wages, at the regular wage, during the last 8 weeks in which the employee worked normal or average hours of work, .]
This amendment ties in with the amendment to termination pay. In order to capture current practice, the employment
[ Page 15804 ]
standards branch always looks at an eight-week period in which the employee earned regular wages. At times, this may require going back further than eight weeks. If, for example, an employee earned less than 50 percent of their weekly wages, that week would be considered a week of layoff and not counted as part of the eight-week period. The Bill 29 definition did not allow for the branch to go beyond the eight-week period before termination of employment.
Amendment approved.
Section 63 as amended approved.
Sections 64 to 66 inclusive approved.
On section 67.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a question. I can't recall what it is, but I'm going to try and find it for the minister, if I can. I remember reading this last week, and I want to take just a second, if I can.... The member for Okanagan East has a comment, so maybe she can start it.
J. Tyabji: This might jog his memory. I want to congratulate the minister for adding the word "medical" to subsection (a). One reason I want to mention this is that I know of a number of cases where there have been restricted interpretations of this act, and employers have discharged people when they have had medical problems. So I'm happy to see that in there. Maybe that's bought enough time for the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. If not, I look forward to the minister's comments.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure the minister would rather just sit there and be congratulated all afternoon.
My understanding of this section is that it precludes the giving of notice to anyone who is on vacation, on leave of any sort -- medical leave -- or on strike. Is that correct? If so, why would that be the case? Couldn't it cause some problems if there was job action at a particular time when it was an annual process, particularly in some of the resource industries where termination notice would normally be given at that period of time, and a strike occurred so that notice wouldn't be required? As a result, the employer would end up being liable for the paid notice -- for those weeks of notice to be paid in cash while the employees are on strike. It seems to me that that's counter to what normally would be expected.
Hon. D. Miller: The basic thrust of it is that you should not be allowed to fire someone when they're not there. I mean, if you're away on your holidays.... You have heard the old joke about those people who have jobs where they phone the office in the morning, and if they answer and say, "Mr. So-and-So's office," the person goes to work.
Now, if people are on strike.... I think the example you alluded to suggested to me more of an annual layoff in the resource sector, or that type of situation. There is no particular effect, if that was the case. Let's assume that the strike ended, and employees were called back to work. Those who were hired would presumably come back, and those who typically might be aware that that's the period when they are laid off would not. It wouldn't interfere.
I also think there is a balance required between the two devices that can be used as part of collective bargaining. One is a strike and the other, of course, is a lockout. I think the member appreciates why we wouldn't allow lockout to be a period when an employer can terminate you, so it just seems to be practical. I don't think it would interfere with an employer's ability to have people at work or not at work, depending on the particular circumstance.
[5:45]
G. Farrell-Collins: I certainly understand the reason you wouldn't do it in a lockout situation, because it could be used as a way around the termination notice and the requirements to pay severance. But if the strike started in the middle or toward the end of a natural working cycle in the business or the industry, and a week or several weeks into this, one would normally have given termination notice, it would be the normal process to give a termination notice at that point in time. Time would normally run its course and there would be no requirement to pay severance. Rather, they would just let the weeks run out, and at the end of those weeks, the employee would terminate; there would be no cash given.
If, instead of that, a strike were to start -- some labour action or, in this case, a strike in particular -- let's say a week prior to when you would normally give that termination notice and have it run its course, under this, that termination notice would not be valid. It would really not exist. So the strike could continue for three months, for example. At the end of that period the whole world may be covered in snow, and there's no way you can get out there and do the work that would normally have occurred. One could give termination notice at that point in time, at the termination of the strike. But there would be no time to let that run its course. As a result, the employer would be liable for a cash settlement in lieu of those weeks of notice -- a severance, so to speak.
I don't know if that's an intended provision here, but certainly that's an unfair provision to put into the collective bargaining mix. It certainly could be abused from time to time, much in the same way that an employer could abuse a lockout situation.
Hon. D. Miller: If the member refers to section 65, you'll see that throughout there are various exceptions to the rules with respect to group termination. It recognizes in sub-subsection (3)(b): "an employee covered by a collective agreement who (i) is employed in a seasonal industry in which the practice is to lay off employees every year and to call them back to work, (ii) was notified on being hired by the employer that the employee might be laid off and called back to work, and (iii) is laid off or terminated as a result of the normal seasonal reduction, suspension or closure of an operation." So those specifics are recognized in the bill. The scenario that the member describes or says could take place under a certain strike situation is covered under this, bearing in mind part 8, "Termination of Employment." Does that answer the member's question?
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad I remembered my question, because I do think it's an important one. I can see the minister's point in that case. As long as he's willing to assure me that this is the case -- that those sections under section 65, with regard to the seasonal nature of work and the layoff and group termination provisions, would apply to or supersede section 67 -- then I'm comfortable with that. It ensures that there is no unintended abuse of this section by a trade union,
[ Page 15805 ]
in this case -- or, in a similar vein, no unintended abuse could occur by an employer under a lockout provision. As long as the minister is assuring me that section 65 would supersede this section, then I'm comfortable with regard to seasonal layoffs.
There is a provision, however.... A company could be struck, and that company could go out of business as a result of the strike. Would the group termination notice apply to that company with regard to severance and liability for wages? Would that be rolled in? Termination notice may not have been given because of this section and the fact that a strike existed. Would that termination notice now convert itself into a cash severance settlement owing to the employees, when going out of business may well have been caused by the labour action itself?
Hon. D. Miller: The answer to that last question depends on the circumstances under which an employer decides to close down. I mean, if they went bankrupt, presumably there would be some limitation.
Regardless of that, I will give the member the assurance he seeks. In fact, I'm advised that these provisions are covered currently in regulations, and we're bringing them into the legislation to make the rules of the game clearer.
G. Farrell-Collins: That gives me solace with respect to the first portion of my last question.
The latter portion of my last question dealt with the closure of a company having been struck and the termination notices or severance packages that may be due as a result of this section. Employers don't always necessarily wait until they go bankrupt if they've been struck; they don't necessarily wait until they go bankrupt before they shut down. They may well see the writing on the wall. It may have been a marginal operation. It may have been a branch of a larger company, and that branch may have been marginal at the time a strike occurred. Issues with regard to that strike -- pay rates, monetary items, benefits -- may be such that what's on the table is clearly going to go beyond the realm of what the employer is able to pay. If they were to accede to those demands or even keep up with the demands that are in place in the current collective agreement, given the market fluctuations.... If they were to continue to operate that business over a period of time, they would be losing money, and it would become an non-viable operation.
If they make a decision to close that operation down prior to a bankruptcy occurring -- where one could say that that one individual store, for example, could be said to be bankrupt and it can't continue to operate profitably -- would they then be liable for severance provisions -- for instance, a severance package on termination, in this case, because they weren't able to provide the normal termination notice one would grant to an employee or to a group of employees prior to closing an operation down? Normally, I would think that the employer would comply with these provisions, give notice of termination and intent to shut down the operation, let that run its course and come to some settlement: a severance package, maybe retraining -- that whole package that's there. But if a strike were to take place, that termination notice couldn't be given. It couldn't be allowed to run its course, and there would be an outstanding cash settlement as a result of the strike. In the same vein as my earlier question, in a marginal operation one could use that strike to achieve something that may not have been available otherwise.
Hon. D. Miller: I don't think so. The case now is that in the event of a decision to terminate -- perhaps in the middle of a strike -- the employees are entitled to termination pay. But a variety of circumstances could take place in any given set of negotiations. I've heard, for example, of employers using that as some kind of ultimatum with respect to collective bargaining relationships. We try not to take sides. The member has portrayed a situation sort of from the employer's side. The current practice is that termination is available when the provisions of the act are breached, regardless of a strike. The act continues that, and I don't think it particularly provides an advantage or disadvantage for any party in a collective bargaining relationship.
G. Farrell-Collins: I can see an occasion, under this section, where unintended results could arise. The minister may disagree with me, but I think the employer always has the option to close an operation for whatever reasons, particularly financial or operations reasons. If the strike were used as a method to gain some unintended benefits under this section, I think that would be as bad and as serious as an employer doing that with the lockout provision. The minister seemed to act fairly quickly on that one, and I just suspect that that provision could result in this case also.
Hon. D. Miller: Not to prolong it, but there are, again, a variety of circumstances that could take place in any collective bargaining situation, and I don't think the act advantages or disadvantages either employees or employer. For that reason, as I say, the current practice, the current act, is applied now in the way we're talking about, and I've not heard of any particular problems with that.
Section 67 approved.
Hon. D. Miller: I just thought I would mention the clock. I would 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. D. Miller: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:30 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:57 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:32 p.m.
[ Page 15806 ]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)
On vote 35: minister's office, $432,868 (continued).
W. Hurd: There are a series of issues, which are sort of random in nature, that I want to canvas one at a time. I understand, backtracking to the lumber tariff issue, that a conference will take place in Kelowna in early July involving ministry officials and representatives of the lumber sector from both sides of the border. I wonder if the minister could take a moment to explain to the committee the nature of the meeting. What does the ministry hope to accomplish there, given the fact that we are involved in what appears to be an escalating campaign in the United States to reintroduce tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber? In reviewing the media reports on the meeting, it would appear that the U.S. delegation's view of what will transpire at the meeting is very different from the Canadian delegation's. I wonder if the minister could describe the purpose of the meeting and what his ministry hopes to accomplish there.
Hon. A. Petter: I canvassed this issue with the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, but I would be happy to recapitulate. The government of Canada and the government of the United States have been engaged in a consultative process in order to better understand the respective positions of the two sides. There is representation from the provincial governments, particularly British Columbia, and industry. This is an effort, certainly on our part, to avoid any further action that might be taken in response to the pressure that continues to be brought to bear within the United States.
The member is quite correct that this consultative process will involve a July meeting in British Columbia. From our point of view, the purpose of these meetings is to explain, at the governmental and industry levels, the same arguments that were brought to bear through the countervail process, which was so successful in demonstrating that this government, this jurisdiction and this country ought not to be subject to any form of protectionist measures by the United States.
We believe that through information-sharing and consultation we can make a very strong case, as we have before. That will assist, perhaps, in dampening some of the pressures that are being experienced in the United States. It is for that reason that the consultative process has been undertaken. Industry has been very supportive of this process. That's the reason for the process. I think that some in the United States have tried to misrepresent the process or have tried to raise the stakes, as though it were a negotiation to try to serve their own political interests. The terms of reference for the process clearly stipulate that this is a consultative process and is designed to share information as a basis for better understanding and, hopefully, a long-term resolution of these issues. It's not a negotiation.
W. Hurd: I appreciate that explanation. I just had one further question with respect to this meeting. Will there be available any articles of understanding or transcript or record of the discussions that might be shared with the public? Given the fact that this is a sensitive issue affecting so many Canadian softwood lumber exporters, will there be a communique or some other type of public notification about the results of the meeting?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure actually whether or not transcripts are taken at these meetings. I'd be happy to find out for the member. As the member says, these are meetings in which there is an attempt through frank exchanges to share information in a way that will resolve these issues. There have certainly been reports back from these meetings, which I've been happy to share publicly and have commented on in these estimates, as I have just now. As to what precisely is available following the meetings, I don't know the answer. I'd be happy to find out. It's obviously a function of the understandings between the two national governments, as well as the participation of the other parties. For the member's benefit, if he wants to explore that further, I'd be happy to secure that information for him.
W. Hurd: Again, on the subject of sharing information, I just want to get a brief comment from the minister on the findings of Price Waterhouse on the Garnet fire review in the Penticton region. What steps has the ministry taken with respect to the implementations of the recommendations in that report? And could he advise the committee what liability may be incurred by the ministry as a result of the way it is deemed to have handled that particular fire? I just wonder if the minister could clarify what he expects to happen next in this ongoing controversy and what type of activities or remedies the property owners should be seeking with respect to the findings of the Price Waterhouse review of the Garnet fire and any other changes that might be forthcoming within the fire protection side of the ministry.
Hon. A. Petter: I could certainly answer in general terms, as I don't have the note to hand that I was looking for. In general terms, the Price Waterhouse report confirmed that the ministry had responded appropriately in terms of dealing with the fire. It made some recommendations as to how the situation could be improved. In particular, it recommended there be initial efforts made at early stages to try to deal with fire prevention. The major focus of the report in terms of how the situation could have been improved had to do with communications, particularly the communications to residents whose homes may have been threatened due to a wind shift. That information was not communicated in a timely way, and resulted in something of a breakdown in communications, which was documented in the report.
Various recommendations flowed from that, and I can assure the member that those recommendations are and have been implemented. If he wants more specifics, I can get that information for him. Certainly I know that the report and its recommendations around improved communication have been taken very seriously by the ministry and are being carried out by the ministry to ensure that we do improve communications around fire hazards, in cooperation with other agencies, such as the provincial emergency program and local authorities, in cases of interface fires -- that is, fires that occur close to populated centres.
W. Hurd: I'm glad the minister brought up the term "interface fires." It's clear that as the population of the province continues to increase, and as communities continue to expand, that this type of fire may become more prevalent in
[ Page 15807 ]
the future. I know one of the concerns expressed by the residents in connection with this particular incident was the fact that during the initial phases of the fire, people with some abilities came to the ministry and offered their assistance in dealing with the fire. However, there appeared to be no mechanism to mobilize that type of effort.
I just wonder, in reviewing the recommendations and the response of the ministry's branch, and given the proximity of some of these fires to populated areas, whether there was any idea that there may be more or better coordinating mechanisms between volunteer fire departments and community volunteers. I'm advised in this particular incident that these people felt they weren't sufficiently marshalled or instructed as to what action they could take to prevent what turned out to be the catastrophic loss of property in the Penticton region.
Hon. A. Petter: There were certain recommendations in the report, which I think speak to the member's concerns: to develop a single emergency management system through the provincial Interagency Emergency Preparedness Council for all types of disaster in B.C.; to require municipalities and regional districts to enact fire, building and subdivision standards, codes and regulations to address wildfire dangers; and to attach a communications officer to the fire management team during interface fires.
I think those recommendations do speak to the concern that we have to be particularly vigilant in the case of interface fires, not just within the Ministry of Forests but in a coordinated way. Local residents and all the agencies, both local and provincial, who deal with these fires need to ensure that communication lines are clear and consistent. Those recommendations, as I say, have formed the basis for the ministry's response, and we are determined to improve, in cooperation with other agencies, our capacity to deal with interface fires.
I might also say, however, that the report went to some lengths to say that this fire was a wake-up call not just to government but to residents. Just as residents who build in areas that may be subject to flooding have to take precautions and be aware of those risks and act accordingly, residents who choose to live in areas that are clearly fire-hazard areas can also take precautions to ensure that they are well prepared for the possibility of fire.
The ministry has been working for the past number of years to try to alert those residents. Further measures are being contemplated by the government to deal with the possibility of interface fires in the future to try to guard against the kinds of threats and damage that could occur -- and did occur in Penticton -- through preventative action.
W. Hurd: Can the minister just advise the committee of what recommendations in the report, with respect to this particular fire, are to now be implemented as part of the ministry's revised guidelines? Is there anything permanent from a policy standpoint that we can point to as providing justification for the considerable efforts that were put into examining the fire by Price Waterhouse? Will there flow from the report some specific policy revisions in the ministry that would at least mitigate the possibilities of such a catastrophe happening again in the future?
Hon. A. Petter: I mentioned some of the recommendations that the ministry is acting upon. Regrettably, the page which stipulates the particular actions the ministry has taken in response to those recommendations is not in front of me; hopefully I'll have it in a moment.
[2:45]
In general terms, the ministry is taking action to respond to all of the recommendations, some of which I referred to. These include: developing a single emergency management system or clearly defining and communicating the provincial emergency plan's mandate and responsibilities; requiring municipalities and regional districts to enact fire, building and subdivision standards, codes and regulations to address wildfire dangers; attaching a communications officer to the fire management team during interface fires; and calling for early evacuation rather than late evacuation when danger threatens. Another recommendation was for residents to take more responsibility to minimize the danger of interface fires by establishing and working with local volunteer fire departments, notifying new neighbours of fire hazard information and reducing the potential for wildfires spreading across their own property.
You'll be happy to know, hon. member, that we are also contemplating legislation that might be introduced in a future session of the Legislature. It will require developers and planners to consider the risk of building interface areas and require them to take appropriate preventive measures to ameliorate dangers. There are a number of things that can be done to minimize the loss from an interface fire that aren't expensive or cumbersome. I will offer a few examples. New homes could be built using fire-resistant roofing material, and the roofs of existing homes could be treated with fire-retardant materials. A defensible space could be created between the homes and the surrounding vegetation to reduce the chance of wildfire spreading to homes. Public and private roads could be built and maintained to facilitate evacuation of residents on a simultaneous basis, but also to allow access for emergency vehicles. Flammable vegetation, like Ponderosa pine, may have to be replaced with less flammable vegetation, like maple trees. This would have a nice nationalistic bent to it as well, hon. members. Finally, no residential areas could be built without a structural fire-prevention service available. So some actions are being contemplated to provide guidance to developers and municipalities in respect of interface fires.
As I said before, the news release that was put out following the fire indicated that all the recommendations I previously alluded to are being followed up on and will be implemented by government agencies. The Forest Service has already improved the information flow from the fireline to the public by expanding the role of the information teams, who provide community and media relations in the case of large interface fires. This was a move recommended in the report. We are also implementing the recommendation to ensure that evacuation alerts and procedures are clearly established, as well as all of the other recommendations I referred to.
W. Hurd: I appreciate the response from the minister. Others may want to canvass the issue at a little greater length.
I just have a couple of other issues that I want to raise quickly. One was the status of the Forest Practices Code with respect to rangelands in the province. It is my understanding that there has been a deferral of the impacts of the code on rangelands in the province pending further review by the ministry. I want to confirm that that in fact is the policy in
[ Page 15808 ]
place and seek assurances on behalf of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and others that there is a continued period of adjustment past the implication of the code. Is it accurate to say that the code will be phased in on Crown rangeland in the province? If so, what would the time frame be for a final decision of the ministry as to when the rules will apply?
Hon. A. Petter: This was an issue which arose during debate on the amendments to the Forest Practices Code that were enacted recently in the Legislature. Within those amendments, it is my recollection that there was an extension period provided for range transition. There was also a clarification that the application of the standards to private lands only applied insofar as the grazing schedule was concerned, which was the prior position, and that the other requirements of the code were not intended to be applied to private lands. The ministry has also indicated that it will continue to assume responsibility for range management planning for a period of two years.
W. Hurd: Just to clarify the minister's remarks, are we dealing with a partial phase-in of the regulations on private land and a complete phase-in on Crown grazing tenures? I wonder if you could clarify that on behalf of the ranching industry. I have received correspondence that seems to imply an understanding on their part that there is in fact a window of adjustment that will continue past the point where the forest licensees are completely responsible for all aspects of the code, but not so Crown grazing tenures. I just wonder if the minister could confirm that there has been an additional window of adjustment offered and that the types of consultations that the grazing industry feels are absolutely vital, with respect to the impacts of the code, will continue for an indefinite period.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, there was extensive consultation with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and those interested in grazing issues. As a result of those consultations and concerns about the transition period, there were extensions made to allow for a longer period for the application of the code standards. I don't have detailed notes on them here, because they were part of the amendments that we passed to the Forest Practices Code, but I would be happy to follow up and provide those details, if the member doesn't already have access to them as a result of that prior debate.
In addition, as a result of those consultations, there was concern on the part of members of the Cattlemen's Association that the act, as it had previously been drafted, left open the possibility of private lands being subject to a greater form of regulation than the ministry had intended or than had previously been the industry's standard, namely the application of the grazing schedule. The intention of our original provision was to give us the means to apply the grazing schedule, but we agreed that the act was not clear in confining the application of the code to that one element in its application to the private land component. So in the recent amendments in the Legislature, we amended that section to make it crystal-clear that in respect of private lands -- not the Crown tenures but private lands -- the application of the code was confined to the issue of the grazing schedule, consistent with our original intent and the understanding of the industry.
My understanding is that the Cattlemen's Association and others who have been involved in the consultation process feel that they have been listened to and that our response has been one that reflects a serious commitment to working with them to achieve the new regulations under the Forest Practices Code in a way that will not be detrimental to the industry.
W. Hurd: I wonder if I could just expand the discussion to the special management zones, in particular in the East Kootenay CORE report. I know that the minister's colleague the Minister of Agriculture was concerned about the grazing limitations that could potentially be applied to the special management areas. Since the most recent correspondence I have is actually late 1994 and early 1995, I wonder whether that issue has now been satisfactorily resolved and whether the cattlemen are satisfied with the nature of their access to the special management zones -- I guess not the low-intensity zones, but I'm just trying to remember the catchword for the....
Hon. A. Petter: Special resource development zones.
W. Hurd: Special resource development zones, or whatever.
I wonder if the minister could just assure us that the association and the ministry have managed to work out their concerns on that issue.
Hon. A. Petter: In general terms there's been a lot since the time that the member references on this and related issues. For example, I think it's been made clear through the Cariboo land use planning exercises that even within protected areas grazing will be allowed to continue where there have been grazing licences in the past.
In respect to special management areas, yes. Those areas will be managed to accommodate continuation of grazing. The East Kootenay corridor has always been an area where there's been a high level of conflict and tension around issues of grazing versus other wildlife management. As someone who has spent a fair bit of my school years in the Nelson area, I certainly am aware of issues over multiple use in the East Kootenays. I think they're legend within various ministries of government.
Having said that, we have made it clear that special management zones are designed to accommodate grazing. That doesn't mean there still aren't issues that need to be resolved, as there have been in the past, as to how much grazing and to what extent grazing can be permitted in a way that doesn't conflict with other wildlife resources, for example.
I don't want to pretend to the member that those have all been resolved. But I think there has been a much clearer understanding that our intention in creating special resource development zones is not to preclude grazing and that those issues will be resolved in the way they have been, even within these zones.
W. Hurd: I have just one further issue with respect to access to the land base. In the vote description, one of the functions of the resource planning and allocation branch is to "maintain information about aboriginal rights over forest range lands." It's curious wording in the vote description. I just wonder whether the minister could take a moment in
[ Page 15809 ]
committee to explain exactly what kind of information is being catalogued with respect to rights over Crown forest and range lands.
I'm certainly aware of the joint stewardship agreements that the ministry has signed that require consultation before there is resource extraction. But I wonder if he could clarify what is meant in the vote description by "aboriginal rights over forest and range lands."
Hon. A. Petter: This relates to the obligation that the Crown has as a result of various court decisions, chief among them the Delgamuukw decision under the Court of Appeal of B.C., and, indeed, the prior Delgamuukw decision, which require the Crown to make their best efforts to ensure that aboriginal rights are not interfered with in approving development activities on Crown land. It's important to engage in consultation and to identify historic aboriginal sites and important aboriginal values on that land to ensure that we are satisfying that legal obligation. So, for example, if one were to come across a traditional aboriginal gravesite or a site that has culturally modified trees that have a particular significance, it's important to have information on those so as to satisfy and discharge that obligation.
It's also true that agreements have been entered into pursuant to that obligation to try to provide an understanding with a particular first nations or groups of first nations of how that consultation process might take place. It is a feature of the Forest Practices Code. It's a feature of Crown land management generally that we have a legal obligation that we must discharge in order to satisfy the courts that we have lived up to the requirements that they have placed upon us to respect aboriginal rights.
W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can tell us the cost of assembling this information and disseminating it to those parties that need to be apprised of it. Is it broken out at all into any sort of category within the forest resources management branch? Does the ministry catalogue or break out the costs for this particular information-gathering function of the branch?
Hon. A. Petter: The short answer is that there is not a separate number identified in the documents. Gathering additional inventory work on first nations sites and cultural artifacts, etc. is something that is taking place through a number of different initiatives. But if you want a ballpark estimate of what the figure would be for this particular commitment, the best estimate is less than $1 million.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could advise us what type of information-sharing occurs with respect to this particular function on the part of other ministries. Is it clearly within Forests' range? Would Forests' liabilities -- I guess liabilities is the best word to describe it -- need to be forwarded to other ministries on an integrated resource use basis? Having catalogued this information and placed it on file somewhere, I wonder if the minister could describe what provisions are made to share the information with other resourceholders and stakeholders. I'm sure the findings of this particular side of the ministry would be of great interest not only to people applying for forest licences but also to those seeking back-country recreation tenures or any other type of activity on the land base which would require them to have some form of licence.
[3:00]
Hon. A. Petter: Certainly all resource-based ministries who have the same obligation in terms of approving development permits share this kind of information. For example, the Ministry of Lands, the Ministry of Energy and Mines and other ministries make such approvals. The Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture obviously has a particular interest in such information as well because of its role with respect to granting development approvals, and the like. So yes, there is a sharing and pooling of information to ensure that there is no duplication and that all ministries who require this information have the best access to it.
W. Hurd: I just have one further question before yielding the floor to others. It probably will be my final question on this set of estimates, and I want to go on record as thanking the ministry staff for their involvement.
My question relates to an issue we raised previously with respect to the impact of the Forest Practices Code on private forest land.
I wonder, again, with respect to the application of the code, if we are now into a situation where the code applies as equally to private land as it does to public land. Are we looking at some adjustment? I wonder if the minister could clarify that.
Hon. A. Petter: We are not yet in a situation where the code is applied at all to private managed forest land. Over the past year, following up on the general consultation that took place around the code with respect to its general application on Crown land, a subsequent consultation process took place involving the owners of private managed forest land -- some 121 owners and others who have an interest in this issue -- on the application of the code to private managed forest land. My expectation is that we'll be making an announcement concerning the application of code standards to the private managed forest land base within the next few months.
Suffice to say that there are issues of concern to private landowners that I think are quite compelling. Private landowners make the point that in many cases they have established a longstanding commitment to forestry. On the other hand, there are also concerns about private land. Some of the experience on private managed forest land with respect to salmon habitat and streams is no better, and perhaps in some cases even worse, than that on Crown land. It's a matter of weighing and balancing those concerns and issues and coming forward with a set of standards that are appropriate.
We will certainly be providing some greater latitude and flexibility with respect to processes, particularly for small land holders, and be sensitive to some of the concerns that have been expressed through the consultative process that Dr. Baskerville undertook. By the same token, there is public concern and interest in ensuring that private managed forest lands are managed in a way that is not detrimental to the environment, particularly to associated values like fish streams and wildlife habitat.
[ Page 15810 ]
D. Schreck: I want to take this opportunity, during a brief transition in the debate before the third party takes the floor, to compliment the minister and appeal to his influence elsewhere in government on the job the Ministry of Forests has done on access to information within his ministry on the Internet.
Those who spend a lot of time on the Internet, like I do, may look on their World-Wide Web browser at www.gov.bc.ca and see the home page for all of the B.C. provincial government. Within that home page is a section on the Ministry of Forests, which from what I've seen -- and I make a hobby of finding everything I can in the world on this -- is one of the most outstanding examples anywhere in the world on access to government information. Every act administered by the Ministry of Forests, no matter when it was passed, can be brought up, and that full act can be accessed. The Forest Practices Code can be accessed; the regulations to it can be accessed. I cannot find another example, searching literally everywhere in the world, that is any better than the standards set by the B.C. Ministry of Forests. Both the minister and staff responsible deserve enormous credit. People interested in forestry, access to information over the Internet or open government should visit this site and have a look at the high standard that's been set.
I want to make an appeal to the minister. While other areas of government are setting higher standards than are frequently achieved elsewhere, none of them have achieved the standard that has been set in this ministry. I encourage this minister to make sure that his colleagues meet the standard that he has set.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the comment. Not only are we changing the way we manage our forests, we are changing the way we disseminate the information about the way we are managing our forests.
As a self-avowed technopeasant, I want to say the credit really goes to some very committed individuals within the communications branch and elsewhere who understand what I have yet to fully appreciate: just how important a resource the World-Wide Web and the network that the member is well familiar with is. Clearly this is a very, very important way of providing information. I will pass on the member's appreciation and compliments to staff who have taken it upon themselves to utilize this resource to provide the maximum degree of information possible to users like himself and, hopefully, those around the world who have an interest in B.C. forest practices and forest management.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to spend a bit of time today talking about a constituency issue related to aspen harvesting in the Dawson Creek forest district. It specifically relates to pulpwood agreement 10, but it probably has implications for pulpwood agreement 13 as well. As the minister may know, an OSB plant was established in Dawson Creek in 1986. The tenure to help sustain the plant was pulpwood agreement 10. Over the years a significant industry developed around the harvesting and processing of aspen in Dawson Creek. Indeed, it was the first place in British Columbia to process aspen for timber products in any substantive way, and probably the first plant anywhere in Canada to really make use of aspen as a wood product for construction. About 150 people work in the plant, and about 300 people are currently employed in the areas of logging, trucking, processing and aspen harvesting.
My concern is that over the last couple of years a difference of opinion, I suppose, or a lack of understanding between Louisiana Pacific and the Ministry of Forests has resulted in almost no harvesting of Crown wood under the PA. The plant is running at capacity and beyond the amount specified in the pulpwood agreement. This year probably somewhere around 600,000 cubic metres of aspen will be processed in Dawson Creek for OSB board. That comes from two sources now because of the lack of access to aspen on Crown land. It comes from private land in British Columbia and Alberta.
There have been some very substantive negative effects of that change in harvesting patterns. First, almost all the private aspen wood in the South Peace area has been harvested. The demands of the logging contractors to have access to wood has depleted the private wood supply almost entirely, and it was a significant amount in the South Peace. Increasingly, large volumes of aspen are coming in from Alberta to the plant. Those 300 people, who from 1986 to the present have worked in trucking, logging and service companies, etc., don't have access to the wood in Alberta. It's harvested in Alberta by Albertans; it's trucked into Dawson Creek by Albertans. Many of my constituents who had found new employment in this new activity now find themselves very much threatened by this situation, which has arisen over the last couple of years. They are no longer able to locate private wood. They see the wood that they would normally have harvested on Crown land being replaced by wood brought in from outside the province.
There's another very serious downside to this scenario. What people living in the region see is intense logging on private land. The private land is, naturally, most closely located to the settlement areas. So if you are a casual observer and live in the area, there appears to be very, very extensive harvesting of aspen forests. Indeed, many who look at it in a rather cursory way would believe, and I think understandably, that there is enormous overcutting as a result of what they see as they drive through the community.
There needs to be a resolution to this issue. I've had an opportunity to speak privately with the minister about this, and I want to, again, take this opportunity to get on record the concerns that I have -- and the concerns are substantive. Aside from the environmental and visual impact of this concentrated harvesting on private land, there is also the problem that once that is depleted, and if for some reason the Alberta wood is no longer available, then the entire plant supply will have to come from the Crown land, from the pulpwood agreement.
I know we can't turn back the clock, but it would have been far better had there been a regular and sustained harvest of Crown wood. Much of it is overmature because there has never been harvesting before 1986. The private wood should have been there with the ability to supplement the supply from Crown sources. Instead, in two or three years -- and to a lesser degree in the period of time leading up to it -- we have obliterated for a couple of decades any real volumes of aspen from private lands.
[3:15]
There obviously needs to be a resolution. There need to be some arrangements made that allow for the regulated, orderly harvesting of Crown lands. Yesterday in Dawson Creek I met with the new district manager. I'm advised by
[ Page 15811 ]
him that there will be small business sales available this year and that there will be direct sales under the pulpwood agreement this year. That is good news. I welcome that news, and I would certainly acknowledge any involvement that the minister and senior staff have had in moving closer to a decision. I wonder, on the basis of that, if the minister can give me a better insight into what is happening. What are we likely to see and what options are there for a resolution?
Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciate the member's question and the fact that the member brought this concern to me confidentially some time ago. It gave me an opportunity to further explore it. It is certainly a concern within the Dawson Creek area and within the Ministry of Forests that this issue be addressed and resolved. There are a number of elements to it, as the member has indicated.
One element to it has to do with the actual issue of timber supply: to what extent is there an adequate timber supply within the area to continue to provide for the needs of this particular operation? Not to put too fine a point on it, it's my assessment, based on the information I have been provided with, that what happened here is that a pulpwood agreement was provided and an AAC set that was, frankly, in excess of what the resource could sustain on a long-term basis. We will have to await the outcome of the timber supply analysis and the chief forester's determination for confirmation of that view or its correction. Certainly it appears to be the case that there was, let's say, extreme optimism shown -- perhaps excessive optimism -- in the assessment of the hardwood resource in this area in making the decision to proceed with this plant and, in particular, to provide the pulpwood licence.
Unfortunately, that's not an isolated occurence. That's one of the problems we're dealing with provincewide. The expectations of the industry as to what future levels of cut could be sustained exceed what we are now finding is possible, and we therefore have an overcapacity of supply in parts of the province and an overcut in other parts. That's something I won't go into great detail on, because we have addressed it elsewhere in these estimates.
The resource is one concern, and I want to signal that to the member. I know that the company and industry will have different views on this. Happily, the timber supply analysis and the process around it will allow an opportunity for the sharing of information, for public input, and for the chief forester to consider all that input, plus the guidance I've given to the chief forester, as I'm required to under the act. I have suggested that the chief forester should take account of not only the social and economic objectives of the provincial government, which are to maintain employment and stability, but also those of the local community. All that will be factored in, and I think we'll be in a better position when we have the results of that process. I wanted to take that as a starting point.
Having said that, what are we doing in the meantime to deal with the situation here? The way in which pulpwood agreements function, as the member has suggested in his comments, is that the pulpwood agreement provides -- if I can call it this -- a security blanket. It falls as residual volume that's available to a licensee -- at least this pulpwood agreement does, in the way it's framed. Volume is available to the licensee if the licensee cannot secure volume through some other means. I understand that the expectation historically was that a considerable component of the volume to provide for this mill would be provided through private-land logging. No one has a desire to see bad private-land logging, obviously, but the expectation was that there would be some private-land logging.
Another factor we have to bear in mind here is that the capacity of the plant has increased over time. As I understand it, the capacity has increased from 452,000 cubic metres for requirements to more than 600,000 cubic metres due to improved efficiency and other factors. We have this concern about the timber supply, which may not be as great as was originally suggested. We have a concern about capacity, which may in fact be greater than was originally suggested, and we have a pulpwood agreement that is there to act as a safety net to provide volume if volume can't be found from other sources.
The member has raised a number of questions and concerns around this. I want to address them as best I can, and if I leave some points out, I'm sure he'll come back and remind me of them.
One is the question of the Alberta wood. To what extent is dependence on Alberta wood a factor that is being taken into account to deny access to the pulpwood agreement? Is that fair? Is that simply going to lead to a situation in which, if the plant runs out of Alberta wood, there will there be a serious problem?
I'm not sure if this was communicated to him; he may have mentioned it, but I didn't hear him do so. Let me inform the member that in fact the deputy minister agreed earlier this year that the Alberta volume will not be applied to the allotment of the 452,000 cubic metres due to the company under their pulpwood agreement. The concern that the Alberta volume is somehow disentitling or impeding access to the pulpwood agreement has been addressed. For that reason there will be some volume available this year, for the first time in a number of years, under the pulpwood agreement for the company.
Don't take this as a commitment, but as an estimate. I think the estimate we have is around 140,000 cubic metres. In addition, the member is right: because of our concerns that the company be provided with an adequate volume, the district office has planned to put out a volume for the small business program -- about 200,000 cubic metres, I think -- to provide aspen opportunities that in turn will no doubt find their way into this plan of operation. Between those two initiatives, we are seeing the Crown land contribution go from a very minimal contribution in recent years to a contribution -- part of which is under the pulpwood agreement, part of which is under the small business program -- of about 340,000 cubic metres, just slightly over 100,000 short of the pulpwood agreement's expectations.
Where do we go from here in the future? We first have to get a firm handle on the timber supply situation, which the timber supply review will give us. We have to find out what the chief forester's determination is in respect to the deciduous volume that is available and sustainable. Once we've done that, I think what we need to do is work cooperatively -- and I'd certainly be happy to work cooperatively with the member on this issue, as we have on other issues of a local nature in the past -- along with the ministry to resolve the issue for the long term.
It may be that looking at some alternative form of tenure -- not a residual pulpwood agreement, which may represent
[ Page 15812 ]
volumes that don't in fact exist, but a more real form of forest licence or forest opportunity that represents actual volumes that exist, so everyone knows where they stand and what the incremental volume that the company has to achieve from private land is well known -- may be a more desirable policy alternative. If I understand the member, that is the kind of route that he has suggested might be explored. He may want to confirm or correct me on this.
In respect of the issue of private-land logging, I'm very aware of concerns that have been expressed throughout the province on issues of private-land logging and some of the pressure put on private land because of market conditions, or in this case because of the pressure for aspen. I can't resist saying in response to the member that that does invite discussion of the issue of whether government ought not to be at some level, if not provincially then perhaps locally, considering some form of regulation of private-land logging beyond the regulation of private managed forest land.
I know that's a contentious issue. I know there are ideological and philosophical concerns around it, but I have heard, from people right across the political spectrum, sufficient concern to convince me that it is at least an issue that requires some exploration and consideration. There is a public interest in certain values on private land that should be protected and guarded against. Perhaps some further work with local government or in some other forum would be productive in that regard, as well as a complementary initiative that could deal with some of these concerns. Again, I would be very appreciative of the member's advice in this public forum on that issue, if he feels moved to provide it.
J. Weisgerber: First, let me say that I was encouraged yesterday and again today to learn that we're going to be harvesting 340,000 cubic metres of wood this year through various tenures. That's 340,000 cubic metres of wood that probably won't be harvested off private land this year. While the argument about how we might deal at some point down the line with individual owners of land.... The first opportunity, and the opportunity that has existed, is to take some pressure off private land by making the wood available, as the minister has indicated will be the case.
Also, when we talk about this particular tenure, I think it's important to go back.... As I understand it, this was the first tenure issued in British Columbia for a pulpwood agreement with an OSB plant or similar exercise. At that time, there was a whole timber supply area, the Dawson Creek and Fort St. John forest districts, none of which there was any pressure on for wood. The Crown advertised and made available 452,000 cubic metres. Louisiana-Pacific took up the offer in good faith. Further to that, the Crown, through the Ministry of Forests, subsequently advertised another 450,000 cubic metres, 52,000 cubic metres of which ultimately became pulpwood agreement 13. It advertised another pulpwood agreement in the Fort St. John area, which ultimately went to Fibreco and is now, I think, the Slocan initiative. There was a further pulpwood agreement -- I believe it was 235,000 or 225,000 cubic metres -- advertised in the Hudson's Hope area at Farrell Creek, which was originally awarded to a group called Makin Pulp and Paper. Beyond that, there was a pulpwood agreement issued in Fort St. John.
I want it to be understood that that wasn't at the initiative of the companies as much as it was of the Crown very appropriately going out and looking for a user of a resource, which up until that point had been underutilized. As a result of the two pulpwood agreements that were taken up and actually used, there has been an obligation, and an obligation exists, on the Crown to be able to live up to the intent of those pulpwood agreements. The issue at Farrell Creek, the pulpwood agreement that was originally issued to Makin, is something that has to be carefully considered in the resolution. As I understand, Makin has failed to act on the undertakings it made. The pulpwood agreement was rescinded. There was an appeal by Makin, and they've lost the appeal. There will likely be some community tensions around the disposition of that particular wood.
It's critically important for the Crown to recognize an obligation not only to pulpwood agreements 10 and 13, but to any other pulpwood agreements that it's already issued, before it makes any new commitments for that particular volume of aspen now available, in the broad sense of the word. As the MLA for South Peace, if indeed we are unable to live up to the demands under pulpwood agreements 10 and 13, then I will very much encourage the examination of Farrell Creek as a possible additional supply area.
I do think also that the form of tenure should be re-examined in a constructive way. I think and hope and trust that ministry officials will sit down with the pulpwood agreement holders and in a forthright way examine what options there are for modifications to the type of pulpwood agreement and the conditions, because I understand that the conditions at Fort Nelson are significantly different under the pulpwood agreement there than they are for the two in the South Peace area. There should be an examination of whether or not there should be a rollover to some kind of forest licence and what rights the company has in that process. Again, it would be important for the Crown to be candid in discussing those things.
I've suggested all of these things to the municipal councils, to the regional district, to the companies and to the unions involved. There's no subterfuge here. I want everybody to understand what the situation is and what the options are. We should have open discussions about the wood that might be available in addition to these supplies. We should be willing to go back and examine the whole process of how the inventory was done initially, which indicated that there were at least 900,000 cubic metres of aspen wood in the South Peace. The subsequent inventory has brought that into question in a rather dramatic way, and we should be prepared to look at and rationalize those issues as well.
[3:30]
Perhaps the minister would acknowledge the fact that indeed there was a series of events. When the pulpwood agreement 10 was first issued, it was apparently sustainable, and when it was first issued there was lots of aspen uncommitted outside the geographic bounds of pulpwood agreement 10. The point I'm making is that there may well have been an obligation on the Crown, if that 450,000 metres wasn't sustainable, to identify that before issuing the subsequent pulpwood agreement 13 and the one to Fibreco, which is now held by Slocan.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me start by saying, just to make sure this is clear.... I hope it was implicit, but let me make it explicit. From my point of view and that of the government, our objective here is to maintain stability within Dawson
[ Page 15813 ]
Creek and ensure the continuation of that operation for that community. It's to that end that all our efforts will be directed.
What we see here historically -- and I don't want to make a lot out of this -- is the difficulty of making decisions without having an adequate information base about timber supply. The notes I have suggest that there were errors made in identifying the harvesting land base and the yield of timber from that land base. For whatever reasons, there seems to have been an overestimation within a defined boundary -- because the pulpwood agreements are defined geographically -- of what could be a sustained yield. That's unfortunate. I would also say that the 452,000 cubic metres were provided as a pulpwood agreement, intentionally as I understand it, because a pulpwood agreement is, to put it colloquially, a top-up licence. Basically, it is a way of saying: "We expect you to find wood elsewhere."
Historically, I think it was understood that a significant contribution would be sought from private land, but if they're unable to achieve this volume through their efforts to secure wood on the market, then we are prepared to provide them with harvesting opportunities to reach this level. So that form of licence was not a guarantee of 452,000 cubic metres per se; it was a guarantee to assist the licensee in achieving 452,000 cubic metres after the licensee had, through best efforts, tried to secure that amount of volume elsewhere. If the licensee failed to do so, then the ministry's obligation was to assist the licensee in achieving that volume.
I want to put that into perspective. The expectation was that a significant amount of that volume would be achievable through purchases of volume from private lands. The private land component isn't something new or unthought of; it is in fact part of why the licence was historically put together in this way. The other variable I'll just remind the member of is that the capacity of the plant has in fact gone up from 452,000 to 600,000 cubic metres.
Having said all that, I believe that by working cooperatively a solution can be found, even if we have to make some tough decisions. I think we can achieve a solution that will provide stability for the community. I think we have to have the timber supply information first. The member says that we as a ministry should be open to discussing with Louisiana-Pacific a full range of alternatives. I want to assure the member that we are and that approaches have already been made to Louisiana-Pacific, although the company has been told that we believe that we have to have the timber supply information and the AAC determination in place to find a long-term solution.
In the meantime we've taken the steps we've already discussed, which are -- and I think the member has acknowledged this -- a major step forward in addressing the short-term concerns. If at the end of the day the volume cannot be found within this timber supply area, and if, through whatever arrangements are made -- perhaps for a lesser volume through a different form of forest licence and the continued use of some private land -- there is still a shortfall and it's necessary to look to other areas, I may be calling on the member for Peace River South to talk to the member for Peace River North, if in fact the suggestion is that the Makin volume or some other volume ought to be brought to bear here.
I don't know if the member for Peace River North wants to offer his views on that topic, but clearly we're going to have to look at whatever solutions can be supported throughout the communities of the north and south Peace River areas that will provide stability. The member has my commitment that we will work in an open and concerted way to that end; we will ensure that we have the adequate information we need to make the decisions. In the meantime, we will work, as we have through the district, towards ensuring that stability is maintained.
In the long term we're quite open to whether this will involve linking pulpwood agreements 10 and 13, converting those licences into some other form of licence or looking at volumes that may be available elsewhere in the larger geographic area. We will certainly work to the end of maintaining stability within the Dawson Creek operation and living up to the commitments and understandings that the member has referred to.
J. Weisgerber: Again, let me confirm that my interest is in maintaining the viability of the plant in Dawson Creek and the pulp mill at East Pine, and in ensuring that there is employment not only at the plants but in the harvesting activities around them. The community and spinoff benefits are very much an integral part of the economy of the Peace region now and should be considered.
The steps taken over the last weeks and months are certainly welcome from my perspective. The decision to exclude the Alberta volumes is something that I've talked about to the ministry officials, the minister, his predecessor and the plant operators, along with the communities. The decision to issue some licences this year is good news. I think that will resolve the problem in the short term.
I have a couple of observations and questions as well. With the Farrell Creek situation, I'm not looking for a commitment that it's going to go to one licence holder or another. That's going to be an issue that will have to be dealt with in some public process, perhaps some kind of hearing. It may well be that the solution is to reserve it under the jurisdiction of the ministry and make available significant volumes on an annual basis through private sales or small business sales. That would allow for some competition to move the wood where there is need and where there is the greatest benefit for the region.
We need to know and have an assurance from the minister that until the timber supply review for both the north and south Peace is concluded, there will be no decisions taken with respect to that particular volume. I think all the people involved need to have some sense of timing. When can we reasonably expect a report on the timber supply review?
Before the minister answers that, I have one other observation with respect to inventories. In the preliminary work done to date with respect to the timber supply review, it's interesting to me that supplies of softwood had actually been underestimated in one of the few regions in the province where the cut is sustainable and could in fact be increased -- the south Peace. There's a lot of reason for optimism there, and we're pleased with that result. But I do find it difficult to understand how the same ministry and the same people in the same geographic area could be conservative in their estimates on the softwood side and be what appears to be wildly optimistic on the hardwood side.
I would bring to the minister's attention that when the debates were going on around the awards to Fibreco, Makin and Louisiana-Pacific, there was serious debate about a sec-
[ Page 15814 ]
ond waferboard plant added into this mix, established at Chetwynd. I sat in on negotiations and public hearings where the suggestion was made, both by Louisiana-Pacific and ministry staff, that there were sufficient volumes in the south Peace to not only look after the demands of the OSB plant at Dawson Creek and the pulp mill at East Pine, but also supply yet another OSB plant. There was in fact enough other volume in the forest district to enable this. That didn't come forward, and in view of the events today, I suppose everyone is happy that it didn't. But I do find it hard to understand how we could have been so close on the softwood side and, at least at first blush, somewhat substantially overly optimistic on the hardwood side.
Hon. A. Petter: I share the member's astonishment, I guess. All I can say to the member is that it is enough to shake your faith in the forest management policies of the previous Social Credit government -- that, in fact, timber supply reviews could be allowed to proceed in a way that produced such results. If his faith is shaken as much as mine, then I'm not surprised, I guess. But there's the reality. Of course, the member will be aware that in 1991 the ministry itself released a report expressing its own concern that it was not able to maintain a clear picture on sustainable harvest levels, because it hadn't been given the resources to do adequate timber supply analysis.
As for the specific reasons, I've given my best account of them, as I've been informed by staff. Clearly there was some serious problem. The whole purpose of the timber supply review is to provide us with a much more certain and realistic view of the future, not one that is based on trying to get as many OSB plants up as quickly as possible before the next election -- which, based on the member's recount of history, I may read into what he says -- but one that is based upon what the resource can sustain. Certainly that is the whole function of the timber supply review process.
If the member wants me to try to delve more deeply into the cause of the shortcomings of the timber supply process under his previous government, I'm more than happy to do that and share that with him if it will assist him. Suffice it to say, I think what we need to do now is certainly to question, but also to take account of the analysis that is being done now in order to make sure that it is as accurate and as reliable as possible -- I'm sure the company is contributing to that process -- so that we can get on with the solution and ensure that the volumes are available and sustainable to provide for the long-term stability of communities within the area.
I'm happy the member did refer to the fact that within this timber supply area there is the opportunity to actually increase the long-term harvest level. It's true that's not typical; it's more the exception than the rule. But there are a number of timber supply areas where that has been the case, where the timber supply analysis has provided reassurance that the current rate can continue or could be increased so that there are additional opportunities. I guess the most dramatic example of that in the province is the Cassiar TSA, where there is a potential, based on the resource, for very large increases, as well as concerns about the environmental and social impacts of that. That is another reason that the timber supply review is such an important instrument. It tells us not only the limitations but the opportunities that we can take advantage of to ensure that we have long-term sustainability.
[3:45]
Having commented generally upon that, I just renew my commitment to the member and the communities to work in the mode that the member has indicated to ensure that we have long-term sustainability. The member asked when the timber supply review is likely to be completed and an annual allowable cut determined. I'm informed that the likely date for this particular timber supply area is early in 1996. Certainly the chief forester is doing his best to complete the timber supply review as quickly as possible. As the member knows, the chief forester asked for an additional year beyond the three years that had been provided by legislation, and the Legislature has agreed to that through the recent amendments. I know he still would like to complete the process well in advance of that additional year. I'm informed that his best estimate is to provide the determination in this case in early 1996, which will then enable us to get on with the job of dealing with how we provide for the long-term sustainability of the Dawson Creek operation and of other operations the member has referred to within the area.
J. Weisgerber: Up until this point we were going along pretty good by talking about our common objectives, which are to keep the plant running, to keep maximum employment available and to work with the common interest of good forestry practices in the area. I appreciated that. I'm sure that the minister didn't for a moment mean to suggest that staff in the branch had been influenced politically before 1991 in the analysis and the inventories they developed, any more than one would argue that somehow the fact that the inventory on softwood in the area came in bang on would assume that that was a hallmark of exceptionally good government. As a result of that, I would expect by the same measure that the fact that the inventory hasn't been completed in the three years as promised would indeed be a reflection of a government that was less than functional in its approach.
That's not the case. The minister knows it, and we know it. I know there are always particulars; we get close to an election and one gets a little bit antsy on that issue; there's always the desire to bring that issue to the fore. The reality is that history surrounds these issues. I bring them forward not because I want to make political points one way or the other but because I think we have an obligation to the people who made an investment -- particularly the small business people. Many, many of those small business people in my community have their life savings sunk into timber-harvesting equipment and trucking equipment. They are very much dependent on the continued operation and long-term viability of the plant. It is for their interests that I'm particularly interested in and committed to working as cooperatively as I can to find the best possible solution to an issue that needs to be addressed.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me just clarify that I certainly was not suggesting that staff were in any way politically influenced. I do want to just say for the record -- and I want to say this because I take some pride in this government's commitment to inventory work, which is sometimes not appreciated -- that there were some serious deficiencies in the approach to inventory prior to 1991 that the ministry and the chief forester of the day documented.
Let me just give an illustration to the member of how things can go wrong and just how far we have had to come in a very short period of time on issues like growth and yield which, you would have thought, would be pretty crucial in a province whose primary industry is forestry. The reality is that
[ Page 15815 ]
up until the last couple of years, the ministry did not conduct a separate measurement of growth and yield on second-growth stands to differentiate the growth-and-yield rate on second-growth stands from those of original-growth stands. I'm happy to say in that regard that in many cases the growth-and-yield rates are better, though in some cases they may not be as good.
I suspect that the experience and capacity of the ministry to deal with deciduous inventories were even more impaired, because there wasn't a lot of history here. I was suggesting a lack of commitment and resources by previous governments to a very critical component of good forest management: maintaining inventory.
I'll back off from making any further partisan comments, but I wanted to clarify that it was not a shot at staff. It was a shot at those who didn't provide the adequate resources to enable staff to have the methodologies and the abilities to measure these things in a way that.... I certainly hope in the future we don't encounter these kinds of disparities between what was projected and what actually is attainable.
J. Weisgerber: In conclusion, I think it's reasonable from our discussions today that we can anticipate a level of harvesting on Crown wood between now and the conclusion of the timber supply review of somewhere in the area of 350,000 cubic metres a year through early 1996, at least. I'm not sure what the minister sees having been accomplished by this date. The timber supply review, by his response, will have been completed. Does the minister anticipate completion by that date of all the hearings that have been anticipated and all the opportunity for feedback within the community to an interim report that would be coming out sometime along the way? Just how close to being able to sit down and find resolution does this minister expect he'll be by early 1996?
Hon. A. Petter: I can't tell you how heartened I am by the member's confidence that I will be in a position in early 1996 to continue to serve him in this way.
In any event, I first of all want to say that the member, being a good MLA, has already tried to inflate my projection from 340,000 cubic metres to 350,000 cubic metres, so I just want to make sure that I'm not subjected to misinterpretation on that score. The date that I was referring to was the date for the actual determination of the annual allowable cut by the chief forester, and it's a projection, because that date is his to determine. Before that date, all the data would have been shared, all consultative processes would occur with the community and all input would be received back on both the technical and socioeconomic aspects of these reports.
The chief forester then takes that body of information -- the feedback he's received, the advice I have provided him with in writing on the objectives of the Crown provincial and the input he has received -- and makes an annual allowable cut determination. I anticipate that in this area he will make a determination that will set a cut for deciduous volumes. Then based on that level of cut and on where that level of cut is likely to go in the future, we will be in a much better position to determine what forms of alternatives might be looked at to meet the long-term needs of the Dawson Creek operation.
So once that AAC determination has been made, the immediate step is to then make the appropriate apportionment decisions, if any are necessary as a result of that, and then we will be in a position to sit down with licensees, see what volumes are available and talk about alternatives within the timber supply area. And if, within the timber supply area, the alternatives are not sufficient to provide that long-term security, then we consider alternatives that may exist outside of the existing pulpwood agreement and timber supply areas.
J. Weisgerber: My confidence in the minister is boundless, as is my confidence that the government won't screw up the courage to go to the polls before early 1996. It's only on that assumption that I will expect the minister to be in place when that happens. My confidence in you being there for the remainder of the government's term is indeed boundless. Beyond that, don't give up your day job.
R. Neufeld: I don't have a lot of questions. I know my colleague from Prince George-Omineca has a few questions on some recent happenings within his constituency. I want to ask a few questions, and we will have to go back a bit. I didn't want to break in on the Liberal critic while he was asking some of the questions, but I did have some questions along the way about the small business program and what effect the credit system that's being initiated by the ministry will have on the small business program.
Are there going to be any effects back and forth on the amount of timber that's going to be available for the small business program in comparison to the credit system that's being anticipated? I can only assume that if you're going to give out more cut to some of the larger companies on the credit system, it's going to have to come from somewhere, and I'm just wondering where.
Hon. A. Petter: There will be no direct effect on the small business program. The credit system does not increase the cut level for the larger companies. What it says to the larger companies is that from their existing cut, they will be expected to provide a certain component of that cut in the form of the lumber that they manufacture for value-added manufacturers who wish to utilize that lumber in remanufacturing. Therefore, the whole purpose of the credit system is to not reallocate....
Well, let me put it this way: the question of reallocation of standing timber is a separate issue. The credit system works without having to reallocate standing timber by saying that we should provide a mechanism to enable greater access for value-added manufacturing of dimensional lumber that currently is not being committed to value-added manufacturing. The credit system will give the value-added sector a greater opportunity to secure a component of the wood that is processed through primary breakdown mills by larger companies for the purpose of remanufacturing within the province without requiring any reallocation of tenures whatsoever, either within the small business program or within existing licences.
R. Neufeld: As I understood the credit system -- and maybe I misunderstood it -- the effect of the larger mills making lumber available to the secondary manufacturers was that in return they were guaranteed more wood to cut to make up that difference or something along that line. There obviously has to be something that happens on the other side of the slate to encourage those mills to cut that particular timber.
Hon. A. Petter: The member is correct. Obviously there has to be some consequence that would flow. I want to
[ Page 15816 ]
emphasize that for the first year of the program, we are hoping to introduce it voluntarily to see how it works before we contemplate what those consequences might be, in the hopes that we don't have to move to a regulatory model. Certainly the prospect of consequences is one that's been considered.
I think the member is probably alluding to the fact that when the proposal was first put forward by the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee, the suggestion was made that perhaps the consequence would be that those who sold lumber pursuant to credits.... Let me put it another way. Those who did not satisfy the credits that were made available to the value-added sector would not be able to purchase volume out of the small business program.
For a number of reasons, during the course of subsequent consultations by Dan Perrin with the licence holders, small business loggers and the value-added sector, it was decided that that probably was not the best mechanism. For one thing, it would put a disproportionate amount of leverage on those companies that had lower amounts of their own tenure. In other words, it would put the greatest pressure on those who were least secure in respect to their own wood supply and therefore most dependent on the small business program to acquire wood. Also, it could have effects on the small business program.
[4:00]
Mr. Perrin suggested instead that the consequence be some form of reduction in the cutting rights of companies that did not satisfy the requirements of the program. But that's a consequence that will only be contemplated down the road if the program does not establish itself on a voluntary basis, and we see problems as a result of companies not living up to the requirements on a voluntary basis. The original thought of tying it to the small business program has been supplanted by the recommendations of Mr. Perrin, after extensive consultation, tying the consequences to a potential loss of harvesting rights within the licences held by licence holders, not access to the small business program.
R. Neufeld: I want to go from there to woodlots and the commitment by the government to double the size of woodlots in the province within a certain time period.
The minister made us aware that the small business program was undercut by about 2 million cubic metres this past year. It has been undercut for a number of years. With regard to the increase in the woodlot program, could the minister explain to me a little bit about how the process is going, how it's being set up and by whom? Is this within the ministry itself, or are there consultants hired to look at the program and do a lot of the on-the-ground work?
Hon. A. Petter: Let me start by clarifying that the challenges to expanding the woodlot program were as much about administrative concerns as they were about access to timber. Frankly, from the point of view of management and the government, these small units require a greater commitment of staff time and resources to ensure that the planning is done, etc. So administrative cost was a major concern and one of the reasons why the program was not increased in the past. That concern has been addressed by the creation of Forest Renewal. When we created the forest renewal plan, we indicated that the expansion of the woodlot program was one of the objectives that would be pursued for that program. Indeed, Forest Renewal B.C. has provided some funding to assist the ministry, both in-house but also through contractors, in providing the additional volume to the woodlot program.
In terms of securing that volume itself, that is being done in a number of ways. In some forest districts there are volumes within forest reserves that can be committed. In other areas, when transfers of licences take place, particularly if there's an undercut in the small business area, rather than dedicating all or part of that transfer volume to the small business program, we have chosen to transfer some of the transfer volume to the woodlot program. Each district is looking at its own situation and trying to find ways in which to expand the wood supply that's committed to the woodlot program. It's a fairly small volume in total, and most districts are finding, one way or another, ways in which to do that.
So the identification of a wood supply or of adequate timber supply to satisfy the program has not been a major problem, and the administrative costs required to provide that wood and to plan for it are being covered with the assistance of Forest Renewal B.C.
R. Neufeld: Further on woodlots, are consultants or people in different districts hired outside of government to work on certain parcels to identify the type of tree and the best available location for it that would make the most sense? Is that being done in-house, by consultants or by knowledgable people in each district?
Hon. A. Petter: One of the virtues of the woodlot program is that it encourages proposals to come forward. In many cases those proposals will include a private land component, which means that someone who may have a small parcel of private land that is not economic in and of itself, by working within the woodlot program, can attach that private land to Crown land and by doing so have a management unit that is sufficiently large to justify the effort to manage it for long-term forestry. We are working within districts to identify areas and proposals and to evaluate proposals that come forward in that way.
We would certainly look to contracting to do that evaluation, where the capacity doesn't exist within the ministry to do so. The use of contractors to evaluate a specific woodlot proposal would be contemplated. The other thing that the ministry has looked to is the use of contract services to provide some extension services and assistance to woodlot operators in their management. Again, the ministry has some capacity to do that, but it's fairly limited. There is some need in respect of woodlots, which tend to be held by people who do not have the same resources as large forest land holders, to require some support and extension services. So there's also the opportunity there to use contract services, where extension services may be required.
R. Neufeld: In areas where contract services are used.... I guess what I'm getting at is this: will those who do that work for government on a contract basis have the opportunity to bid on these woodlots, however that is going to be done in the final phase of things? I can see where some individuals may have what you would call an edge on others when it comes to that process. I understand and know that in some districts some of those who are doing some of the contract work for the enlargement of the woodlot program
[ Page 15817 ]
will be bidding, if they're allowed to. I just wonder what the ministry has in place to make sure that it's a fair and open process.
Hon. A. Petter: I share the member's concern that if the work done by contractors were to give that contractor an inside track on information or on the evaluation process, that would not be appropriate, in my view. I don't want to say categorically that a contractor would not be eligible to bid, but I would want to be assured that where a contractor had been involved in some way in the preparation of evaluation guidelines governing the determination, any information available to that contractor would be available to others. There would be no favouritism or inside track provided to that contractor.
This is the first time this issue has been drawn to my attention. I have asked staff to follow up and make sure we do have some criteria so that district offices are aware of this concern. If the member has further or more specific information or suggestions that he wants to provide me with, I'd be more than happy to entertain them. I agree that we do not want to create the appearance of providing services to assist in the expansion of the program or that those individuals are receiving any favouritism as the result of the services for which they're being remunerated.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that response from the minister, because we also have those concerns. It should be a fair and open process for all concerned. We agree with increasing the woodlots. We don't have any problem with that. I think it's a good process, using contract people to help develop those programs; I don't have any problem with that. I just want to make sure and bring to the minister's attention that there is the possibility of those kinds of things popping up in different areas of the province and that we have something in place that's going to head off the problem before it happens. I get from the minister that he will look at this and have some criteria in place.
I want to deal a bit with the dead-and-down issue. I don't know whether the minister...
Hon. A. Petter: Salvage.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
R. Neufeld: ...has talked about it. Salvage. haven't attended all the estimates procedures, but I would like to canvass a bit with the minister what we're doing with the dead-and-down timber. I have contacted most of the districts in this past year, asking them to supply me with how they handle dead-and-down, salvage and those types of things. It's actually quite surprising. It doesn't even look like there's a consistent thread; each one does it differently. I'm not saying that this shouldn't be the case, because we live in a very diverse province, but it seems to me that the information I received back from district managers was that there was not a lot of direction given on the dead-and-down and the salvage. In some districts, there is a possibility that this could increase employment quite substantially by utilizing a resource that would otherwise go to waste.
I know my colleague from Prince George-Omineca has asked on many occasions specifically about removing dead-and-down timber out of parks. Has there ever been anything contemplated regarding moving some of the dead-and-down out of the parks? I'm not talking about downtown Stanley Park or anything like that. I'm talking about some of the more remote parks in the province where there's a tremendous amount of blowdown and just plain falldown that must have a detrimental affect on the movement of wildlife and create a tremendous forest fire hazard.
I realize that at one time it was not economically viable even to think about those things. In the world we have been living in just recently, the price of lumber was high enough to make it viable. Maybe you could bring me up to date on that.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, we did deal with this briefly in estimates debate earlier, but I'm happy to recap. At the time the forest renewal plan was announced and as a result of the discussions within the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee, we announced that we would be pursuing a number of policy initiatives to improve the utilization of timber, and we've discussed some of those. One of them was to pursue a more aggressive approach to salvage. I think there are considerable opportunities for salvage throughout the province. As the member has indicated, these opportunities can create employment, because salvage tends to be a fairly labour-intensive activity, whether it is for solid-wood purposes, through chippers or whatever. I know Crestbrook, for example, in the East Kootenays is using a portable chipper, and I think something like 15 percent of its volume is the wood that comes from that portable chipper facility. There are opportunities out there.
In any event, following that direction, the ministry has prepared a discussion paper, which has been available for the past month or so for public discussion and consideration, on the issue of salvage. I think it is a very constructive paper, and I'd be happy to share it with the member and seek his feedback, as we have from others. What it suggests in general terms is that there should be a smorgasbord of avenues available to district offices with the goal of maximizing the salvage opportunities locally, where those opportunities exist. That would include things such as direct sales and so-called hunting licences, where operators who go out are encouraged to find salvage opportunities which they then get to keep. I think it's a type of licence where people may bid for the right to harvest a certain predetermined volume and then go out and find that volume. There's a requirement that major licensees either harvest significant salvage opportunities identified within their licence areas or lose that wood to someone else who then comes in and does it, so that wood doesn't fall between the cracks.
In any event, I think this study has been fairly well received, particularly among certain interest groups. In Vernon, for example, there has been a high degree of interest in salvage. I've met with some of the local representatives -- Charles Lopez, I think, and others -- and they have made a very effective case. That input has also helped to inform this study. So I would encourage the member to look at this study. I'm certainly very keen to move forward with its recommendations, most of which can be achieved through administrative changes, some of which may entail some minor legislative changes in an upcoming session of the Legislature.
L. Fox: I congratulate the minister; his answer was very similar to my question last evening. I look forward as well to getting a copy of that discussion paper, which he offered last
[ Page 15818 ]
evening. Just as a brief follow-up, there are a couple of values I want to see contained within that. As the minister is well aware, there is very little opportunity for individuals in the industry today to use their innovative ideas and their hard work in terms of getting an opportunity to earn a living in the woods. I think this is one way of providing jobs for individuals with a lot of energy and an opportunity for some innovative ideas. I would certainly support that.
[4:15]
There is one other issue the minister didn't touch on, though, and I have raised it in previous years, as the member for Peace River North suggested. Tweedsmuir Park is in my constituency. Guides and outfitters and others who utilize the reservoir have been telling me that the game can't even get down to the water in many areas because of the blowdown trees along the lakeshore. It would seem to me that when we are considering salvage, we could look at those kinds of areas. There is no need for roads; there is hardly any need for anybody to set foot on land. It could almost all be done by boat. It would be in the best interests of the management of the park if the salvage policies included the blowdown along the shoreline so that the game could have access to the water. I can provide the minister, if he likes, with pictures that have been sent to me by guides and outfitters who are very concerned about that issue. I'll leave it at that.
The real reason I wanted to come into the estimates today is that last night we talked about the really tough times the interior mills are having in terms of costs that they have to pay for fibre versus the price of lumber. As I suggested then, there were rumours that we were going to see shutdowns. I just had a phone call from the Slocan mills Plateau division. They told me that last Friday they laid off 25 people and ten weekend employees, who were primarily students. Effective June 29, they will shut down for ten days, at which time they will lay off all their employees, but they're giving permanent employee notices to 75 employees. After ten days they're going to come back with one shift on both sides of the sawmill.
According to the manager of the division, one of the problems is that the formula for stumpage isn't working. It is triggered, as the minister is well aware, by Statistics Canada, which controls a large segment of the adjustment. They were expecting a reduction because prices have fallen so much. On July 1 prices were over $2 a cubic metre, but they've been told that as of yesterday it would only be $1.05 a cubic metre. If the formula for creating the shift in stumpage rates is being triggered by Statistics Canada and isn't reflecting the true picture in terms of lumber prices, what can the minister do with respect to that, recognizing, of course, the countervail situation?
In my view, this is going to be the first of many shutdowns in the interior over a very short period of time. It's not only going to dramatically affect rural communities; individuals who are tied into mortgages, car payments and so on are all of a sudden going to be unemployed. To the best of my recollection, the Plateau mill has never in its history had any kind of massive layoff. They've had streamlining and reductions in staff, but they've never had a massive layoff. I point out this emergent problem to the minister and look forward to his comment as to how we might resolve some of these issues.
Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciate the member raising this matter in estimates. It does raise a concern around the way in which Statistics Canada proceeds to establish prices, particularly the SPF price, which I think has been of concern to the industry. My understanding is that the ministry, in response to those concerns, is going to be taking a delegation to Ottawa later this month to meet with Statistics Canada in order to get a better understanding of what their rationale is. They will also express the concerns that industry has passed on to us with respect to the SPF price and the formula for stumpage utilized in this calculation.
Within a cyclical industry, one expects that there will be ups and downs and that plants will shut down for short periods of time, much as we would wish otherwise. But to the extent that in this case, and in others, the problem resides with a particular formula, we want to make sure that we address that. I can assure the member that this issue is going to be taken up. In fact, I'm informed that the ministry has already arranged to travel to Ottawa as I indicated, and that this concern will be taken up directly with StatsCan.
L. Fox: I would only point out that there have been many ups and downs in lumber prices, but this is the first time in over 20 years that that mill has had to close for any length of time, other than the historical two-week shutdown for maintenance or whatever they do. They usually try to do that in the summer months to accommodate holidays and that kind of thing.
In my view, this is the tip of the iceberg. I don't recall any of the majors in the interior ever having to lay off staff because of low lumber prices. Obviously the cost of that fibre today is more substantial than it was prior to 1991. The minister will have to agree -- and I'm not suggesting it's been a political move -- that the basic stumpage rates since 1991, even without forest renewal, have more than doubled. Much of that was in reaction to the countervail.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't get a fair price for the fibre, but we're going to be.... If this is, as I believe, the tip of the iceberg in terms of the first mill to be shut down, and there will be many more to follow, I think it's going to be a dramatic problem for this government and the province. We're going to see a substantial reduction in revenues caused by those shutdowns, as well as a substantial hardship for a large number of British Columbians who historically have had full-time, well-paid jobs in the woods industry.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's comments. I say by way of response that other than the increase in stumpage rates that accompany the forest renewal plan -- which, as we discussed last day, only becomes a factor when prices are high -- there was no increase by this government in stumpage rates. There may have been adjustments to the formula, but as I understand it, there was no substantive increase in the stumpage rate prior to that other than in 1987 or 1988, when we dealt with the MOU and all those circumstances that predated this government.
The only significant increase that I'm aware of in the stumpage rate formula was the forest renewal increase under this government. In making that increase, we were very sensitive to this issue to ensure that the increase only occurred once the price reached a certain threshold so that when there are downturns, that would not adversely affect industry.
To the extent that the StatsCan participation or role in this has become of concern is something that we have undertaken
[ Page 15819 ]
to play a part in dealing with and addressing. I have already indicated to the member that staff from the ministry will be pursuing that. I will certainly draw to their attention the information that he has provided to me about the particular situation in Vanderhoof. Obviously that is of concern, and we will pursue the inquiries with that particular concern in mind.
L. Fox: I'll ask the minister if he might correspond with the other mills in that area at the same time. I think he will find that now that this sawmill has done it, he may see other mills doing exactly the same, particularly the independents. The integrated mills may indeed need to continue to operate because the supply of chips is needed by the respective pulp mills, but I'm not sure that the same need is there in terms of the independents.
I just got this call about 3 o'clock, but I'm going to phone the other sawmills and see how broad this is. My suspicion, when talking with them last week, was that they're also on the verge of looking at some layoffs and shutdowns. I suggest that this is going to be a very serious problem, not just for government but for all of us and certainly for those individuals who have committed themselves in many aspects of their lives, because historically they've always had well-paying jobs 12 months of the year. This kind of layoff is something new to them all.
R. Neufeld: I want to ask a few questions around the enforcement of the Forest Practices Code and the amount of staff that's anticipated by the ministry to fully implement the code. When do you see that taking place -- maybe I'll start with that -- within the Ministry of Forests?
Hon. A. Petter: The member will be aware that the ministry has undertaken a major reorganization effort, and that is part of an effort to try to refocus resources in the ministry into the district offices and into fieldwork and enforcement in respect of the Forest Practices Code. That reorganization, which has been a difficult one for a major organization to go through, is now nearly complete and has resulted in about 200 FTEs that were previously allocated -- 100 each -- to headquarters and regional offices, now being committed to district offices. In that sense, the reorganization has resulted in perhaps 200 additional FTEs in district offices to work on district office activities, including fieldwork in respect of the code.
In addition, there have been additional resources provided in last year's budget and in this year's budget. My recollection is that about 90 or so FTEs in last year's budget were added to the ministry to assist in Forest Practices Code implementation, and a further 148 were added this year. All together, there are 200 due to greater efficiency and reorganization and an additional 240 or so as a result of increased commitments in the last two budgets, for a total of 440 additional staff committed to field-related and Forest Practices Code-related activities.
R. Neufeld: What is anticipated to complete the process? Are we talking about 440 being able to take care of what's going to take place with the Forest Practices Code? What are we looking at to fully enforce the Forest Practices Code in the future?
[4:30]
Hon. A. Petter: Obviously we're going to have to proceed forward each year in accordance with what the resources will allow. We've adopted a risk-management approach, which is to say that we have accepted that we're not going to be able to monitor each and every activity that takes place within the province. Therefore we're going to target the resources made available to us in a way that corresponds with the risks that are associated. Areas that have particular difficulties and operators that have particular difficulties as disclosed through audits and other processes will be given more attention than others.
I expect that under this government and under this minister we will be seeking some additional resources in the next year. On the other hand, I think that we have, as a government, made a significant commitment in the resources we've secured to date. I think we'll have to see how this year's experience goes, and I'll have to see what Treasury Board would allow for a future budget before I'm able to give you a definitive answer.
Certainly there has already been a major commitment of new resources to the code as a result of the reorganization. In an ideal world, one would hope to see more, but this is a world in which we have to be efficient and effective with our use of resources, and we will work within whatever limits are imposed upon us in the years ahead.
R. Neufeld: Further to the number of employees to enforce the Forest Practices Code, does the Ministry of Forests have the number of people it has taken to administer the code in ministries other than the Ministry of Forests? Actually, EMPR has 14 to date. For the Ministry of Environment, you must have some idea of the total number of employees that it's going to take to administer the code.
Hon. A. Petter: It's a little difficult to answer, because within the Ministry of Environment, for example, there has also been some rededication of resources as well as additional resources. I can offer the member a ballpark recollection, but I encourage him to take this up with the Minister of Environment.
My recollection is that in the past year there were about 100 or so additional FTEs in the Ministry of Environment and a small additional amount in the Attorney General's ministry to deal with enforcement. But there has also, I think, been an effort in other ministries to gain efficiencies and retarget resources so that the additional resources will not simply be a function of new FTEs but of rededicated FTEs. For example, at the district level within this ministry we've established enforcement teams in order to get a committed and dedicated staff component that can efficiently deal with the code. So we're working at all levels to maximize efficiencies and reallocate resources before seeking additional resources.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that answer. The risk management that the minister talked about.... I appreciate that you can't be on everybody's heels and finding out what they're doing within the forest. I also appreciate that the minister has said that the ministry will concentrate on areas of high risk. Those companies that don't have what you would call an impeccable record, for lack of a better term, will probably be watched a little bit closer. What happens in terms of enforcement in the other districts if there are just a few companies, which have been fairly good at their stewardship of the forest, and there are not enough people to administer the code?
[ Page 15820 ]
What I'm referring to goes a little further into forest renewal. Specifically, in the Fort St. John and Fort Nelson forest districts there have been a number of proposals for forest renewal. Those proposals, to my knowledge, haven't been brought forward because of the lack of staff to look at what's happening with the Forest Practices Code and all the things that go along with it. Are we going to find some way around this so that some of those proposals can come forward? I think some of them are very important to the district for silviculture purposes and for the purpose of looking after the forest base. How are we going to handle this so that we don't get into a match with the regional offices, saying: "We can't look at them because we don't have the people?"
Hon. A. Petter: In respect to the first matter the member raises, the risk management approach deals with the enforcement side. There will still be a need within all districts to have the planning capacity to deal with the code, and the risk management side will help to inform them where to target resources on the enforcement side. Districts are being asked to prepare risk assessment and risk management plans, as I recall, to assist in that effort.
The member makes an excellent point, and one that is sometimes missed. The additional expenditures and programs that are initiated under Forest Renewal place an additional burden upon the ministry, because when one proposes a new silvicultural project, one has to obtain approval for the prescription and the plans associated with that project. That requires additional resources, which has been anticipated. Forest Renewal B.C. has provided funding to assist in providing those additional resources. I've explained earlier in this debate that we've been very careful to make sure that those resources only go to that increment that is necessary to deal with forest renewal.
As I've said earlier, we have been under some pressure on FTEs, so we've had to be a bit sensitive about that. What we've tried to do is request a complement of staff that will enable us to achieve the objectives of both the code and Forest Renewal and try to streamline the process under, for example, the Forest Practices Code -- we talked about that earlier -- so that staff will be freed up for these other activities.
Some of the problems we've experienced have in some cases been what I call hiring-lag problems. It's been difficult. I think the member may be aware that industry, government and others have been competing to some extent for professional foresters and others for a variety of purposes. In some cases the problem with getting approvals is simply that we haven't yet filled positions that are available. In other cases, working through the transition period on the code has probably required a larger staff complement than will be necessary, now that we are hopefully moving into the phase of the code which is going to be more regularized and require less of an ongoing commitment of staff.
I'm aware of the problem. We're working hard to do all these things to improve forest management through the code and to also have the staff resources available to approve the advanced silviculture. I think it's a sign of how much we have to do within the province and the importance of the public sector playing its complementary role in this process. We're doing our best under those circumstances. Any support the member can give to help the public understand why we require additional resources in the Ministry of Forests would be appreciated.
R. Neufeld: I just want to put on the record that the forest renewal plan was supported by our party. I don't have a lot of problems with it. I know that we have to be better stewards of our forests in a lot of different regions of the province of British Columbia. I do have a bit of difficulty in my constituency explaining to people the largeness of the Forest offices, how many people are there and how many vehicles are around there all the time. That is a concern, and I'm sure the minister is quite well aware of it. Around the province there are probably quite a number of areas where people are asking: "Why the increase?"
There is that explanation to make, and I can assure the minister that to the best of my ability I explain as best I can about the things that Forestry is doing with reallocation of staff into the field. That's a process that actually started quite a long time ago. It stays with us, though, when constituents keep after us about the number of FTEs.
Could the minister tell me about Forest Renewal supplying resources to help in some of the districts with programs that have been put into place through Forest Renewal? I ask that because I've asked Forest Renewal for some help. For the problem we're experiencing in my two areas in the north, they've said: "Look, that's a ministry problem. They have to get the FTEs in there to look after it. It's really not part of the responsibilities of Forest Renewal." Maybe the minister could tell me what areas and what kind of resources we are supplied to help in this process.
Hon. A. Petter: Obviously that answer, if it were to be extensively detailed, could go on for a long time. In general terms, and we talked about this earlier in the debate, Forest Renewal is very vigilant in ensuring that the funds it expends meet the incremental test, which is to say that they do not spend funds on matters that they consider to be within the ordinary and ongoing ambit of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Forests but rather dedicate those funds to additional activities and additional investments. That may be the problem the member has encountered.
For example, where there's an expansion of an existing program like the woodlot licence program, Forest Renewal has been prepared to assist. Where it has to deal with the approvals of Forest Renewal projects -- incremental silviculture projects -- Forest Renewal has been prepared to assist in funding the ministry for that kind of initiative.
I can tell the member that Forest Renewal is pretty conservative in wanting to fund the ministry. They would much prefer to get the dollars out there doing the incremental work in the field. The Forest Renewal board has been fairly tough on government and said: "We're not here to fund government; we're here to make projects." I'm glad they are; that is what they are supposed to be doing.
I don't know the specifics of the proposal the member was putting forward, but if it was a proposal that just required enhancing an existing program or assisting the ministry in doing a better job of what it should have been doing anyway, the Forest Renewal B.C. board and staff would look at it with some skepticism. They are very concerned that forest renewal funds not displace funds that they believe are already part of the funding obligations of the Ministry of Forests.
R. Neufeld: If those expenditures have been very conservative, and I would expect they were.... I'm not asking for it
[ Page 15821 ]
now, but maybe the minster could make the funding that has been supplied by Forest Renewal B.C. for that purpose available to me at some future date. Obviously, if it is conservative, it is not going to take that much to get the information. I'd appreciate that.
While we are on Forest Renewal, I want to ask a couple more questions. This issue may have already been laid to rest, but I bring it to the minister's attention -- I'm sure he is aware of it. A fellow by the name of Ron Ferworn from Salmon Arm has a mechanical conifer tree-planter that they are developing, and I believe he needs some help with bringing the process to fruition. Although I'm not a tree-planter, I have watched the process. We talked about it earlier, saying that it's really a young person's world, and pretty tough work. This could be a breakthrough in helping that process along a bit in specific areas. I know it won't work all over.
As I understand from the information -- and I only have information up until the end of February from the gentleman -- the reason he has been turned down by Forest Renewal B.C. is that they don't have money to spend on this type of thing. They are more interested, like the minister said, in the responsibility of the woods and the things that go along with that.
I wonder if there is someone in the Ministry of Forests that could help this gentleman along a bit with Forest Renewal B.C. to see if.... I think it would be in the interests of all concerned if we were able to develop this further.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me clarify one thing, just to make sure that the member is not misunderstanding: the policy applied by Forest Renewal B.C. in respect of funding government and the ministry is a conservative policy. That doesn't mean the amount provided is insignificant, because as the member himself has indicated, the approval process for basic forest renewal projects -- I'm calling them basic, but I should call them enhanced silviculture and watershare projects -- is an extensive process. The conservative attitude is brought to bear because the demands for additional resources to approve those projects are quite great. I'll certainly try to find the information that the member is seeking in that regard.
[4:45]
In respect of the proposal that the member referred to, just one point of clarification with regard to Forest Renewal B.C.. It is not so much that Forest Renewal does not have the money to fund this kind of project, it is that they have been working to establish policies so that there will be a fair program of investment that the board, and through the board, the public, will be ensured that those investment dollars are being spent wisely.
To this point, Forest Renewal has been fairly cautious about proceeding on any kind of venture capital investment program, for obvious reasons. There are a lot of people out there with excellent ideas, and I think there have been some criticisms of governments that have funded them in the past. Some of that funding hasn't always paid off, and the board is somewhat concerned. It doesn't want to become a banker.
The board is reviewing this issue. There are some very innovative proposals, some which arguably could increase the efficiency or effectiveness of forest management. We have had at the board one paper that was produced by staff on the kinds of proposals that have been submitted, and the board has asked for further information as we move forward. So I don't want to suggest that the board isn't interested. The board is interested. What the board wants to make sure of is that it is doing the right thing by the public and with the funds that it has to manage in terms of ensuring that those funds are directed to the highest and best use in terms of the objectives of the plan.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
In terms of government resources that may be available, I would suggest to the member that he might want to steer the individual concern to the Ministry of Employment and Investment, which has more expertise than the Ministry of Forests in dealing with venture capital proposals and knowing where this individual might seek some support from private sector or public sector sources. That has not been something the Ministry of Forests has traditionally done, nor do we have the capacity within the ministry to do so. But the Ministry of Employment and Investment does have that capacity -- at least, it had in the past.
R. Neufeld: I'm sure you canvassed this earlier, but could the minister just quickly bring me up to date on what's happening with revenue for Forest Renewal B.C. now that the price of lumber is down? I think it's below the benchmark where Forest Renewal pays. Maybe the minister could just explain to me or bring me up to date on what's taking place there.
Hon. A. Petter: I did answer this earlier, but I'm happy to repeat it for the member's benefit. I guess there are two parts to the answer I want to give. One is that Forest Renewal B.C. was established with an understanding that there would be cycles within the forest sector. It was understood in the first two years or so of Forest Renewal that more money would be coming in than would be going out. It would take time to develop the criteria and programs and infrastructure, and that period would provide an opportunity to build up some funds in Forest Renewal that could then be drawn down during the downtimes in lumber prices. Therefore over time Forest Renewal would be able to maintain a steady flow of investment notwithstanding those down cycles. That would also assist in evening out the activity that takes place during times when lumber prices may be down.
So there's no surprise that prices are down in the interior, for example. Happily, Forest Renewal has accumulated a fairly sizeable fund that will assist in dealing with downturns. However, I do want to put this particular situation in context, because while it's true that lumber prices are down in the interior, it's also true that they're up on the coast. The most recent estimate I was provided with is that the Forest Renewal transfer for the coming year may be something like $390 million rather than $430 million because of the offset between the coast and the interior.
I did make a comment to the member's colleague from Prince George-Omineca on the issue of regional equity, but I can't resist making it to the member as well. One reason you don't want to be too inflexible on regional equity is because obviously it's desirable that when the coast is doing well and contributing a large amount to Forest Renewal, and the interior is down and contributing maybe little to Forest Renewal, that the investments continue to flow to the interior to offset
[ Page 15822 ]
the reduction in activity. Conversely, if the coast prices come down and the interiors go up, you want to make sure that the investments continue to flow in the coast under Forest Renewal. So we're certainly working to ensure that there's regional equity in investment, but not in such a rigid way that would preclude those kinds of cross-subsidies and transfers during the differential prices from coast to the interior or north to south, whatever it may be.
So if current market trends continue, there will be some shortfall in revenues, but it won't be as great as might be expected because of the happy event that the coastal prices are very different and they are higher than expected. As was intended, Forest Renewal has an accumulation of revenue as a result of spending less in the first year than it took in, and that will assist us to deal with that small downturn and with larger downturns.
Of course, one of the reasons why Forest Renewal was supported by the industry -- and by the members opposite in the Reform Party, I think -- was because it had the capacity to carry over revenues and maintain continuity. It didn't have to pay back those revenues on an annual basis. We're already seeing why that's beneficial, and why the Forest Renewal program is not in any jeopardy as a result of these kinds of fluctuations. In fact, it can assist in maintaining a steady and even flow of investment that will counteract downward cycles in the industry, whether they are regionally based or otherwise.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the analogy given about the money transferring back and forth from the interior and the north to the south, and from the south to the north. Although the minister has never resided in the north, as I have in Fort St. John just about all my life, he has experienced the drain of money and resources out of the north to the south. I guess it's just the normal feeling of people in the north that there's not enough coming back, even though I appreciate that in some cases there is. But it's a natural tendency....
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: I'm not talking about Prince George. Remember that Prince George is in the centre. It is only halfway north, and I consistently have to indicate that to everyone. It's only halfway up the province, and there's a lot of ground further north.
Anyhow, people in that area feel that a lot of the natural resource revenue does not come back to the area, and it's natural for them to feel that way. I will never stop talking about that process, regardless of what happens in the future.
I want to go on to the Robson Valley forest district for just a bit. I don't know whether the timber analysis has been completed for that area. A fellow from Castle Creek Forest Products manufactures fencing material from cedar, and he is having a great amount of difficulty getting any fibre at a rate reasonable for his operation to continue. This is one of the small operations the minister and all of us have talked about so much in regard to the employment that the secondary manufacturers contribute to the province.
This gentleman employs about 35 people in total on a year-round basis if he has a decent supply of cedar for the mill. According to this person, who is a professional forester, there is enough in the district to allow him to have a licence for about 80,000 cubic metres a year to supply the needs of his mill. I'm wondering if the timber analysis has been completed in that area and whether this gentleman could look forward to something happening.
Hon. A. Petter: The timber supply analysis report was released in September 1993, and my understanding is that there has been subsequent release of a public discussion paper and a socioeconomic analysis. I'm sure the member is aware of this, but just for the record, all that information has been provided and feedback has been sought in the form of public input to the chief forester. I do not recollect the chief forester having made an annual allowable cut determination yet, but I suspect one is imminent in respect of the Robson Valley.
That determination will be based upon the analysis by the chief forester, the feedback that was received and the social and economic objectives I have established, as I'm expected to do under legislation. I don't know of the individual or the company the member is referring to, but presumably they had an opportunity to make their views known, and the chief forester will no doubt factor those views in during the course of making a decision.
I have now been informed that the AAC release date is expected to be in September. I thought it was imminent, but it's September.
R. Neufeld: Another area back in my constituency, specifically in the Fort Nelson area, is the herbiciding program. I talked to the minister about this last winter, about what was happening with the environmental review process and Treaty 8 asking for a standdown of the herbiciding in the Fort Nelson timber supply area on the silviculture that Tackama is doing. At the time, I explained to the minister that these herbicides and the fuel for the choppers and everything have to be moved in by road in the wintertime; that's the only time it's available. So really, we've lost a whole year, and we could very likely have killed quite a number of young trees that had been planted previously, because the underbrush grows so fast in the north.
I'm not disputing the fact that there should be a process where you can take a second look. I am asking the minister if there's some way.... I guess it relates to the fact that we didn't have enough people on the board to be able to facilitate the hearing soon enough. The hearing was not going to be until the summer sometime -- well, it's far, far past. If there's not some way that we can facilitate those companies that are found in that position to be able to carry on with that year's program, and if we can't facilitate the hearing until six months after they've asked for it, then that's fine; then it would apply to the next year. But if we set it off again, we could lose two years, and I think it would become very drastic. It would be quite a loss to Tackama Forest Products, specifically, in their silviculture program.
So I'm not disputing the setting up of the board. What I am saying is that the process is flawed. We either need more people to sit on the board so we can hear them at a convenient time for industry.... I'm not saying that industry should be able to demand it right away, but when we're looking at a time frame where it has to be set up out in the bush in winter and then done in the summer, that should be accommodated and looked at somehow.
Hon. A. Petter: As the member indicated, I think we discussed this matter last year. If my recollection is correct, at
[ Page 15823 ]
that time I made some representations to the Ministry of Environment, based on those discussions, to try to get that process underway. I would be happy to redouble my efforts, but this may be a matter that the member would like to take up directly with the Minister of Environment during the course of her estimates.
R. Neufeld: I can assure the minister I will. The reason I'm bringing it forward to the Minister of Forests is simply because it affects his ministry, and I'm asking for his support to work with me with the Ministry of Environment.
I just want to make a brief statement about pulpwood agreements in Peace River North and Peace River South. My time as mayor of Fort Nelson goes back quite a while -- in fact, to the time the LP plant was built in Dawson Creek. At that time there were some real concerns within the communities about the movement of fibre from one to the other.
[5:00]
Of course an awful lot of timber comes out of Fort Nelson to Fort St. John, and to Chetwynd now. People have generally accepted that. But in looking at the whole thing -- and the employment factor and what's best for the whole region -- I think we have to be very concerned. I'm not saying that that transfer shouldn't take place from north of the river to south of the river, but we have to look at all the opportunities that are in place north of the river to utilize the stand that we're talking about: the Makin Pulp and Paper stand -- I forget the number of the PA, but I'll refer to it that way.
My knowledge of that stand of timber is that it's some of the best hardwood in British Columbia. There's a tremendous amount of it, and it's very good. It could maybe be used for items produced in a furniture manufacturing plant. There is one in Fort St. John at the present time that uses hardwoods, particularly aspen, and is having difficulty getting a supply of aspen and those kinds of things.
So I would hope that the whole process would not just be a decision by the Ministry of Forests that all of a sudden comes down but rather that there would be an organized community hearing so that everyone has the opportunity to have input into the process of what should take place. If it's for the betterment of the whole region that some fibre be moved south, then so be it, but at least give everyone the opportunity to say what they think should happen.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me reassure the member that we don't want to deal with one community at the expense of another. The problems with respect to the Dawson Creek operation are obviously of great concern to that community and, I'm sure, the region. We've canvassed that extensively in an earlier part of this estimates with the member's colleague the Leader of the Third Party.
At the same time, I recognize that there are regional concerns and a desire to see local resources processed locally, even within the larger area of the north and south Peace. So any decisions that are made, I agree.... I'm not sure I would use the word "hearing," but some process for public involvement and participation, so that we do have broad-based community support, is in my view not only desirable but essential in order to ensure that decisions are based on good information and enjoy public support and legitimacy.
R. Neufeld: I remember when the boundaries were changed for the Fort St. John timber supply area. When I lived in Fort Nelson, it encompassed a fair size of the Fort Nelson timber supply areas. Fort Nelson had to move further north and east for its supply. That was done arbitrarily by the Ministry of Forests. It certainly wasn't done under your administration, but it was done arbitrarily and without a great amount of public input. Few had the opportunity to say what they felt about the changing of the boundaries. I wanted to bring it to the minister's attention that those are the feelings in the north, pro and con, whether you're in the north or south Peace or in the Fort St. John timber supply area. There are some fairly tenuous feelings, I guess, in some areas about some of the small business wood that's leaving Fort Nelson, specifically, and going south. Although they have lived with that process, the feelings are there, and I wanted to put that on the record.
R. Chisholm: I have a couple of questions for your estimates this afternoon, hon. minister. This is a bit of a fishing trip in reference to the responsibilities of your ministry towards PEP. All ministries have responsibilities towards it in times of emergency. One example is the 1992 flood plan for PEP. If I take a look at the boxed diagram, a number of ministries have obligations towards the chief of support and coordination liaison, and Forests happens to be one of them. I'd like to know from the minister what the responsibilities of Forests are to PEP in reference to the ministry's resources and that type of thing. Maybe the minister can give us an overview.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm happy to answer questions about PEP at a time in the afternoon when we may be running out of it. In any event, the ministry does cooperate with the provincial emergency program. It has resources that are obviously significant in terms of organizational expertise, equipment and communications expertise, all of which are provided in coordination and support of the provincial emergency program.
R. Chisholm: As the minister knows, I'm in the midst of a struggle with the federal government over CFB Chilliwack and federal resources in the province. I know that over the years federal resources have been used in forest fires and the like. I'm just wondering if the minister could get for me, through his ministry, the number of times we have had to rely on the armed forces, for instance, or on federal resources in the last 20 years. It would be very helpful if the minister could get that for future reference.
The federal government, under the constitution and under the National Defence Act, owes a debt of obligation to this province to aid us in times of emergencies. I'm just wondering, in the minister's opinion, what his ministry's assessment is on whether we do require federal resources to support us in times of need when we have these forest fires, as we saw up in the Okanagan last year, and so on.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll be happy to try to get some figures for the member. Certainly I think they'll be obtainable for the past ten years; 20 may be a bit of a stretch, but we can try to get them for the past ten years. In doing so, I'll provide him with some more information about the ministry's view on those resources and how they've been deployed.
I would simply offer an observation through my own experience last summer, when I travelled to Penticton. In
[ Page 15824 ]
fighting the Penticton fire, the member is probably aware that armed forces were brought in to assist in that very serious fire situation. I can tell the member that the advice I've been given by ministry officials is that they very much appreciated the ability to call upon the armed forces on that occasion. The cooperation and the trainability, if I can put it that way, of the armed forces personnel in dealing with that very serious situation in Penticton was much appreciated and did assist tremendously with the ministry's efforts to deal with that hazard not only to the forest but to human settlements and human life.
From personal experience, I can say that we have appreciated the resources that the armed forces have provided in the past, and we'll be happy to provide the additional information the member has sought.
R. Chisholm: I thank you for your information and for going to the effort of digging up that information for me. Maybe that will help me in my discussions with the federal government.
My last question to the minister in this year's estimates was.... I want to commend the minister for initiating the new awards program for forestry. I think this develops better work practices and initiatives to do better things with the resources that we have. I'm just wondering if the minister can enlighten us as to whether he is going to further enhance that program. I believe this is the way to go to get companies and individuals to be more respectful of the resource we have, to take a little more responsibility for it, show some initiative and demonstrate the good work practices that we haven't seen in the last 20 to 30 years. Maybe the minister could enlighten us as to whether he's going to enhance that further.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's reference to the awards program, which I said the ministry will establish. In many ways, of course, good forestry is its own reward. It's true as well that the Forest Practices Code will act as a form of certification or validation for good forestry, as will the audit process. I have come to believe, because we have many very excellent examples of forestry in this province, that to go beyond that and recognize excellence is in keeping with this government's commitment and desire to lead with positive object lessons, as well as having to deal with some negative ones.
I did announce some months ago that we will be establishing an awards program. We have invited industry to participate with us in defining and establishing those awards. I know that we have invited diverse interests, from silvicultural organizations to those engaged in more conventional forms of harvesting and forest management, to put forward their ideas as to how to define the awards program. I anticipate that it should be up and running later this year. Once we have it up and running, we can look at expanding it. I do think it can provide a very positive incentive for good forest management and an example to the province of what good forest management constitutes.
R. Chisholm: Sorry if I said established instead of establishing on that last question. Thank you very much for your cooperation and the answers you gave me this year.
An Hon. Member: If a tree falls in Richmond, is there any sound?
A. Warnke: That may be appropriate, especially since in Richmond-Steveston there aren't that many trees.
At any rate, I do have just one question. All I'm really after is a comment from the minister. It's in response to a letter written by Mr. Don Hall of Richmond, British Columbia. It was provided to the minister last year. It is easy for such letters to be forgotten, I'm assured, so this is the reason I'm actually looking for a comment. To help the minister along, perhaps I'll give a brief description of it.
It involved a person from Richmond, along with his family, travelling throughout the province of British Columbia: visiting Chilliwack, Squamish and Lillooet forest districts and using the Forest Service campgrounds in July and August, at which time there was a campfire ban. What this individual experienced from all the forest districts he visited included the following: overcrowding; overuse by people who lived there for several months; lots of fires going on out of season, despite the signs saying "No Campfires"; a lot of use of loud, foul language and loud music; roving, unleashed dogs; and as well as intimidation and harassment of visitors.
As well, Forest Service agents were perceived by this individual as being somewhat incompetent, developing a poor relationship with campground managers.
[5:15]
In particular, I want to bring attention to one particular case that pretty well describes the situation at the Meager Creek hot springs area. I won't go on for very long; I just want to quote the highlights:
"The Meager Creek hot springs area has lovely scenery but is being totally destroyed by overuse and abuse by regulars. The obvious signs of overuse were everywhere: people camped in the parking lot with fires burning, garbage everywhere, a Forest Service worker was spending all his time collecting and sorting garbage. Despite the signs restricting camping beyond a certain point, it was still wall-to-wall people and unleashed dogs when we arrived at the restricted area -- God knows how many there were the night before.
"Whatever do these signs mean? Obviously there are no outhouses and garbage containers on the floodplain, so dog and human feces, abandoned clothing and garbage can be encountered everywhere. An unrelated problem with Meager Creek is that about half the regulars are nudists. Signs stating "Go Nude" and "Nude Is Cool" were quite prominent.
"After selecting the only shady site left and setting it up, late in the afternoon a drunken lout crawled out of one of the tents. He had a ghetto blaster attached to his belt, which he immediately turned on to the highest possible volume. He came over to our site and advised us that he was the camp pest and he probably was going to bother us, but that's the way he was. His loud music went on until 2:00 a.m. with foul, loud remarks, etc.
"The worst part is that he was a pyromaniac, and the two Forest Service workers on site did almost nothing about it. The Forest Service workers were camped, if you can believe it, on the site above this group, and at about midnight a lot of them got the idea that they would collect firewood from the other campsites where the campers were asleep. The primary plan was to keep the fire, which I gather was around seven yards in diameter, roaring all night. Off they went, back and forth, dumping and chopping wood, intermittent with loud talking and foul language. This performance was coupled with dogs barking, including one serious dogfight at the floodplain level. Our neighbours also had a dog that whined constantly when leashed and barked whenever anyone approached their campsite. For the crowning insult, the dog, on one of his unleashed periods, came over and urinated on our unlit fire pit. As you can imagine, we broke camp early in the morning."
That pretty well summarized, therefore, the vacation from hell for Mr. Hall and family. I think that pretty well describes --
[ Page 15825 ]
hopefully, in a nutshell -- some of the problems. I'm just curious as to whether the minister has followed up on looking at Forest Service campgrounds, and if he has any comment to make.
Hon. A. Petter: My first comment to the member is that Mr. Hall should submit his account to P.J. O'Rourke for inclusion in a future edition of Holidays in Hell, which is a well-known volume.
Perhaps, if we're going to have to go to the House for a vote, we can come back and I can conclude my answer. I can very quickly say that clearly a lot of the practices that have been described here are unacceptable. We have very limited resources with which to police these sites. They were established with the intention of providing a primitive camping experience, and it strikes me that we have probably succeeded in that regard beyond our wildest expectations.
Seriously, this is a concern. The intention was to provide to the public an opportunity to have a less-managed camp experience, but that clearly requires cooperation on the part of the public. If we have high-use sites in which the basic rules are not being voluntarily met, then we may have to look at alternatives. If there are particular problems with Forest Service staff, and I'm informed that most of the staff in these cases would likely be seasonal contractors, then complaints should be brought forward and directed to the district managers, who should follow up. That's not acceptable.
I appreciate the member drawing this matter to my attention, and it is a matter of concern. I doubt that any of us would like to see greater regulation, but I think it does speak to the need for having more cooperative understanding and perhaps education on the part of the public about the proper use of these kinds of sites.
Vote 35 approved.
Vote 36: ministry operations, $498,046,795 -- approved.
Vote 37: fire suppression, $62,384,253 -- approved.
Vote 65: Forest Practices Board, $2,290,000 -- approved.
Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:21 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]