Hansard -- Monday, May 27, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 8, No. 5 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		3581

Tributes		3581
	Don Ramsay B. Penner

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		3582
	Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act (Bill 58) Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		3582
	Work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving R. Stewart Adult basic education programs T. Christensen Responsibilities of MLAs J. Bray

Oral Questions		3583
	Negotiations with physicians J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins Hon. C. Hansen Canora Club mental health centre J. Kwan Hon. G. Cheema Sumas power facility B. Penner Hon. J. Murray Hydroelectricity prices J. Les Hon. R. Neufeld

Tabling Documents		3586
	Office of the merit commissioner, annual report, 2001-02 Private Post-Secondary Education Commission of British Columbia, annual report, 2000-01 British Columbia Centre for International Education, annual report, 2000-01 British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation, annual report, 2000-01 Travel Assurance Fund and Travel Assurance Fund Board, annual report, 2001-02 Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund and Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund Board, annual report, 2001-02 B.C. Lottery Corporation, annual report, 2000-01

Petitions		3586
	B. Belsey Hon. C. Clark

Standing Order 81.1 Motion		3586
	Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House		3587
	Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 28) Hon. J. Reid Hon. G. Bruce Hon. G. Cheema J. MacPhail Hon. R. Thorpe R. Stewart Hon. J. Murray L. Mayencourt

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3593
	Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 28)

Committee of the Whole House		3593
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant Hon. R. Neufeld Hon. S. Santori

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3596
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54)

Committee of the Whole House		3596
	Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 52)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3596
	Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 52)

Second Reading of Bills		3597
	Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49) (continued) J. MacPhail K. Krueger R. Stewart Hon. G. Bruce

Tabling Documents		3602
	Police complaint commissioner, letter of resignation

Second Reading of Bills		3602
	Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48) Hon. G. Bruce J. Kwan S. Orr Public Sector Management Remuneration Allowances and Perquisites Act (Bill M203) (continued) Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48) (continued) J. MacPhail

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two school groups from Dogwood Elementary School in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead.

Today we have 58 grade 4 and 5 students. With them are their teachers, Mrs. Chohan, Mr. MacPherson and Mrs. Ecclestone, and the parent volunteers that make these trips possible. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I have three announcements for the House today that are of equal import, I think. First, I'd like to inform the House of the birth of Nicholas Andrew Beatty. He was born on Friday, May 17 and weighed in at seven pounds, nine ounces. His mother, Diana, is doing well, as is his brother B.J., and I assume his father, Jim Beatty, is doing equally well as they celebrate Nicholas's birth. Can we give them a round of support.

I am also pleased to inform the House that today the director of communications for the government, Andy Orr, celebrates that incredible period of time when he turns 40 — no longer a kid. I think he should know that the next half of his life will be a lot more difficult than the first half of it was.

Finally, none of us in this House today should let the exceptional performance of the Kootenay Ice go unnoticed, when they won the Memorial Cup for the province of British Columbia.

Hon. L. Reid: I have a number of individuals visiting us in the gallery today. Janet Law and her son Brandon are with us, and they have guests: Henry and Dorothy Benham from St. Albert and Margaret Davison and Gillian and Linda Westgarth from Burnaby, B.C. I'd ask the House to please make them extremely welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: We have a number of distinguished guests from the local government realm in the gallery here today, specifically from the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities. They include Councillor Mary Ashley from Campbell River, who's the president of the association; Mayor Pearl Myhres from Zeballos, who's the past president; Councillor Stan Dixon from Sechelt, the first vice-president; chair George Holme from the Nanaimo regional district, the second vice-president; director Adrian Belshaw from the Sunshine Coast regional district, who's an electoral area representative; Councillor Don Gemmel from the Powell River district, director-at-large; Councillor Bea Holland from Victoria, director-at-large; Mayor Jack Peake from Lake Cowichan, who's a director-at-large; and Eydie Fraser, who's their executive coordinator. I'd like to ask the House to make them all welcome.

B. Belsey: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce the winners of the Pacific Northwest zone championships for the gentleman's sport well known as golf. These young fellows are here to golf in the competition in Victoria. I'd like to introduce Dave Clark, Jeremy Pierce, Dave McKay and my two nephews Dylan and Devin Palmer, along with the two coaches Larry Hope and Howard Linn.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the House I'm really proud to have one of my brothers in attendance — my brother Larry, one of the original six Falcon boys. Larry is joined by his daughters, and my nieces….

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh now, come on. He's joined by his two daughters, my lovely nieces Kelsey and Alison. I would ask the House to please make them welcome today.

E. Brenzinger: I'm very proud today to introduce in the House my mom, Jena Haggart, who's here for the week to visit Victoria. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Today I have the pleasure of introducing a constituent of mine, Yasmin John-Thorpe, the better half of the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise.

Hon. M. de Jong: Joining us today are students — 80, I think — from MEI school in Abbotsford, with their teacher, Ms. Baarda. I hope all members will make the MEI elementary students welcome.

B. Penner: It is with great regret and sadness that I rise to report the passing of Don Ramsay, mayor of the village of Harrison Hot Springs, at the age of 52. Don succumbed to cancer this morning after a valiant battle over the past year.

He was first elected mayor in 1996 and was re-elected in November 1999 with about 83 percent of the vote. Don was much loved and well known in his community, both as mayor and as the piano player and singer at the Harrison Hot Springs hotel.

Don is survived by his mother, Muriel, in Coquitlam; his brother, Jim Ramsay, in New Westminster; and his sister, Donna Ramsay, in Prince George.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that on behalf of the House you convey our condolences to his family.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: The introduction of Bill 58 signals the achievement of a negotiated settlement to the longstanding Carrier Lumber dispute and brings to a close a dark chapter in our provincial history authored by the previous government.

All British Columbians were shocked and saddened to learn of the political interference and government conduct that the Supreme Court of British Columbia naturally identified as being deceptive and the result of bad faith in their finding in favour of Carrier Lumber in July 1999.

Today, Mr. Speaker, this bill will bring closure and provide both Carrier and the Crown with the ability to put this dispute behind us and to move forward on to more positive endeavours.

These were not easy negotiations. The amounts involved were significant. But today's settlement fairly addresses past injustices while at the same time focusing additional resources happily on the pine beetle infestation in the interior. The settlement package with Carrier Lumber totals just under $75 million in terms of costs to the Crown. That is $30 million cash, $2.6 million in terms of land transfer, $1.1 million referring to gravel and an estimated $41.1 million relating to 1.5 million cubic metres of timber to be harvested over the next five years free of stumpage.

This bill specifically provides the government with the means to directly award the forest licence that I have just referred to for the 1.5 million cubic metres.

This is a significant settlement that reinforces the point that when governments abuse their power, it is the taxpayers that ultimately pay.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 58 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

R. Stewart: One of my classmates in high school was Fred Gribble. We graduated in 1977. A couple of years later, my classmates and I were shocked when Fred was killed by a drunk driver.

Fred's mother, Sally Gribble, brought MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, from California to Canada in 1981 in memory of her son. Today there are 50 MADD chapters across Canada, with chapters in every province and territory. Here in B.C. there are five chapters, greater Vancouver being the largest, which reaches from Squamish to Aldergrove. There are also MADD chapters in Chilliwack, representing the upper Fraser; in Port Hardy, representing Vancouver Island; and in Kelowna and Cranbrook.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has two main purposes: get drinking drivers off our roads, and help the victims of this terrible crime. I know that representatives of MADD met in April with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General regarding their ongoing advocacy.

These days it is street racing that is in the news. For me, these senseless deaths of young people from street racing are made even more personal as my eldest daughter turned 16 this past weekend and is busy reading her driver's manual. As we witness the carnage of street racing on our roadways, it is perhaps too easy to forget that all too often it is alcohol or drugs which add to the feeling of invincibility in our youth.

I take my hat off to MADD, which has succeeded in changing many of the prevailing attitudes of our society about drinking and driving. MADD is now working with our young people, trying to change their attitudes. This very day, MADD has speakers in two lower mainland schools, talking to secondary school students about the issue of drinking and driving.

I stand in the House today to recognize Sally Gribble, who has since passed on. I know I join with my colleagues in congratulating and encouraging mothers and the others who work against drinking and driving.

T. Christensen: Last week each of us were in our constituencies doing our constituency work. Beyond providing me with an all-important opportunity to attend my daughter's first birthday, being in my constituency for the week also allowed me to attend the graduation and participation ceremony for the adult basic education program at the Kalamalka campus of OUC, which is in Vernon.

Adult education programs offer adults an opportunity to acquire the skills necessary to competently and independently function in a modern, technological society as citizens, workers, community and family

members and consumers. The programs offer competencies in a variety of curriculum areas, including life skills, mathematics and the all-important communication skills of speaking, reading, writing and, of course, listening. They also provide opportunities for pre-vocational and academic training.

In Vernon 74 students were recognized for their participation in the ABE program and their completion of various levels of education within the program. It was unlike any other graduation program I've attended. Students in the ABE program come from a wide variety of backgrounds and circumstances. There are single parents. There are recent immigrants. There are people who have worked for years, often in labour-intensive jobs that have resulted in one or more injuries, who wish to improve their formal education and obtain different employment. The one thing they all had in common was the desire to improve their education — in many cases, to obtain their grade 12 equivalency as a foundation to go on to post-secondary education.

They have goals of pursuing academic programs, skills-focused vocational and technical programs or other educational opportunities at our colleges, universities and otherwise. Many have a goal of improving their employment opportunities. They are all seeking to improve their lives and the lives of their dependents through bettering their education.

In listening to the students, two things stood out: firstly, the dedication of the students themselves, who are returning to school later in life, often when their high school experience wasn't a positive one, and who, because they're later in life, are juggling the responsibility of parenting and/or working while pursuing their studies; and also the dedication of the instructors. Student after student commented on the integrity and commitment of their instructors in going the extra mile to build enthusiasm in the classroom and to ensure their students' success.

I want to commend OUC for continuing to offer these programs. I wish them the best in the future.

J. Bray: As the Legislature gets ready to rise this week, I wish to speak on what I consider to be our common responsibility over the coming months.

We have seen significant changes over the last 12 months. During this time of change we've also seen an unparalleled level of rhetoric in the media — some by organized labour, some by professional associations.

This crescendo of conflict sometimes serves to smother the most important voices, those of our individual constituents. We must work over the months ahead to ensure the ability of our citizens to speak to us in our communities and make sure that it is enhanced. In order for us as legislators to assess how changes are impacting our businesses, industries, public services, neighbourhoods and neighbours, people must be able to communicate with each of us, their elected representatives.

However, there is a second part to this relationship: our commitment to actively listen to all the voices in our province. There are rural and urban perspectives, union and non-union perspectives, and high-, middle- and low-income points of view. We must listen to those who provide services by government and those who receive services from government, those who agree with government policies and those who oppose government policies.

In my own riding I will be meeting with persons who run small businesses, those who work in the public service, families who rely on services from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, constituents who are concerned about the environment and environmental protection, people with disability, tourism operators, high-tech company owners, parents of children in the public school system and seniors.

These meetings will be my opportunity to hear and see firsthand about those government policy changes that are benefiting my constituents and to learn how government policies can be improved on behalf of those who feel they are negatively impacted by government changes. My role as an MLA over the coming months is to make sure I represent all in Victoria–Beacon Hill and to work with the various ministries to ensure the best possible public policy. I am honoured to have this responsibility.

J. MacPhail: Let me see if I can find something for the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill to do. The doctors dispute is creating chaos in the health care system, and I think British Columbians are saying they have had enough. The Minister of Health Services says he's considering legislative options, so here's my proposal to the minister and to his government.

If the government agrees to forgo closure of the bills currently before the House and to extend the session by a week, the opposition will agree to pass all three stages of legislation in one day, ending the doctors dispute, provided that: (1) the legislation creates a mechanism whereby doctors are legally bound to provide services; (2) it establishes a fair and balanced binding arbitration process to handle all future disputes; and (3) it's exclusive to the doctors dispute and doesn't tack on other items the government would like to slip through.

So to the minister: will he accept our offer, bring in legislation that meets the test of these three simple principles and put an end to the doctors dispute today?

Hon. G. Collins: It's not the practice of this House to debate the order and the regulations and the standing orders in question period. However, I will advise the member opposite that the standing orders already

provide for the government, in urgent business, to move it through all three stages in one day. Should that happen or be required and we're advised by the Minister of Health Services, we would do so today, tomorrow, the next day, on a Saturday, on a Sunday, whatever it takes to get the doctors back to work and get patients proper care in British Columbia.

However, if the member wants to offer her legislative drafting experience to provide the parameters of the proposed legislation to the Minister of Health Services, we'd certainly look forward to seeing anything she could put on paper.

J. MacPhail: As usual, the House Leader takes matters that are very serious very lightly. This is not an emergency, because this government has been in a fight with the doctors for months now, for almost a year. What possible ruling could there be without the cooperation of the opposition to put this through in all three days? I would like to say that in the past, these disputes were settled without legislation.

May I also remind the minister that in previous disputes, the Liberal opposition always, always took the side of doctors. I can remember the current Minister of Health Planning pleading with the then government to give in to doctors' demands, but I'm saying today to the Minister of Health Services that the opposition is not going to play that game.

Our offer is simple. Allow more time for debate on the bills currently before the House, and we can pass and proclaim legislation today that ensures patient care tomorrow.

I would have thought the Minister of Health Services would have jumped at the opportunity. He's had weeks to devise a legislative package. What's the holdup?

Hon. G. Collins: If the Minister of Health Services makes it clear that legislation is required in order to settle this dispute and to make sure that patients are getting the care they need, this government will do whatever is necessary to make sure that passes through this House as timely as possible, because patients are at the top of the agenda of this government and always have been.

As well, if the members opposite would like more time to debate any matter that's before this House, we're more than happy to extend yet again the offer that we open Committee A, as has been done in the past, and provide for that opportunity to double the time that may be required by members opposite to debate any legislation.

J. MacPhail: Instead of the Health Services minister getting up, we have political spin from the chief political spin master of the Liberal government. I know it's a tough spot for the Liberals to find themselves in.

For years they were very close to the BCMA. The BCMA donated to the Liberal campaign, and every time they attacked the former government, the doctors could count on full support from the Liberals, then in opposition. I think, now, the cozy relationship has degenerated into name-calling.

Today doctors are closing their offices. Tomorrow specialists are closing their doors, and on Wednesday doctors are resigning their hospital privileges. Why won't the Minister of Health Services take action that ensures patients aren't again held hostage by the intransigence of the BCMA? Stop the political spin-doctoring by the House Leader. Stand up for patient care.

Hon. C. Hansen: I certainly appreciate the sentiments of the member and her willingness to assist. I would welcome any suggestions she may have. Over the weekend we have looked at a range of options as to how to ensure that patient care can be maintained in this province.

I was very pleased to hear on Friday the leadership role that was being taken by the College of Physicians and Surgeons to ensure that patient safety would be put at the top of the agenda. We are still hopeful that we can get back to negotiations, because we recognize that through negotiations we probably have an opportunity to close these few very minor issues that are still outstanding. We have indicated a willingness to be flexible on that, but we need the BCMA back at the table to do that. If they're not prepared to do that, we will be taking action very soon.

J. Kwan: For weeks now we have asked the Minister of State for Mental Health why mental health services are being cut when he claims to be putting more money into the system. Every time, he gets up and gives a lame answer. He says it's not up to him to manage the system. If it's not up to the minister to ensure mental health patients and their families get the care they need, then why is he taking up space at the cabinet table?

Mr. Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition please come to order so that we may hear the question.

J. Kwan: …because this government is eliminating its funding. Does the Minister of State for Mental

Health consider it his job to find a way to keep the centre open, or is it not up to him?

Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, it seems like the members opposite are not listening. We are investing $263 million over the next six years to improve mental health in this province. For the first time, health authorities…

Hon. G. Cheema: …have been given specific performance expectations on mental health. I understand why the NDP is sensitive. It's because they failed the patients with mental illness in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The minister's words just don't add up, because they're closing centre after centre across British Columbia. Those drop-in centres, mental health services, are being shut down. The Canora Club has been a sanctuary for mental health patients since 1958. As one of its clients says, in a letter to the Vancouver coastal health authority, without the Canora Club he would not be alive today.

The executive director of the Canadian Mental Health Association has taken the issue directly to the minister. He's met with the local MLAs, and he's even met with the Premier. Still the minister has not lifted a finger to help. The minister's hands-off attitude is resulting in the collapse of mental health services in communities across British Columbia. Will the minister listen to the pleas of mental health patients and their families and stop with the excuses and keep the Canora Club open?

Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, let me outline some of the positive changes we have made for mental health in this province: No. 1, the commitment of capital funding for the Riverview replacement facility; No. 2, child and youth mental health action plan; No. 3, clear performance expectations for mental health in this province. No. 4, $263 million for the mental health plan….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please. Order. We will pause here until there is quiet. The minister has the floor, and the time comes out of question period.

Hon. G. Cheema: No. 5, three new facilities for mental health in this province: Connolly Lodge, Iris House, Seven Oaks in Victoria. Mr. Speaker, the provincial….

Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, No. 6, anxiety disorder initiative in this province; No. 7, depression initiative in this province; No. 8, raising the status of mental health at the cabinet table; No. 9, $20 million for Kamloops psych facility. It goes on and on. We are improving mental health in this province.

B. Penner: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Fraser Valley residents were extremely distressed last Friday to learn about a decision in Washington State to recommend approval of the Sumas 2 power plant. If this project is built, it will pump another three tonnes per day of extra air pollution into the Fraser Valley's already fragile airshed. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what her ministry has done to date to oppose SE2 and what the government's reaction has been concerning this disturbing turn of events?

Hon. J. Murray: I was very disappointed in this decision. It was a terrible decision for the residents of the Fraser Valley and for their health and well-being. We will continue to strongly oppose the Sumas 2 power plant in the Fraser Valley area.

When we were elected, this government had a new-era promise to intervene in the Sumas 2 power plant, because it is the wrong plant in the wrong location. We intervened. We had an excellent staff, an excellent legal representation, strong support by the local community and the MLAs, and a very effective intervention, but unfortunately, we were not successful. I was personally appalled by the regulator's decision, and I will continue to fight it.

B. Penner: During the regulatory proceedings last year and this year the B.C. government called a number of expert witnesses who gave compelling testimony about the impact the extra air pollution would have on human health on our side of the border. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what additional steps she is taking to continue to oppose the construction of Sumas 2?

Hon. J. Murray: As the member is aware, this EFSEC decision is a recommendation to the Governor of Washington. It is not a final decision on the Sumas Energy 2 facility.

I started by calling an emergency meeting of the Fraser Valley MLAs. We met yesterday, on Sunday, to strategize our continuing opposition to this power plant. I've already instructed the staff in my ministry and our legal representatives to review all the aspects of this process and find if there are any grounds for appeal of EFSEC's recommendation. If so, we will file that appeal.

Secondly, we will be communicating very soon to the government of Washington our profound disappointment with this decision and our recommendation that the Governor turn this power plant project down.

The future of electricity prices is a concern to many people in my riding and throughout the province. Recently a number of concerns have been raised about reports that have suggested the possibility of increases in the price of electricity.

Can the Minister of Energy and Mines explain how increases in energy prices can even be considered when only last year B.C. Hydro was posting record profits and issuing rebates to customers in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This government put together a task force to come up with a plan for British Columbia, for its energy needs into the future. Part of that plan is to continue to provide the lowest possible prices for hydroelectricity to British Columbians well into the future. We want to do that by supplying a secure, reliable supply.

Many people in this province don't realize that British Columbia in the last ten years has been a net importer for three of those ten years. That will require new construction of facilities to continue to power this great province as we continue to get the economy going, jobs provided and the economy back to what it was before the NDP came in — and that's number one.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to inform the House at this time that as of this morning, I have received and accepted the resignation of the police complaint commissioner.

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the 2001-02 annual report of the office of the merit commissioner.

Hon. S. Bond: It is my pleasure today to table the annual reports of the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission of British Columbia and the British Columbia Centre for International Education for the fiscal year 2000-01.

Hon. S. Hagen: I have the honour to present the annual report for 2000-01 for the British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation.

Hon. R. Coleman: I have a number of reports to table: the Travel Assurance Fund and Travel Assurance Fund Board annual report, fiscal year 2001-02; the Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund and Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund Board annual report of fiscal year 2001-02; and the annual report of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, 2000-01.

B. Belsey: The first petition is signed by 237 constituents opposing cuts to legal aid funding. The second petition is from 46 constituents concerned with the costs of relocation of workers laid off by downsizing government offices.

Hon. C. Clark: I rise today to table a petition signed by 58 displaced forest workers at Fraser Mills.

Hon. G. Collins: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 81.1, which is part of our new fixed legislative calendar that provides for an orderly conclusion of government business using the procedure of time allocation. I'll just quote from Standing Order 81.1(1). It states: "When a minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more stages of any public bill, the minister may propose a motion without notice setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation, and the motion shall be decided forthwith without debate or amendment."

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to say we've come to an agreement, to conclusion, on how the government business will come to an orderly conclusion by May 30 of this week. I therefore move a motion to adopt the schedule as agreed to, which I'm tabling with the Clerk and which has been distributed to all members.

J. MacPhail: This motion is not debatable, and I understand that. My point of order is on the characterization of the House Leader, to say that he's pleased we've come to an agreement. That agreement is under duress. The agreement was made under duress after several opportunities for the House Leader to allow for

I am just saying that this non-debatable motion will be put forward, as we had to agree under duress to this schedule. It is completely unacceptable, but given the overwhelming majority of this government, we had no choice. We had no choice. I want to make it clear — not one choice.

Hon. G. Collins: Just a few words on the point of order, if I may. The members of the opposition were under no duress whatsoever when they agreed…

Hon. G. Collins: …unanimously to the provisions of standing order 81.1 at the beginning of the legislative session. As well, despite the histrionics of the member opposite, I repeatedly offered the member opposite and her colleague the opportunity to expand the debate, to allow for passage of legislation to Committee A, which is the process that has been…

Hon. G. Collins: …done in the past as well as the process that is used for the estimates. When those provisions….

J. MacPhail: When no one else is speaking, we have to defend the entire province. It's outrageous.

Hon. G. Collins: Those opportunities continue to exist for the members opposite. They were the opportunities that were available to them when they agreed unanimously with this new provision. As well, they were agreed to when the members agreed to the fixed legislative calendar. If they had a problem, that was the time to raise the issue.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The comments of both members will be taken into account. You've heard the question.

Hon. G. Collins: Pursuant to the motion we've just passed, I call committee stage of Bill 28.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 28; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. J. Reid: I rise to declare an interest in the matter before the House. I will absent myself from the chamber while Bill 28 is under discussion and from any votes on the bill.

Hon. G. Bruce: I, too, will absent myself from Bill 28 because of my interest and will absent myself from any votes that are held.

Hon. G. Cheema: I, also, rise to declare an interest in this matter before the House, and I will absent myself from this chamber while Bill 28 is under discussion and from any votes on this bill.

J. MacPhail: What is the minister's intent in raising the cap on the allowable tax credit allotment?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, before I answer the member's question, let me take the time to introduce staff that are with me here today. Mr. Dale Sketchley is the director of the business investment branch of the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise. He is joined by Ian Harper, our portfolio manager in the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise, and George Faddis, a barrister and solicitor from the Ministry of Attorney General.

With respect to the cap on venture capital in British Columbia, it was established in 1991 at $13 million. It remains today at $13 million. Any changes in total venture capital funding in British Columbia would be subject to budget considerations. The next budget is scheduled for February 2003.

J. MacPhail: Did the minister say it was established at $13 million in 1991?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Total tax credits under the Employee Investment Act are at $13 million. Yes, that was established in 1991. It remains that today. Interestingly

enough, though, I believe that in 1997, '98 and '99 — during that period — the former member was part of a government that in fact reduced those tax credits to $7.2 million.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. The history of that is that each and every year…. Well, it was not each and every year, but over the period of the ten years, the cap on the amount to be invested was increased. The tax credit that flowed from that was then increased as well. I have no idea what the minister is talking about whatsoever. It would increase from $15 million to $20 million, I think then to $30 million, then to $60 million, to $80 million in terms of the cap and then the tax credit that flowed from that. Is the minister trying to suggest something different?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, I'm not. What I'm trying to suggest to the member across the way is that the legislation that was in place allowed for a total cap for employee investment, since 1991, of $13 million. That's what the legislation allowed for.

J. MacPhail: Then I'm not quite sure why the minister is trying to say there's some history other than what I described.

I'm asking what the minister's intent is for the annual maximum allowable tax credit. There's been disappointment expressed by the business community that it remains at its current level.

Hon. R. Thorpe: British Columbians were very, very disappointed at the fiscal position that the previous government left them in. As most members in this House and a vast majority of British Columbians are well aware, we were left with a $3.8 billion structural deficit. We have taken a number of bold initiatives to put more money in working people's pockets. On the first day of our government we reduced taxes to British Columbians by 25 percent, putting more money in their pockets. In fact, British Columbia now has the lowest tax rate of any jurisdiction in Canada for those making $60,000 or less. We have made 17 reductions in tax since forming government. We are rebuilding the competitiveness of British Columbia, attracting new investment and creating jobs in British Columbia. We are excited about the future of British Columbia.

The next budget will be tabled in this House in February of 2003, and we will address the tax credits at that point in time.

R. Stewart: I rise to declare an interest in the matter before the House. I will absent myself from the chamber while Bill 28 is under discussion and will not vote on the bill.

J. MacPhail: It's very interesting to note that this minister, who says he's introducing competition at every point, refuses to answer the question. His rhetoric will serve him for whatever purpose it is, but it's to the business community, to his friends in the business community, that he is now speaking — not to me, but to the business community, who, after this bill was introduced, consistently expressed disappointment that the government was not raising the cap of allowable annual investment into labour-sponsored venture capital funds. That cap is now at $80 million, and flowing from that is a provincial tax expenditure of about $12 million. The combination of introducing competition is kind of undermined, I would think, by keeping the cap at $80 million.

All I'm asking the minister is to explain how keeping the investment cap at $80 million and introducing "competition" assists in growing the economy, from what was a very successful venture capital fund.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm going to try to be as clear as I can for the House and, perhaps, for the member.

It's disappointing to me that the member continues to want to turn up the rhetoric here on this issue. British Columbians actually know that hard and tough choices have been required to get ourselves out of the mess left by the previous government, in which that member was a key player. We have made very, very tough decisions with respect to funding health care, increasing funding by over $1.1 billion. We increased funding to education.

I think, quite frankly, that the business community welcomes competition, as I understood the member did in some comments she made in this House earlier. I also understand that the president of the current fund has encouraged competition.

I've also said many times before that we look forward to a growing and prosperous economy in British Columbia. We look forward to increasing the availability of investment pools and venture capitals, and for startup and small businesses and other areas of endeavour that will create jobs for British Columbians and keep our best and brightest here after having been driven away by the previous government.

All in all, I believe the business community knows, as all other British Columbians do, that tough decisions are required. We look forward to bringing forward, in consultation with my colleague the Finance minister, a review of venture-capital tax credit funding in the coming budget, which will be in February 2003.

J. MacPhail: The employment numbers plummeted after this government took office. Employment numbers in this province plummeted. Unemployment went up after the Liberal government was elected about a year ago.

This venture capital fund is the way jobs are created in British Columbia. The business community hasn't been flooding this province with investment. As a matter of fact, it's predicted that private sector investment will fall over the next two years in British Columbia.

The government said that the changes introduced in Bill 28 would increase investment through competition. That's all I'm asking the minister. We had a good thing going. Jobs were created in the thousands by the Working Opportunity Fund — by the thousands. Jobs are being lost every day in this province as we speak. I'm asking the minister what his plans are as a result of this legislation, through increasing competition without increasing the maximum amount allowable to be invested in venture capital. How does that result in better investment and more jobs?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I realize that the member across the way wants to engage in old-style politics of turning up the rhetoric, doom and gloom, and the world's coming to an end. But you know, quite frankly….

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. He seemed to be intimidated by a dialogue that was going on, Mr. Chair. I accept your comments on it being inappropriate.

I know that the minister has a lot of moxie, and he likes to stand up to people in giving his answers, whether it be inside or outside the chamber. I asked him a simple question. On the record it will read: how is it that these changes in legislation will increase jobs and investment in this province, when there was a huge amount of investment and jobs created in the previous Working Opportunity Fund venture capital fund? Simple question.

Hon. R. Thorpe: In fact, perhaps, if the member would have the common decency now to sit and listen to an answer, I would be very, very clear that I'm not sure that any member of this House intimidates any other member of this House. I'm sure that's not the member's intention.

What we're doing here is introducing competition. We're levelling the playing field. As we gather information with regards to economic growth and the effective use of tax credits, our government will review the cap on the tax credits for this purpose.

Let me also correct the erroneous comments, if I could, of the member across with respect to investment. Under their administration, British Columbia was the number one economic engine of Canada. They had the ability to drive us to number ten. Only a week or so ago an independent report came out. Now British Columbia has worked its way back up, through the aggressive economic policies of our government and, I might say, the determination of the private sector and all British Columbians. Now we're only behind Ontario and Alberta. British Columbia now ranks third. You know, it's been a long, long time since we've been able to have that pride in British Columbia.

People are coming to British Columbia. People are investing; jobs are being created. We do face some challenges again, never mind, with respect to the softwood lumber. My colleague the Minister of Forests is working aggressively on that with the government of Canada.

Let me say for the last time that our government is committed to economic growth in British Columbia by attracting investment from across Canada and around the world. We are committed to venture capital. We are committed to competition. After we've had the opportunity to gather the economic growth data and understand more efficiently the effective use of tax credits, we are going to review this cap on an ongoing basis based on the ability of British Columbia to provide and to pay for those tax credits.

Hon. J. Murray: Mr. Chair, I've been absent from the House since question period, and I rise to declare an interest in the matter before the House. I will absent myself from the chamber while Bill 28 is under discussion and from any votes on the bill.

J. MacPhail: I was interested to see whether the minister had actually read the report on the Investment Dealers Association. It's true that they said B.C. was third, behind Alberta and Ontario, but when they actually raised the question about whether anyone's intending to invest in British Columbia, the answer was no. Private sector investment is going to fall in British Columbia over the next two years. Being third is great, but when third means zero, it ain't that much of an achievement.

You know, there are lots of people in this chamber and probably in the galleries right here who thought the Working Opportunity Fund was a pretty good place to invest. I'm not one of them because I was told I couldn't invest in it — fair enough.

My question only was: with this introducing competition, sort of busting up a good thing amongst smaller parts…. What criteria does the government have for that competition, leading to more jobs and greater investment? The answer was: "Gee, wait."

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm appalled by the negativity of the member across the way and why this member wants to continue. She was part of a government that ravaged the economy of British Columbia, drove our brightest and best…. Look; she sits over there with a smirk on her face that's unbelievable.

You know, it's appalling that you would now want to send to the world about not coming to British Columbia. What have you got against working people? What have you got against small…? The question I want to know the answer to is this: what has this

member got against creating employment in rural British Columbia, in small communities, in the high-tech industry and in the film industry? What has this member got against creating jobs, hope and prosperity in the great province of British Columbia?

Our government is committed to hope, prosperity and economic growth and to creating jobs throughout the entire province. We are committed…

Hon. R. Thorpe: …to an ongoing review of tax policy. Again, for the last time, the tax policies and the use of tax credits with respect to the fund will be announced in the budget of February 2003.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The legislation stays the same. Venture capital credits available on various tax programs stay at $13 million, and the cap for labour-sponsored funds stays at $12 million.

J. MacPhail: Well, then, that means we don't have any hope of any change until the year 2004, because of course, most people do their investment in these kinds of funds for the RRSP season. The budget for 2004 will be in February, maybe days before the RRSP season. I'm sure that the minister would never do anything that would be untoward in terms of influencing that. It means the first effect that raising the cap would have would be for the year 2004. Gee, that's really good hope. Maybe we should all pray, then, because there ain't anything happening before the year 2004.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm surprised. Well, perhaps I'm not surprised. As a former minister and, I believe, a Finance minister, I would have thought the member would have known that RRSPs bought in the first part of 2003 are applicable to the year 2002, not the year coming forward. They're applicable backwards, not forwards.

You know, I'm surprised. I have been surprised many times by that member, and I continue to be. It's important to remember that the equity capital program also administered by this minister provides tax credits to raise up to $50 million for early-stage investments. This complements the $80 million available through labour-sponsored funds for an annual total of $130 million.

J. MacPhail: Just in case there's anybody here who is actually thinking the minister knows what he's talking about, let me set the record straight. The money raised under venture capital funds is done prior to February 28 of any year if it's attached to an RRSP tax credit as well. Funds sell out before that period of time, and unless the legislation raises the cap to take effect before that period of time, it has no effect till the next RRSP season. Just in case the minister needs a briefing on that matter.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could suggest the purpose and intent of section 8, please.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's enabling. It's for the establishment of a structured, consistent valuation process going forward, transparent for all the shareholders for all the funds.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The development of this methodology or regulation will be undertaken in consultation with the stakeholders, with the industry. I'm not going to predescribe what that methodology will be until those consultations have taken place. That is our commitment to British Columbians, and that's what will take place.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry; what commitment is that? When will the consultations take place, and who will be consulted?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The consultation will begin within the coming months and will include a cross-section of those affected, those who have expertise and those who have an understanding of evaluations so that we can make sure there's a consistent valuation process that's transparent for all stakeholders, all shareholders, for all funds in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. R. Thorpe: We want to make sure there is a consistent valuation process going forward to ensure, in a very transparent manner, that the valuation for shareholders for all funds is established. Again, I would think all British Columbians would want their legislators to make sure that we had a consistent, structured approach for valuation that was transparent for all shareholders.

Again, we want to make sure the methodology for the development of these regulations will be undertaken in consultation with a wide cross-section of stakeholders. That is our commitment. As I said to the member a second ago, that process will start in the very, very near future should this bill pass this House.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I'm curious about this is that the word "prescribing" means regulating. This government takes great pride in saying that they're cutting red tape and cutting regulation. In fact, there's a Minister of State for Deregulation — a full-time job in this government, this largest cabinet ever in the history

of British Columbia. Largest deficit, largest cabinet — gee, it's a government of large, I'll tell ya. It's a big, big government, but they're going to root out regulations.

Here we have, in a business-friendly bill, more to the point, red tape being introduced. That was why I asked what problem we are trying to solve here by bringing in red tape. You know what? The minister doesn't know.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The liberties that sometimes are taken by some members in this House reach new heights every day — or new lows, whatever you decide.

I'm again surprised that a member of this House would not want to ensure, as legislators, that we do have a structured, consistent valuation process for the ongoing transparency for all shareholders. It's consistent with other jurisdictions across Canada. To suggest that this would be excessive red tape is an exaggeration but one that we are becoming very familiar with from that member over there.

You know, I think it's important that unlike the previous government here for the past ten years, this will be done in consultation with the industry, with stakeholders. We are very confident that this will be a positive move and will not create additional red tape but will provide a structured, consistent valuation process in a very transparent way for shareholders of all funds in British Columbia with respect to venture capital.

J. MacPhail: This is the time, even though there is one hour to debate three bills, when the government has an opportunity to explain its philosophy behind legislation. We have a business bill. The business community hates red tape, and yet inside this bill we have a bunch of red tape being created. That was the only reason I was raising the question. I don't know what's wrong with that question. I think it's pretty reasonable.

I'm very anxious to see the regulations. Tell me: does the minister have a plan to cut red tape elsewhere in the application of this legislation to make up for the introduction of more red tape? I think the minister has to cut double the red tape. It's a two-for-one kind of government. It's a big government, but it's kind of like the pizza places. You get two for one.

J. MacPhail: Yeah. The legislation here creates red tape, so will there be double the number of regulations cut elsewhere?

D. MacKay: With us this afternoon, from the beautiful Bulkley Valley and, in particular, Smithers, I have 13 students from the grade 7 class at St. Joe's Catholic school visiting today, along with five escorts who brought them down to Victoria to see the city and have a look at the Legislature. They're up behind me in the gallery, I believe. I would like to acknowledge Mike Schultz, Tracy Wreggitt, Eugene Cole, Leslie Bush and Brian Sikkes, who accompanied all these students from Smithers to the beautiful city of Victoria. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

L. Mayencourt: A number of Working Opportunity Fund shareholders I've spoken with, just ordinary working families, have raised a concern regarding the report on the valuation of the portfolio. Apparently, the Working Opportunity Fund has GrowthWorks issue this valuation to those shareholders. Will this allow for an independent evaluation of GrowthWorks's valuation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Currently, the corporation is required only to value its shares according to generally accepted accounting principles with reference to financial information to the corporation. We are going to develop in consultation the established, structured, consistent valuation process, going forward, so that it's transparent for all shareholders for all funds.

I want to make it very, very clear. This will be for all funds. This is not about a particular fund. This is about all funds, should we in fact have funds come forward that want to compete in this area.

J. MacPhail: Why did the government have to legislate the breaking of a commercial contract?

Hon. R. Thorpe: This is not the breaking of a contract. It sets aside those provisions that sought to bind government and the administrator with regard to equity fund approvals, tax credit allocation and investment pacing. This legislation was prepared in consultation with our legal advisers at the Ministry of Attorney General. It is important to note that governments cannot be bound to act outside legislative requirements.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could expand on that, because this is the legislation breaking a contract. Let me ask this, then. Can anybody who has a contract arising out of this legislation now sue the government if the government doesn't honour that contract?

Hon. R. Thorpe: This sets aside only to the extent that it's outside the scope of the legislation. We are also

looking to ensure and protect the taxpayers of British Columbia and the shareholders of the fund. That's what this section accomplishes, and that's the extent of it.

J. MacPhail: Well, it is absolutely ridiculous to somehow say that a contract that's legally binding…. This government gets to determine with its heavy hand of legislation and its overwhelming majority what's outside of legislation. If the government doesn't like a contract, why don't they challenge it in court? Not this government. They never like to do anything by the ordinary avenue available to every other British Columbian. They like to bring in legislation saying….

Here's what this bill says. Here's exactly what it says. It's entitled "No compensation." If the government were on solid ground, all they'd have to do is go to court. That's all they'd have to do. In fact, earlier today I heard this government saying: "Oh, isn't it awful when governments don't honour contracts? It's outrageous; it's horrendous." But the previous government didn't deny Carrier its right to court.

J. MacPhail: The previous government didn't say: "Oh, and by the way, Carrier, you don't have any access to court." No. What this government does is break commercial contracts and then say: "You've got no avenue to take us to court. You've got no compensation, and you can't sue us." That's the difference. I was shocked when the Minister of Forests got up with his balderdash, saying how bad the previous government was. The previous government never denied anybody the right….

J. MacPhail: I ain't gonna be laughing at his jokes, because time is limited.

J. MacPhail: Exactly, and it's on point. This government is breaking a contract and then saying: "No compensation and no right to sue." Never before has any government done that to a commercial contract except for now — never before. Commercial contracts that are violated have always had the right to be tested and judged in court. This time, this government says no. There are 55,000 shareholders that they have a contract with, but what do they say to the 55,000 shareholders? They say: "No compensation." That's what they say. No compensation is payable to a corporation or any other person because of or arising out of anything in this act or the amendments made by this act. That's unprecedented. It's never ever been done before.

Then it goes on to say: "No action lies, and an action or other proceeding must not be brought or maintained, against the government, the administrator or any other person for compensation or any other remedy arising as a direct or indirect consequence of…this Act…." So here we have, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, a commercial contract being ripped up, just like this government thought they could do to working people. They have done it to working people, but now they're doing it to a commercial contract — first time ever. It's so ironic today that we had the Minister of Forests standing up with a bunch of bravado saying: "Wasn't it awful in the past?" Well, the fact of the matter is that Carrier Lumber got compensation. Carrier Lumber did get compensation, because they had a right to take the government to court. They had a right to sue.

Now what this government has done…. They're breaking a contract of greater commercial value, by the way, than could ever be contemplated in the past, and this government is saying: "No right to sue and no compensation." Shame on them.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 28, Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 54; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Sections 30 through 35 amend the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act. The Legislative Assembly Management Committee is a group of officers, for lack of a better term, from the government and the opposition to manage the compensation, benefits and working conditions, both physical and compensatory, of people within the legislative precinct. This change in this bill allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations that will provide for the security of the legislative grounds.

The legislative grounds have been expanded to include Confederation Garden Park, the area of land bounded by Belleville, Menzies, Superior and Government Streets. It also allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations to permit or prohibit the use of the legislative precinct by the public or by any other person, and persons not complying with these regulations may be subject to a penalty. That's a summary of what we're about to do here. My question is: why?

Hon. G. Plant: The essential purpose of these amendments is to correct an anomaly that exists, in our view, in the law of British Columbia in terms of the responsibility for the legislative grounds. That responsibility is an important feature of how it is that people have the right of access to the Legislature, and it has, by an interesting and somewhat curious parliamentary and regulatory history, become the case that a set of regulations that exist for the legislative grounds has become the responsibility of the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.

It is the view of the government that the basic principles and rules around access to the front lawn of the Legislature and the legislative precincts are really matters that ought to be in the hands of the Speaker, who can be expected to discharge those responsibilities in a way that is free from partisan politics. Accordingly, these amendments are being introduced to move the responsibility for the regulations from the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations to the Speaker. As the member has pointed out, when we get to section 34, the proposal is to introduce a regulation-making power and to give cabinet the power to make regulations providing for the security of the legislative precinct. That power really already exists, and the regulation already exists. Other than the possibility of some technical changes to ensure the references in the regulation are correct, government does not intend to amend the regulations that currently exist in any substantive way.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm curious. There have been a whole bunch of changes made around this building. I now have to carry a toggle — or I think it's called a fob — to get in and out of the building. Come June 1, I'm going to have to use a fob to get into my own office. Who is paying for those changes?

Hon. G. Plant: They have nothing to do with the provisions that are before the Legislature now.

J. MacPhail: Actually, they do, because they're security changes that are being made by someone that isn't the Legislative Assembly Management Committee. I was just wanting to have some input, as a member who works here, into those changes. That's all. I've been denied any opportunity to do that. I'm looking for a place to say what my view of security is.

Hon. G. Plant: The member should take advantage of the opportunity that is available to her, as it is to all members of the House, to raise the questions and concerns that she has directly with the Speaker, who is responsible for security in the building.

J. MacPhail: The changes that have been made in security are already the responsibility of the Speaker, the Attorney-General says. That's interesting. I'm fine. I take him at his word on that.

Hon. G. Plant: What I tried to say quite carefully when I was introducing the provisions…. We're actually talking about the front lawn of the Legislature here, colloquially speaking. We're not talking about the building, but about the precincts — that is, the land around the buildings. We're also talking about Confederation Garden Park. We're drawing a distinction between the building and the lands around the building.

The building has been the province of the Speaker, the responsibility of the Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms, for as long as I've been a member. Nothing that we have introduced here today is in any way going to affect that. What this bill does is clarify responsibility for the grounds, the land around the building itself.

J. MacPhail: I take it that these changes are being made in response to Camp Campbell, which was on the front lawn of the Legislature for the month of February.

Hon. G. Plant: There was an incident…. I always wondered why it wasn't called Camp MacPhail.

There was an incident on the front lawn of the Legislature earlier this year that did give rise to some interesting research. That was really when we determined that the responsibility for the legislative ground protection regulation rested with the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations under, of all things, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act.

The member is right. It was that incident that alerted us in government to the strange way in which these matters were being regulated — not so much the strange way they were being regulated, but in fact, the chain of authority. It was that incident and the actions that took place around it that caused us to think that really, the public interest would be better served if the Speaker were in fact directly and primarily responsible for security for the legislative precinct.

J. MacPhail: I will be watching it with interest, then, if that type of incident is the incident that provokes this change. I'll be watching it with interest to ensure that what has always been a place of public congregation and, frankly, a place of public protest, continues to be allowed to be so.

J. MacPhail: Just for the record, I want it noted that I have many other questions, but given the time allocation and the inability to explore these issues, I am picking my issues extremely carefully. By virtue of acknowledging that I am complying with the time limits, it doesn't mean that there are not dozens of legislative changes that are virtually going undebated and therefore without any public scrutiny.

Section 55 changes the Mines Act and the Waste Management Act. There are some concerns. These changes under this act propose two main exemptions that are of serious concern. First, it provides an exemption from the permit requirements of the Mines Act. Second, it provides a further exemption for these same activities from the Waste Management Act — two big exemptions. I'm glad to see various people here to talk about these exemptions.

Also, it's clear that currently under the Mines Act, mining companies are required to obtain a permit before conducting mining activity. As part of the application process, mining companies are often required to propose environmental protection measures for damage to water courses resulting from the mine.

The Mines Act already provides that where the chief inspector of mines is satisfied that a permit is not required because of the nature of the work, the company can be exempted from this requirement. Bill 54 adds another exemption, stating that the chief inspector can exempt a mine from the permit requirements if the proposed activity meets the "prescribed requirements" for an exemption. These requirements are to be included in a yet-undrafted regulation. It's sort of like the move when Minister of Finance this morning said the reason we should hoist a private member's bill is because the work wasn't yet complete, but here we are ramming through legislation even though there are no regulations yet.

"The exemption is overly broad and could apply to mining works that harm the environment."

J. MacPhail: This actually is from the West Coast Environmental Law Association. That's absolutely right. When people heard that legislation was going to be rammed through, they immediately came to our assistance because of these serious matters. It's quite correct that we're getting a lot of assistance. The West Coast Environmental Law Association has done a detailed analysis.

"From a land use planning perspective, exemptions on mineral exploration could limit the ability of government to impose terms and conditions that would ensure compatibility with established land use zones and habitat protection concerns."

We find ourselves in a situation once more, asking the Minister of Mines: could the minister inform the House as to what type of prescribed requirements…? Oh, I think that's red tape. What kind of red tape will allow an exemption from a permit?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This enables a more transparent process to take place and is applicable only to low-level activity.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's interesting, because that exemption's already in place, but we have another exemption allowed the mining industry. I'm not sure

what the minister is going to prescribe in the regulations. It can only be an expansion of the exemption that is currently available.

Maybe I could ask the Minister of Mines what role the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection will have in setting these prescribed requirements. The Minister of Mines said in estimates that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection would be setting the standards and holding the Minister of Energy and Mines accountable to those standards. What role, if any, is the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection playing in expanding the exemption that mines have from environmental protection?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The act and the code still apply. There was consultation between the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection when these were being drafted and proposed. There will continue to be a working relationship, as I said in estimates, between the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the Ministry of Energy and Mines on all these issues.

J. MacPhail: Isn't that good to know? The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection approves of this. Isn't that great? Energy and Mines get to have more exemption from any of the rules of the land that protect the environment, and the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection is on board — good news.

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's absolutely an erroneous statement. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was involved in the discussion. This does not allow the exemption of any environmental rules. Environmental rules will still be applied to the highest level that they've always been applied within the mining industry. They will continue to be, along with the support and work with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. MacPhail: Again I'm put in this situation where I have to call our protest against sections on division. That means that the opposition, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I, will be opposing sections.

J. MacPhail: This is a curious section. Section 66 is on the Public Service Labour Relations Act, where it's exempting a person employed as an industrial relations officer or employment standards officer of the employment standards branch. That means that they can never join a union. Well, they don't belong to unions. There was an organizing attempt, and it failed. It says here — I always love the explanatory notes under this government — that it "provides clarity and certainty regarding the excluded status of industrial relations and employment standards officers."

What clarity is needed? They're excluded. Is that because the government's now going to force IROs and ESOs to cross picket lines?

Hon. S. Santori: What this is doing is enshrining what's been a verbal and a written agreement since the mid-seventies. It's a housekeeping issue, and it does add clarity into the system.

J. MacPhail: Employment standards officers and industrial relations officers, as part of their job of being neutral and assisting parties through labour relations disputes, never had to cross picket lines. Will they now have to?

Hon. S. Santori: We don't expect IROs or EROs to cross picket lines that would be confrontational or that would create anything confrontational with a legal picket line. As I said earlier, this has been the practice since the 1970s, and this is just enshrining what has been in place for the past 30 years.

J. MacPhail: To conclude, there will be no requirement of…. I'm sorry — EROs? Is that the new employee relation…? I'm sorry. Whatever. I want to get it right. Employment standards officers and industrial relations officers will not be required to cross picket lines?

Hon. S. Santori: This enshrinement of what was in place over the last 30 years is not intended to change the culture of past practices, and we wouldn't expect them to have to cross picket lines.

J. MacPhail: This is interesting, given what we just debated in the changes to the Mines Act under section 55. You have to look at what the changes to the Mines Act were and combine it with this change to the Waste Management Act. It's a very, very small amendment — I think it's one line. But you have to combine the two, and you come up with a very disturbing result. Again, the West Coast Environmental Law Association…. Thank God there are organizations out there that are worried about the environment, because this government isn't. The Waste Management Act is B.C.'s primary environmental protection law. It contains a prohibition against releasing pollutants into the environment without a permit. That's the basis of the act. This act that we're debating right now contains a number of specific exemptions from that prohibition. This act is expanding the number of ex-

emptions from that prohibition under the Waste Management Act. Most of those exemptions are for activities that are supposed to be in compliance with the permit issued by the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Bill 54 — this bill, this exemption, this amendment we're debating right now — now allows mining operations that are exempted from permitting under the Mines Act that we just passed to be also exempted from the pollution provisions of the Waste Management Act. Wow. That means that mining activities could be conducted with no regulatory oversight from the Ministry of Energy and Mines and would be immune from prosecution for any environmental damage done under the Waste Management Act.

Here we have a situation where you've got to read so carefully every single move that this government makes. You have to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Here we see a degradation of environmental protection that will affect British Columbians, and it's going to go through like that.

The Ministry of Energy and Mines, in practice, has been the regulator of mining activity at mine sites, and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has played a very strong role until now in ensuring the levels of environmental protection are maintained. If the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection no longer has the ability to commence prosecutions for environmental harm as a result of some mining activities, the public and the public's environment will be left unprotected from the as-yet-undefined, exempted activities. That's what we're doing right here. That's the combined effect. That's what we're ramming through in this House.

How does the minister justify…? What protection, if any, does the public have that the exemptions he now has the ability to give, the expanded exemptions, will not do any harm to the environment? Why is this change here?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I explained to the member earlier why it's there. The member should know that this is for low-level risk. This is not for mining. This has everything to do with exploration only, as will be laid out by regulation. It's still subject to the Mines Act. It will still be subject to the environmental rules of the day.

I want to stress again that this just makes it more transparent, gets rid of some of the red tape and the duplication and moves us towards facilitating mining in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: That's dead wrong. The minister is not telling what's in this bill. This Waste Management Act exemption that we're going to pass in near moments allows for greater pollution. It takes away any protection that used to be held within the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection from continuing to prohibit releasing pollutants into the air without a permit. It's gone. That's exactly what the amendment does. If it doesn't, maybe the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection could get up and explain how the fact that no longer prohibiting pollutants is good for the environment.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 54, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 52; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 52, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

J. MacPhail: This is the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. We're well into the debate about the changes in this legislation.

My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant did a very thorough analysis of what the consequences of the changes are to the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. She described how British Columbia was making changes to basically take away worker protection, to transfer resources out of the pockets of injured workers into the companies in whose workplaces a worker had been injured — transferring $100 million out of the pockets of injured workers into the companies, reducing the protection for the families of injured workers, taking away the long-term benefits for injured workers, reducing the nature of claims that will be available for injured workers. She did a very, very thorough analysis of that.

Then I had the honour to rise and continue to address these draconian changes to the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. I'm not going to go through it again, because we have very little time left, but I was taking a different perspective in addition to my colleague, a perspective on the history of why workers compensation is in place.

I approached it from the point of view of our youngest workers. I talked about how when we send our children off to school, we street-proof them, and every single parent takes that very seriously. But when we send our 16-, 17- or 18-year-old off to work, do we talk about job-proofing them in terms of health and safety? No, but the Workers Compensation Board has done that. Many new Canadians who arrive in British Columbia, who come and join our society and make our society so wonderfully multicultural, need to be instructed in the rules of occupational health and safety as they exist here.

That was the role of the Workers Compensation Board. Huge strides were made in the nineties — huge strides — with the WCB investing in injury and illness prevention. That's the way to go. Doesn't it make sense, if you're trying to find cost efficiencies where people's health and safety are at risk, not to take money out of injured workers' pockets and give it to employers but to say to employers: "Stop injuring people; stop killing people; let's work together to stop that from happening"?

Does this government do that? No. There's not one iota of pressure put on any employer by this government to stop injuring workers. In fact, this government, by regulation, is assisting in the injury of workers. I'd go as far as to say this government, by regulation, is assisting in the killing of workers.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me explain. Let me explain, Mr. Speaker, because it's factually proven. It is factually proven. This government is allowing, forcing, hotel and restaurant workers, bar workers, to work in places where there's secondhand smoke, where they're subject to secondhand smoke. Guess what. Five hundred deaths per year are due to secondhand smoke. People who have never smoked in their lives die because of secondhand smoke — 500.

What did this government do? This government overturned a WCB regulation. Well, first of all, they delayed a WCB regulation and then went out on some review of that regulation. The member for Vancouver-Burrard conducted that review of whether the regulation to prohibit hotel and restaurant workers to be subject to secondhand smoke should stay.

Now, I heard, and I actually asked the minister during estimates, how many submissions were received during that review. I'd heard on the street that it was one, and the minister didn't deny that. The minister didn't deny that at all. Given every opportunity to deny it, he didn't. After a cursory — one might say sham — review, this government decided to overturn a WCB regulation that prevented hotel and restaurant bar workers from being subject to secondhand smoke, which can kill them.

There's my explanation, and I dare anyone, any Liberal backbencher, to stand up and say I'm wrong — anyone. They know full well I'm right, but that isn't good enough. Not only are they permitting greater injury and greater death, this government is now saying that employers who participate in the injury, illness and perhaps death of workers get more money in their pockets. That's what this legislation is about.

Do you know what this government would have saved in injury and illness if they'd put in place the WCB regulation prohibiting smoking in bars because of the health and safety of hotel and restaurant workers? Millions of dollars — millions of dollars on our health care system. The biggest pressure on our health care system is the cost of illness, injury and death related to tobacco use — billions every year on our health care system.

Every other jurisdiction is saying smoking is bad. What does this government do? "Oh, for economic reasons we have to allow smoking in bars." Would that be for the economy of those workers who have to work in those bars? No. In whose economic interest is it for this government to overturn the WCB? This government could've saved millions of dollars by merely upholding a WCB regulation, but that should've sent us a signal. That should have sent us a signal about the intent of this government in the way they treat injured and ill workers in this province.

What good is it doing? Is it helping? Is it helping the economy in any way to have more ill and injured workers? My colleague, in a very, very detailed analysis of the effect of work-related injury and illness on our productivity, outlined the hugely deleterious effect of those absences from work. Those absences from

work far outweigh any strike action, any lockout action, but oh no, this government has to make all of these changes that don't do anything to prevent injury or illness.

They have to do it. Why? Oh, I know why. It's because their Liberal donors asked them to do it. That's why. That's exactly why. Here we are today, delivering, right on schedule. Our Liberal donors asked us to take away the rights of injured workers, and we're doing it.

Well, who else got a say besides the B.C. Business Council and the small business community? Oh, the board of trade would have got a say, yeah. I wouldn't even be surprised if the Fraser Institute was consulted as well, but who else? Well, it wasn't a lot of other people who got a say. There certainly was a lack of any input from those who disagreed with these changes. Oh, sure, the B.C. Federation of Labour was consulted, and they spoke out vehemently against these changes, but the Community Legal Assistance Society, for instance, which deals every day with people who have claims, wasn't consulted. In fact, the entire consultation process was done in a way that really said: "Those of you that don't agree with the direction we're going in get little, if any, perfunctory say in what is going to happen in the changes."

Here we have a situation where this government is fundamentally altering the pact that was made in the early 1900s between employers and their workers. There was a pact made. It was a legally based pact that said if a worker was injured on the job, their avenue for recourse was to the Workers Compensation Board, not to the courts. That was because our courts would have been tied up forever on lawsuits against employers on whose sites or places of employment people had been injured, killed or made ill. There was a trade-off, and this government is altering the balance of that trade-off. They're saying to employers, "You, Mr. or Ms. Employer, have greater rights," and workers are still denied access to the courts. In fact, if WCB does too good a job of holding that in balance, this government will go in and interfere directly — interfere directly and overturn the WCB as they did on the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.

What does that mean for workers? What does it mean now? Is our province a better place? Does the new era under this Liberal government mean it's a better place for injured and ill workers? I would suggest not. I would predict not.

You know, on the weekend we learned about a tragic death of a person who was a contract worker at Cominco. Mr. Speaker, I choose my words carefully here, because I don't want to…. There's an investigation into this, and we will await the outcome of the investigation. This was a worker who was 41 years old. He was a contract worker at Cominco in Trail, I think — the Cominco site in Trail. Cominco had put these workers at risk by making them exposed to a highly, highly dangerous chemical.

This isn't controversial. I'm not risking anything here. That was proven. The workers became very ill, very sick. The WCB investigated. Teck Cominco was fined $270,000. That was last summer. Now a young man who was exposed to that chemical, for which the company was fined, has died, and there's an investigation.

What this government has done is not to say: "We're going to beef up protection for workers so that this kind of situation never occurs again." They're not beefing up enforcement. They're not beefing up compliance. They're not expanding the occupational health and safety requirements of employers to stop injuring and killing workers. They're saying: "Oh no. We're going to make it so you have to pay less in terms of your contributions for protecting against injuring workers and supporting the compensation of families of injured or killed workers." That's what this government's doing.

Then, as they're wont to do…. This government's great at ballooning up deficits; they like to do that. They like to balloon up deficits out in the future, and then say: "Oh, bad, bad, everyone else but us." That's what they're doing with our fiscal situation in British Columbia right now. Then on the basis of that, they're cutting health and education programs. Now we've got another new made-in-Liberal-land deficit. It's called the workers compensation deficit. The minister's predicting that that's going to balloon to $300 million. He came up with that figure.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as time runs out here, let me just say that that is a manufactured prediction of what the deficit will be, a manufactured prediction of what the WCB deficit will be, for this reason. Historically, workers compensation boards across this country have had to manage their way out of deficits and have done so. You don't need to weaken the law on behalf of companies at the expense of injured and ill workers. You force employers and workers to work together to prevent illness and injury from ever occurring.

That's what happened throughout the 1990s. The number of claims went down. It's true that the value of each claim went up, but that was because only the most serious claims by the most serious infractions occurred. We were on a downward trend of the number of claims being brought, which was wonderful news.

What does this government do? It says: "The working people who are reducing the number of claims and the companies who are reducing the number of claims are not required to do anything anymore." This government is going to make up a deficit for the WCB and then say to injured and ill workers, "We have to cut back on the benefits that flow to you and your family" — the earned benefits, the benefits of right, the trade-off that was made over the twentieth century. "We're going to cut back on that pact that your predecessors, your ancestors, made." That's what's happening.

Is there any trade-off for the injured and ill worker? There is none — absolutely none. Never once has this government stood up and said that by the same token,

This bill is wrong. It's a shame to British Columbia, and it's throwing, once again, any iota of fairness and balance right out the window.

K. Krueger: The opposition has almost talked out their clock on the allocated time for this bill. I did want to respond to a couple of things the opposition members said in their remarks. In the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago I utterly refute this allegation that this government has in any way, with its legislation and the policy decisions that have been made, contributed to workers' illnesses or deaths.

I submit to the House that the record of the NDP in office running the WCB was absolutely dismal. The positions they took on smoke in the workplace were politically driven, not out of concern for workers. In fact, in the entire ten years that the NDP were government of this province, the WCB never paid for the death of a worker relating to secondhand smoke — not one. I'm not saying that it shouldn't have. There may well have been such a case, but the WCB never had such a case. The government, I believe, ordered the WCB to bring matters on in the arbitrary way they were brought on, and we all know the history of that. The fact is that B.C. Liberals are utterly committed to the safety and well-being of workers and to their fair treatment by the WCB and by the system in general.

The opposition repeatedly makes statements to the effect that workers pay for WCB premiums out of their pocket. That is flat not true. It never has been. Workers don't pay anything into the WCB pool. Employers pay all of it. What this government seeks to do is set a fair level of compensation, where workers are properly provided for in the event that they have sustained workplace injuries but also where employers aren't driven out of business and investment isn't driven out of British Columbia as happened during that entire sad decade of the NDP in government in British Columbia.

The Leader of the Opposition should hark back to the last set of labour estimates, when she was minister and I was critic. I stood up at the beginning of estimates and strafed the WCB for 20 minutes or half an hour on their absolutely awful record in British Columbia — how both workers and employers were utterly unhappy with them, how they seemed to have no customer service ethic at all, how they were being run by the NDP's five-person, hand-picked panel of administrators and a whole lot of appointed people who were appointed for political reasons, not because of any expertise in the matter they were supposed to be dealing with.

I asked my first question in those estimates, and to my amazement, the then minister, now Leader of the Opposition, stood up and said that she agreed with every word I'd said and didn't want to answer any questions, because she really had no control over the WCB, and she sat down. I was shocked and stood up and said: "Well, you know, you're the minister responsible, and somebody has to answer the questions. Who's going to speak for these injured workers who have such an unhappy history with the WCB? She stood up again and said: "I'm not trying to be difficult here. I just really can't change anything, and that's the way it is. I can't do anything about it." She sat down again. The House Leader had to come in and persuade her that we would have to do a special motion to allow the WCB to answer my questions directly before she would even try to deal with the issues that were being raised.

These members repeatedly raise the royal commission and its recommendations. That royal commission cost B.C. taxpayers $6 million and took two years to do, and they never acted on a single recommendation of that royal commission. Why are they now quoting the royal commission to us? Their buddies were running the WCB, and they were doing a shameful job of it. It was one of the many ways the NDP took our economy from first to worst in Canada, to the detriment of workers and the families of workers.

This government, once again, is valiantly trying, in a very measured way, to fix some of that damage and to make things happen again for British Columbians and especially for workers. It's not a healthy thing if workers receive more in benefits when they're on compensation than they do in take-home pay when they are actually working. There is a claimant mentality that sets in. You ask the principled workers of the WCB — and there are many; there are still many fine people there — and they will tell you about what they internally call internally "disability behaviour" and how it can set in, even with the very best of claimants. If a person is suddenly finding himself with more in his pocket because he's on compensation, and he also has mortgage insurance and car insurance and he doesn't have day care anymore and he or she and their spouse were both working before but now one of them is home, it's pretty easy to start to settle back into the embrace of those systems.

The worst case I heard of was a worker who was receiving 270 percent of his normal take-home pay while on compensation, between all those various provisions. Of course, there's no incentive to go back to work at all, and it's not good for people.

In this matter of stress claims, once again, I think the government has taken a very careful, very measured, very deliberate approach: stress claims being accepted if they flow directly from an injury on the job. If you open the door wide to anyone who feels stress in his or her job….

Well, one of the most stressful things in a workplace is if a person has reached their point of incompetence, if they've advanced too far in their employment career to the point where they really aren't competent in the job they're doing. The huge emphasis on grievances and on advancing people forward in the public service, pressed on by the public service unions, has put many people in those situations. They're often hired because they look like excellent clerical employ-

ees, and they are. But then, if it's at ICBC, they want to be adjustors. If it's at WCB, they want to be adjudicators. When they lever themselves, through their collective agreement, into those situations and they take on responsibilities that they never had the education or background or aptitude for, it's very stressful. People in those positions often do book off sick because it's very hard on them.

This government has resisted the drive to open stress claims wide open for WCB coverage, and that is right and good, because the taxpayer can't afford it, and it was not an appropriate thing that people were asking for.

I regret very much that there isn't more time. The opposition has essentially talked out the clock, and the minister needs time to wrap up. Once again, I want to commend the government for moving very carefully. I actually believed, in opposition — and still do, actually — that the Workers Compensation Board needed fixing worse than pretty much anything else in British Columbia. This government is making very measured, careful and reasonable moves in that direction, and I commend the minister for dealing with this immense priority.

R. Stewart: I rise today because I feel so strongly about worker safety. I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition criticize a bill in a way that made me very angry. I believe that every member of this House believes in workers compensation and the value of worker safety. I have worked for years on it. I know that some of these provisions were actually considered by the previous government, because they make sense. They are the right thing to do.

In some cases, workers compensation in British Columbia is out of step with the rest of the country. If we had more time, we could go into each one of these issues, but as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson pointed out, we're out of time now. The opposition has used up the time, and I wish had time.

Let's support this. I believe very strongly in worker safety, I believe this is the right thing to do, and I thank the minister for bringing this forward.

Mr. Speaker: We are at second reading stage of Bill 49, and the minister closes debate.

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear about what are we doing here and the consultation that has taken place. What we are doing here is fixing the workers compensation system in British Columbia, as other provinces have found they've had to do likewise. What we're actually doing is finishing the job that the former administration, the NDP government, did not have the guts or the intestinal fortitude to follow through with after they commissioned a royal commission that cost the taxpayers $6 million-plus in 1998. They then took that voluminous report and put it on the shelf and said: "We can't fix it. We're not going to bother dealing with the issues."

Yet they sit here and talk in self-righteous terms about their concern for injured workers. They haven't even got the decency to stand up and say, "We commissioned the report, and then we did nothing" — nothing for the very people that they stand up now today and say they're here to look after. They had their chance.

Let's be clear. What the opposition, which was then the government, did was to bring through a report, the royal commission. They spent $7 million of taxpayers' money and then…

Let me just read what the royal commission said. I want to be clear that I had asked a Mr. Winter and a Mr. Hunt to undertake a review of all the work that had been done in an effort to bring back to me a report we could put into action. I asked them to make sure they spent time looking at the royal commission and on understanding what the royal commission had recommended, and then, with that, to come forward with those recommendations so that we could fix the WCB.

The royal commission said that in keeping with the principles that workers compensation should provide compensation primarily for lost earning capacity resulting from permanent disability, wage loss benefits should cease upon the worker's anticipated date of retirement, normally on the worker's sixty-fifth birthday. At this point, the worker would commence receipt of a retirement income loss benefit.

That's what was in the royal commission report. The report had been commissioned by the former NDP administration. That's in fact what Mr. Winter has recommended to us as government, and that's what we are doing. We're fixing it.

Now, let's be clear on another thing. There is, factually, not by anybody's fabrication or anybody's wild ruminations of what's going on or has gone on in the past, a $287 million deficit in the workers compensation system today.

As the government, the former NDP administration was in its last throes, hanging on by any shred of anything they could hang on to. They had taken this province into a spiral downhill roll, as we were going after their ten years of absolutely disastrous administration — probably the worst administration ever of any government in Canada, never mind only in British Columbia. They saw fit — without really taking a good look at what shape the WCB system was in and the forecasts

of what it would be on an actuarial basis in looking at compensating injured workers or to making sure there were the finances, the dollars there to look after injured workers — to give a rebate to employers.

They gave a rebate to employers, so guess what. They had a royal commission. They were told to fix it. They were told they were in a problem, but because they were in the final throes of administration…

Hon. G. Bruce: …and, hopefully, somehow, thinking that somebody in the province…

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Labour has the floor. Let us hear the debate.

They ordered a rebate, and why did they do that? They ordered a rebate, and then, of course, who's left to fix the problem? We're left to fix the very problem that they knew they had. They knew the actual benefit package, the actual funding so that the dollars could be there….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant please come to order. You have had your turn in this debate. The minister now has the floor.

Hon. G. Bruce: The very people that they stand to say they're protecting — and those are the people that we're trying to make sure we have a fund available for so that they can have their benefits…. They just blew it away in the wind.

I want to be clear. We are fixing a problem that was known back in 1998 by the former NDP administration, which did not have the intestinal fortitude or maybe, if I were to be generous, the business acumen — or maybe I'm not being generous; I'm not sure — to be able to put together a system that would be there to protect the very people they now say they're interested in protecting. They didn't bother. They just abandoned those people in that day when they were government, so we're fixing it.

In wrapping this up, I also want to be very clear that anybody that's currently receiving WCB benefits will not be receiving less tomorrow when this legislation is passed. They will not be receiving less than what they're receiving today. I want to be clear on that. The other thing I'd like to be clear on is that this is a very comprehensive piece of legislation that we are bringing forward.

The steps we are taking will require other pieces of legislation to come forward, as well, so that we can deal with the appeal process and with spousal benefits. We can make sure the system is user-friendly so that people that find themselves in need of the protection of the WCB will know it's there for them not only today but in the future.

Quite frankly, as I have met with people affected by WCB, as most MLAs do through their offices, I have found that the process people are faced with today is, for some, almost more debilitating than the actual injury they've received or that has occurred to them. We're attempting to do two things: improve the service delivery of the WCB so that it is, as I mentioned, user-friendly for the very people it was meant to serve, and protect the financial sustainability of this system so that benefits will be there today and in the future for the people for whom this historic compromise was put in place back in 1917.

How are we doing it? We're doing it in a balanced, reasoned manner. We've reviewed the changes that have been made in other jurisdictions across Canada and to the south of us. We have utilized the informed and knowledgable recommendations of Mr. Winter and Mr. Hunt. They, too, have paid special attention to the royal commission. As I mentioned, if you had forgotten, that was a report commissioned by the former NDP government. They chose at that point to just ignore all, to ignore the fact that the system was in jeopardy and really, by so doing, thumbing their noses at the very people that needed their help. They couldn't be bothered to do that.

We're going to fix it. We're going to make sure the WCB system in British Columbia is in good shape, that it's user-friendly. As we move to fix this and look after the deficit so that there's financial stability, we will still have amongst the highest benefit packages of any WCB system in the provinces of our area in Canada.

The final point I'd like to make is that to do nothing — as obviously the opposition would have us do, because they did nothing — and put it in jeopardy would take that $287 million deficit, and by 2005 we would be facing a $900 million deficit. It's not a fabrication; it's a statement of fact. That is just clearly unacceptable. It's unacceptable to us as a government, and it is certainly unacceptable to the very people that need those benefits, the people that find themselves in need of the WCB system.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 49, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, just before we go to the next order of business. Earlier today, I spoke about receiving the resignation of the police complaint commissioner. I would now like to table that letter with the Clerks of the House.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move that the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002, be read a second time.

This bill, like the other two I introduced last week, is an important step towards achieving our government's goal of encouraging employees and employers to develop healthy workplace relationships that lead to good, sustainable jobs here in British Columbia.

This bill is designed to provide more flexibility and self-reliance in British Columbia workplaces so that employees and employers can build mutually beneficial workplace relationships.

There are more than 350,000 businesses in British Columbia, and 98 percent of those businesses are businesses with 50 employees or less. That's a total of 893,000 jobs in our province that fall under the small-business umbrella — 58 percent of all private sector jobs.

If we're going to encourage job creation and the strengthening of our province's economy, then government needs to be sensitive to the needs of business and the needs of their employees. We need to recognize that the vast majority of employers play by the rules and treat their employees fairly and with respect. We need to make sure that the changes we make maintain protection for the vulnerable workers in the workplace today.

The goals of this bill are to provide vulnerable employees — particularly those in sectors where there's a high number of new entrants to the workforce, or those with limited job opportunities or other barriers, such as language difficulties, that can sometimes make employees vulnerable…. They are to encourage flexible workplace partnerships that meet the needs of employees and employers in today's economy; to help revitalize our economy, and particularly small business, by recognizing the needs and realities of the modern workplace; and to simplify workplace rules for everyone, allowing a greater degree of self-reliance in working out issues quickly and, where possible, without the intervention of other parties.

This bill introduces greater flexibility and self-reliance into British Columbia workplaces. It does this by making changes in four key areas of employment standards.

It promotes greater flexibility in work schedules and related areas to allow employees and employers to create agreements that are mutually beneficial.

It protects vulnerable employees by providing a new enforcement and education approach that will more effectively increase compliance and discourage employers from breaking the rules.

It substantially increases penalties to deter employers — the bad employers — from violating the rights of employees. Those employers who do mistreat their employees will now face significant financial consequences. These penalties will be mandatory.

The bill is focused on creating balanced, fair-minded laws that protect vulnerable workers while stimulating our provincial economy. In order to prosper in today's economy, business, and especially small

business, needs flexibility and cooperative, productive workplaces to attract new investment and create more quality, sustainable jobs.

This government's New Era document specifically identified a new era of employment as one of our priorities. The New Era document laid out this government's goals, saying: "To compete and prosper in the new economy, workers and employers alike need more flexibility and a modern work environment that encourages innovation and rewards creative thinking and increased productivity."

Late last year we released a discussion paper entitled Fair and Effective: A Review of Employment Standards in British Columbia. At that time we asked for input from the public and interested stakeholders. In addition, business, labour and specific interest groups met with ministry staff to discuss their priorities, their concerns and their suggestions.

In total, government received more than 265 submissions from individuals, business, associations, labour organizations and community groups. The ideas that were raised during this consultation ranged from increasing flexibility in work schedules to simplifying rules around statutory holidays, overtime premiums and recordkeeping.

A number of submissions asked for tougher penalties on those who do not treat their employees fairly. They also highlighted the importance of maintaining basic protections, especially those for more vulnerable employees.

These submissions are much appreciated and were fully considered in the development of this new legislation. The result is a bill that protects vulnerable employees, provides more flexibility, encourages self-reliance and simplifies rules for everyone.

The bill strikes a balance by removing unnecessary requirements while keeping the important protections and backing them up with much stiffer penalties for those who abuse their employees.

This is a package of changes that's going to help revitalize the small business community, which is the backbone of B.C.'s economy, by recognizing the needs of both employees and employers.

Currently, workplace rules throw roadblocks in the way of achieving workplace flexibility. For example, flexibility of work hours beyond the traditional eight hours a day and a 40-hour week can only be had for employers and employees through a cumbersome variance process that requires government to review and approve each and every application. However, these applications are rarely denied, which makes you wonder all the more why we need such a time-consuming and burdensome process to make simple changes to work hours. For example, many employers in the high-tech sector need modified work weeks to meet the demands of a highly competitive industry where tight time lines demand flexibility beyond the traditional eight hours a day, five days a week. Many workers find work schedules such as a four-day work week, ten hours a day, to be attractive in accommodating their family and personal-life needs.

I know you'll be interested in this, Mr. Speaker. When I was a younger man, which wasn't all that long ago, I had a great job where I worked as a bartender. I worked four ten-hour days. I had three days off. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. Until I got this job, I didn't realize that in fact I had reached heaven at that point. However, for me and for my young family, it was a great time allotment for me. It allotted me the 40-hour work week, done in four days, and I had three days off.

There are other examples, I'm sure, if we were to go and canvass around the room, of different interests, different examples that other members would have found in the need for a flexible workweek and how it worked for them, where they're able to put that together.

Changes to the hours of work sections of the act will provide employees and employers with greater ability to create work schedules that work for both. Of course, standards will still be in place to ensure that employees' overtime rights are protected. The employees and employers will be able to agree on their own schedules that allow some flexibility from the 40-hour-a-week standard, including the opportunity to agree to a multi-week agreement averaging 80 hours over two weeks, 120 hours over three weeks or a four-week agreement averaging 160 hours.

Quite clearly, if you were working a 4/10 shift and it made sense to take two weeks and average over one, you might work eight days in a row at ten, and then you'd have the appropriate time off. Then you come back and work the other two weeks. Or maybe if you're in a camp situation, you want to have all of those days together, which you would work. Then you can go out and come back to the camp after the appropriate time off.

Once the schedule's agreed to, it will be written up as an agreement that has a start and an end date, allowing both the employee and the employer to change the hours in the future, if there needs to be change. Once the agreement is signed, if an employee is asked to work more hours, then that is at overtime.

As an example, an employee scheduled for eight hours or less would be paid straight time until they reach the eight-hour mark. Beyond that, they'd be paid time and a half up to 12 hours and then double time after that. Or another example: where an employee is scheduled to work ten hours a day, they'd be paid time and a half if they work between ten and 12 hours or over the ten hours. Then anything over 12 is double time.

The other point is that anyone signing a flexibility agreement who receives statutory holiday pay without a qualification period…. What this bill does is reinstitute what we used to have back prior to 1995 where statutory holiday pay was paid to those employees who had worked 15 or more of the previous 30 days.

That qualification period is back in place for those that are staying on the eight-hour day.

If, however, you sign a flexibility agreement, you then get all statutory holidays regardless of what you work. It may be that you would work one day a week, but it's a 12-hour day. Because that's 12 hours and that's a flexibility agreement, you would receive all statutory holidays and you would be paid at that 12 hours.

In addition to providing more flexibility, we also need to protect vulnerable workers. Most employers are fair. They're reasonable, and they know the importance of having good employees and a happy workplace. However, there are some employers who do take advantage of vulnerable employees, and this government will focus resources in these targeted areas.

We will focus attention on education and enforcement, particularly in sectors where employees are more vulnerable to abuse. Partnerships will be established with associations, advocacy groups and unions to work together to promote compliance with Employment Standards rules. In unionized workplaces unions will now enforce many workplace standards for their members under their collective agreement processes, freeing up government staff to focus on workers who don't have the protections of a union agreement.

In key areas the Employment Standards Act will continue to set the baseline standard for all workers in B.C., union or non-union. These areas include minimum wage, employment of children, group terminations and family leaves. Even with these changes, the employment standards branch will continue to have the authority to review complaints and enforce the Employment Standards Act.

When an employer is found to be mistreating employees, this bill ensures that the consequences will be severe. Under the current system the penalty for a first offence against Employment Standards rules is zero — not exactly an incentive to change behaviour. For subsequent infractions under the current situation, the penalty is low. It's $150 for a second offence, $250 for a third offence and $500 for a fourth determination, leading some employers to simply consider these penalties as a cost of doing business. The other thing I might make note of is that those penalties are discretionary. They're not mandatory.

Mistreating employees is not acceptable, and getting caught will no longer just be a cost of doing business. Non-payment of wages in British Columbia is just not on. Under this bill, penalties will be much more severe, and they will be mandatory, starting with a $500 penalty for a first determination, rising to $2,500 for a second offence within a three-year period and a $10,000 penalty for a third.

The rules are being made simpler and clearer. The onus is on employers to follow them. In addition to increasing the penalties, the discretion for handing them out is being removed. These penalties are mandatory. Also, the names of poor employers can be published, which perhaps is as strong an incentive as any for following the rules.

In addition, the employment standards branch will have the power to order an audit, at the employer's expense, of an employer's records and practices in paying wages to not just the complainant but all employees in that operation. As a result of these changes, the act will be a far more effective enforcement tool to protect those employees at serious risk of mistreatment.

The fourth type of change under this bill is a simplification of rules and processes. Compared to other provinces, British Columbia has been slow to allow greater workplace flexibility. Almost 90 percent of variances are routinely allowed but only after everyone has gone through this burdensome process. There have been numerous extra steps and considerable extra recordkeeping that simply don't serve a positive purpose. These rules do little or nothing to protect employees, yet they have entangled employers, especially small business, in paperwork and delays.

Among the changes that will be introduced is a reduction in the minimum daily call-out to two hours from four, giving employers greater flexibility in scheduling the employees to meet heavy customer demand periods. For employees scheduled for shifts of more than eight hours, they'll be paid for a minimum call-out of four hours if they arrive at work and are sent home early.

An employee with a complaint must act within six months of the problem occurring. This is a requirement to make sure complaints are dealt with in a timely manner.

A reduction in the length of time that employers must keep detailed employment records to two years.

The introduction of a self-reliance method of resolving concerns in the workplace includes a self-help kit for employees and employers to clear up problems quickly, whenever that is possible. Of course, where problems can't be cleared up on their own or where it's not practical for a very vulnerable employee to use this process, an employment standards branch officer will be there to deal with the dispute.

The purpose of these changes is to focus on problem issues and problem employers while allowing the vast majority, who understand the value of healthy workplace relationships and who follow all the rules, to go about their business with less paperwork, less regulation and less hassle. This is good for employers. It maintains protection for the workers who most need it, and it's good for our province.

All of these changes are focused on protecting vulnerable workers, providing more flexibility and self-reliance, simplifying rules and revitalizing the small business community by recognizing the needs of employees and employers. Safe, cooperative and economically viable workplaces are in everyone's interest. This bill will help us move toward that goal.

With this bill we are encouraging the development of twenty-first-century workplace environments where employees and employers are working together to develop productive relationships to succeed in today's

economy. As with the other two bills that I introduced, it is an important step to encouraging employees and employers to develop healthy workplace relationships that lead to good, sustainable jobs here in the province of British Columbia. That, Mr. Speaker, is good for all of us.

Deputy Speaker: Speaking on second reading of Bill 48, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: Bill 48 is indicative of this government's lack of respect for the workers of this province. The Employment Standards Act is a valuable law that is supposed to protect the most vulnerable workers in this province by setting minimum standards of wages and terms of employment for most workers in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: You know, Mr. Speaker, if the member for Kamloops–North Thompson wishes to speak, he could take the floor in this House. Furthermore, he could ask this government not to bring forward closure on discussion of these bills. If any member of this House wishes to join in the debate on these important bills, they could urge their own government to not bring forward closure on debate on all of these bills. They have an option to do that. It's their choice.

If they believe in the importance of the issue, then rise up and speak in this House on these issues and get the government not to ram through debate in this House when there are only two opposition members raising issues. Surely the government can take the time to hear from the members of the opposition relative to these matters.

The ministers and the government MLAs have that choice. They can go and talk to their House Leader and make sure debate in this House takes place so they have an opportunity to raise their concerns if they wish to do so. In fact, I put it as a challenge to the members of the government bench to do exactly that so that there is proper debate on Bill 48 in this House — and not just on Bill 48 but on all of the bills that are not yet finished that are before the House right now.

The role of the employment standards branch and the Employment Standards Tribunal is to ensure workers are treated fairly and with dignity by employers. The government is able to honour this responsibility to protect workers by ensuring that the provisions of the Employment Standards Act create a fair and decent workplace environment for the people of this province.

Furthermore, the role of the ministry is to assist in resolving disputes that arise between workers and employers. This is an important responsibility, as the power differential that exists in the employee-employer relationship makes it difficult to resolve these disputes without the independent investigation and dispute resolution services provided by government through bodies like the Employment Standards Tribunal, the Labour Relations Board, the B.C. Human Rights Commission and the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

The amendments contained in Bill 48 clearly indicate that this government has no intention of honouring its responsibility to protect the dignity of the workers and to establish fair and decent workplace standards. The government should be encouraging employers to treat their workers respectfully, yet this government has consistently introduced initiatives that diminish the dignity of workers and that erode the minimum workplace standards.

Let's just take a little review of what the government's done so far. They've reduced the minimum wage from $8 to $6, encouraging employers to reduce the salaries of employees. That's what the government has done.

J. Kwan: That is not an increase, if you do the math. Reducing from $8 to $6 does not yield an increase in the hourly wage for employees. It does not benefit employees when their salary is reduced, and that's what this government has done.

They have legislated contracts for nurses and teachers, tearing up legally signed contracts, which the government said they would not do, which, during the election, the Liberal Party said they would not do. You know what? As soon as the election was over, they tore up those legal contracts. They did it with the teachers, they did it with the nurses, and you know what? They also did it to the doctors. Now we have chaos in our health care system with respect to doctors' services.

The changes to overtime in Bill 48 will reduce workers' salaries by allowing employers to schedule employees to work over eight hours a day without receiving overtime wages. The gall of the minister — that he could rise up in this House and say that this bill helps the employees. You tell me how reducing the ability for employees to collect overtime pay when they work overtime hours is somehow benefiting the employees. I fail to understand that logic.

J. Kwan: You know, the members think it's funny. The government bringing forward legislation in the area of reducing employment standards and allowing employers to exploit the workers in the community is somehow a laughing matter.

J. Kwan: The member behind me is heckling me, and you know what he's saying? He's saying: "Well, that's flexibility." That's the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows saying that exploitation of workers means flexibility.

J. Kwan: Oh, sorry. It's the member for Burquitlam. He's not sitting in his seat properly and heckling. You know what? That's what this government is saying.

H. Bloy: I take exception. Yes, I am sitting in my seat. I don't how properly I could sit in my seat not to be recognized.

J. Kwan: I'm glad the member qualified and clarified that, because the member for Burquitlam is proud of their notion of flexibility. He was heckling me when I was speaking, and what he was saying was that exploitation of workers is a good thing. That's what this government calls flexibility. That's what the member for Burquitlam had said, and that's what he was doing — heckling me.

J. Kwan: The Minister for Advanced Education is shouting: "Shame." Yes, shame on this minister, shame on this government for what they are doing. Let me just go, for one moment, into the exploitation of this government and the insults they have hurled at students with all the litany of changes they've brought about in making life more difficult for students on the work front and the education front.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we're speaking to Bill 48. I would suggest you stay on topic.

J. Kwan: I am absolutely speaking about Bill 48, Mr. Speaker, because all of these issues are pertinent to British Columbians under Bill 48. It is the erosion of the Employment Standards Act that this government is imposing, that this Minister of Advanced Education is bringing forward, impacting students. Make no mistake about it. When the vote is called, I would predict that every single government MLA and minister will rise up and support a bill that would allow for exploitation in the workplace, including those who are students. That's my expectation of what this government will do. Not only that, but they're bringing forward closure so that they can ram through these changes in this House, impacting all British Columbians in a very, very negative and substantive way.

J. Kwan: You know, the Minister of Labour is saying that the opposition agreed to time allocation. No, that is not true. The opposition was forced to give a schedule of the bills to be debated. We did it under duress when we had clearly identified the fact that we needed more time to debate all of these bills that would have huge ramifications for British Columbians, including Bill 48 on the Employment Standards Act, where this government is bringing forward legislation that would erode employment standards protections for workers and allow for exploitation of workers.

Let me go into all of the details around this bill, because the picture that the minister painted is not reflective of the reality of what Bill 48 stands for. If you go through what this bill does, amendment by amendment, it is absolutely an attack on workers in British Columbia, and it is a gift from this government to industry. Make no mistake about it. The people who are paying are the workers of British Columbia, and that is a gift from the Liberal government to their campaign backers. That is what Bill 48 does.

I've just been passed a note that the member for Victoria-Hillside would like to make an introduction, so I'm going to yield the floor to her.

S. Orr: It actually isn't an introduction, but thank you for giving me the floor.

I just want to apologize. I was absent from the House when this debate commenced, and I have an obligation to declare an interest in this matter before the House, a conflict of interest. Therefore, I am withdrawing from the debate and will not be present for any votes.

J. Kwan: Let me just go through in detail what some of these changes are under Bill 48 and how it negatively impacts workers in British Columbia.

I was just saying that the bill allows for the reduction of the overtime rate for employers who work during the 32 hours they should have away from work each week. That's one area. I want to just add, as well…. You have to look at these issues in conjunction with what other things are taking place under this government's direction. The government has produced the budget for the Ministry of Labour. Under that budget we're seeing employment standards offices closing, the laying off of some 30 percent of the employment standards staff and replacing these services by providing employees with kits to assist them in defending their rights against their employers. These changes totally ignore the fact that employees who do not want to work long hours without receiving overtime compensation and do not want to work for up to 16 consecutive days without time off and do not want averaging agreements will lose hours and, perhaps, ultimately lose their jobs.

We all know that this government has no respect or sympathy for people who are unemployed. This was

made clear under Bills 26 and 27, where people on income assistance, people with disabilities on income assistance, are going to be faced with rate cuts and also being cut off income assistance. That's what this government is doing.

This government likes to say that they're big on consultation. In fact, it says that in their New Era document. Let me just start by discussing the consultation process that preceded the introduction of this bill. On November 14, 2001, the ministry issued a news release and published a discussion paper on the topic of reviewing and changing the Employment Standards Act. The deadline for providing submissions for this review was December 12, 2001, less than one month after the news release and discussion paper were made public. In the news release, the minister is quoted as saying: "…we want to give all British Columbians a chance to tell us about the challenges they're facing with employment standards and how these can be addressed."

However, the extremely short consultation process severely limits the ability of all British Columbians to participate in the process, and the minister knows that. What kind of process is it when you're bringing forward substantive changes and there's less than a month for members of the public to provide their input? The short consultation process was noted by Seth Klein in the submission he provided to the ministry on the Employment Standards Act discussion paper. Mr. Klein submitted this brief after the December 12, 2001, deadline for submissions. This is because the one-month time frame between the release of the ministry's discussion paper and the deadline for the submissions was, quite frankly, unreasonable.

Mr. Klein goes on to say…. In fact, he has a complete submission on this matter, and it is outlined in No Evidence to Justify Lowering the Floor: A Submission to the B.C. Employment Standards Review and was submitted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives B.C. office on January 3, 2002. In fact, I won't read the entire submission into the record. Rather, I just want to highlight the piece around the consultation, and there will be other pieces later on that I will make reference to from Mr. Klein's report.

Mr. Klein wasn't the only person who had concerns with the government's consultation time line. Others had problems with it as well. Let me draw up another example. The Canadian Bar Association also had difficulty with respect to reviewing the employment standards discussion paper and preparing a response within the one-month time frame, as their submission was sent to the minister on April 3, 2002 — three months after the December 12 deadline set by the ministry.

You know, it's not a wonder, though, because the Canadian Bar Association was trying to deal with another major crisis caused by this government. That is the closure and elimination of many legal aid offices throughout British Columbia because the government had put forward in their budget, over the next three years, a reduction of 38.8 percent of the legal aid budget. The Canadian Bar Association had a difficult time managing the many different crises that this government created for British Columbians because of the direction in policy and because of their actions. The Canadian Bar Association did have a difficult time in bringing forward their submission.

When they did submit their brief to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Labour actually wrote back to the Canadian Bar Association. The minister responded to the Canadian Bar Association. Let me just put this short letter from the minister on record. It was addressed to Ms. MacDonald, Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch: "Thank you for your submission regarding the employment standards review. The deadline for public input was December of 2001. However, your concerns will be forwarded prior to legislative changes. Thank you for your contribution." This was sent from the minister, dated May 15.

If you look at the letter, where the minister says the comments will be forwarded prior to legislative changes, I'd like to ask the minister: where were the suggestions of the Canadian Bar Association forwarded to? Clearly they were not considered by those involved in drafting this legislation, as the Canadian Bar Association's letter raised a number of concerns, and these concerns were not incorporated into Bill 48.

What is the reason for rushing the consultation process? Why was there such a rush for composing the legislation? Why wasn't the consultation process advertised in a manner that would notify workers and encourage their participation in the process?

The brevity of the consultation process and the lack of public notices tell you how this government and this minister, in my view, had no intention of hearing from the public to begin with. The review process, the consultation process, is flawed, seriously flawed, and undermines the legitimacy of a consultation process at all. In that light you can only assume that it was never the government's intention to consult at all. It was never their intention. In fact, this is just so that they can pay lip service to the notion of consultation, as though they did consult, when in fact the minister ought to know — and maybe he knows — that the process and time lines he brought in were unrealistic and therefore it was not

They proceeded, in any event, because, it is my view, this government never had the intention to enhance the Employment Standards Act to protect the workers. It was never this minister's intention to ensure that workers are respected in this workplace and that minimum standards of work environment, pay rates and the standards that should apply would be maintained and enhanced. It was never the government's intention to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to yield the floor. I understand that at 5:30 there will be a vote with respect to the member's bill that was debated this morning, and division was called on that matter. I will resume my debate after the vote has been taken. I would adjourn debate at this time.

Deputy Speaker: We will be going to the question on Bill M203 on the amendment to the motion put forth.

PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT
REMUNERATION ALLOWANCES
AND PERQUISITES ACT
(continued)

J. Kwan: Continuing on second reading debate on Bill 48, let me just look at the bill from the perspective of a gender-based analysis. The concern that I have with this legislation is the manner in which it impacts different groups of people in different ways. First, there appears to be no consideration of the manner in which this legislation disproportionately harms women in the workplace.

I wonder if the minister and the ministry even conducted any sort of gender-based analysis of the legislation, the regulations and the policy changes to employment standards. I wonder whether or not the Minister of State for Women's Equality instructed her staff to look at this legislation through a gender-based analysis and whether or not the gender lens was used in evaluating the impacts of Bill 48 on women. I ask this question because the changes clearly impact men and women differently.

First, the provisions that authorize employees to enter into individual agreements to exempt themselves from employment standards would be disproportionately for those without family obligations. As such, this proposal has significant gender implications. It means that women, who carry a heavier burden of home obligations, would be more likely to refuse such voluntary agreements and thus are more likely to be denied employment and promotions. Consequently, this policy could increase the earning gaps between women and men.

I am very concerned about how this change to the Employment Standards Act may increase the gender wage gap, a gap which is already too high. Women in B.C. already earn 27 percent less than their male counterparts. The gender wage gap may not be a concern for this government, which is making the situation worse through changes to the employment standards. It's a government that has repealed employment equity legislation and has failed to implement any of the recommendations made by the task force on employment equity.

Another issue in Bill 48 impacting women negatively is the maternity leave provision. Under the current Employment Standards Act a woman who would like to take maternity leave has up to 32 weeks of leave, and she can take this leave in a flexible manner. For example, a woman experiencing complications with her pregnancy during the second trimester could take some of her maternity leave at that time, return to work during her third trimester and then take the remaining maternity leave after the birth of her child. The changes to the act disregard the needs of a woman in this circumstance, as Bill 48 requires a woman to take all of her maternity leave at once.

This change disregards the needs of women and operates on the assumption that there is no legitimate reason for taking maternity leave until the child is actually born. This perspective ignores the reality of women who are pregnant and places unnecessary and unfair hardship upon women who legitimately need to access maternity leave in a manner that is flexible.

The government likes to use the word "flexible," yet when that flexibility is needed the most, the government takes that away. That is the new-era approach.

When the minister introduced this bill into the Legislature, he stated that the bill would provide employees and employers with flexibility. He also said that the bill would increase protection for vulnerable workers through focused enforcement of employment standards rules.

When analyzing the provisions that have a particularly detrimental impact on female workers, it is clear that this bill provides flexibility to the employers, not the employees. Employees who previously were afforded the flexibility to determine how they would

take their maternity or paternity leave have been stripped of this flexibility. Instead of assisting women, Bill 48 diminishes the rights women in the workplace have.

That is not all. Another piece the government has put forward that would impact women, of course, is in relation to the shift-work component. Bill 48 allows for the government to make sure that the workplace creates, I think, further hardship for workers in the workplace, particularly those who are faced with shift work. It would be very difficult for employees, I think, to turn down the hours that their employer demands them to work, because that standard of protection is now gone from the Employment Standards Act.

Workers who would be faced with a particular challenge are workers who are unable to get child care for shift work. In fact, child care centres are predominantly open only during daytime hours. This means that many workers' needs are not being served by existing child care services. This was recorded by the Canadian Child Care Federation in the winter of 2001.

How does this relate to Bill 48, you might wonder. Well, the current child care system and the government's cuts to universal child care make it extremely difficult for parents to find safe, secure and appropriate child care for their children during the evenings. As a result, increasing shift work without addressing the child care needs of parents who will work shift work is irresponsible and unsustainable given the current child care system.

Women will be disproportionately affected. Single mothers who are unable to find child care will be unable to take on shift work that might be required under the averaging agreements. As a result, these women may lose hours, and ultimately, they may lose their jobs.

The government MLAs actually had some comments around this. In particular, when the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development was in opposition, here's what she had to say. I quote from Hansard from June 30, 1993: "We must have accessible child care in this province. It does not make sense to me that women, the parenting spouses, must spend great amounts of time trying to secure reasonable child care. It is not appropriate. We must all stand together and address those issues…"

Let me just continue on with the quote from the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development when she was in opposition:

The Minister of State for Early Childhood Development understood that universal childcare is important, that making sure child care services are available for shift workers is important and that we don't currently have enough spaces to provide for that kind of support. Yet what we have now in this Legislature under Bill 48 is the minister bringing forward changes that would impose more shift work, impacting particularly women even more, I think, and particularly single mothers. In that case, they're unable to get child care support because of this change. They would be put into a very compromising situation of either reducing their hours or potentially losing their jobs. These ramifications are real.

I wonder where the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development is now. I wonder if she did an analysis on this Bill 48 and the impact on children in British Columbia. I wonder whether or not they have taken the time to make this review and reflect that point of view to the Minister of Labour, to say: "Wait a minute. This change within the legislation is going to harm women and children, and it doesn't make sense to do that."

Furthermore, what the government needs to do is bring forward the universal child care strategy that was brought to British Columbia by the former government. But no, we don't hear anything from the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. We don't hear anything from the Minister of State for Women's Equality. These people are supposed to be the advocates, around the cabinet table, on behalf of women and children. All you hear is a deafening silence from the government bench on these matters.

Let me look at Bill 48 from another perspective, a student-based analysis. Another group of people that was clearly not considered during the analysis of this legislation is the student population. The Minister of Advanced Education was heckling me earlier, calling: "Shame. Shame." Let me just review what this government has done and how they have impacted students.

Students in this province have been crippled by various actions this government has taken. The reduction of minimum wage from $8 to $6 an hour has hit students particularly hard, as have the elimination of first-year grants for university and college students, the elimination of the Work-Study program and the elimination of the Student Summer Works program. The deregulation of tuition fees has dramatically increased the cost of attending colleges, institutes and universities in B.C. In some cases, tuition fees have been increased by 450 percent. That was just reported this

weekend in the newspaper — a 450 percent increase. Their introduction of more stringent regulations regarding access to student loans in British Columbia and now the changes to the Employment Standards Act impose yet another crippling hardship upon students of this province.

Amendment 17 allows for the employers to impose erratic work schedules upon student workers, and this will interfere with their academic schedules. Furthermore, if students resist entering into averaging agreements with employers, they may end up losing their jobs outright. This would have been devastating on students who can no longer rely upon the government and government programs to assist them in financing their studies.

It's not just students who would be impacted under Bill 48. Children under 15 would be negatively impacted by this government. The rights of children under 15 years of age were not adequately taken into account during the government's review of this legislation.

Child labour is a serious problem in many parts of this world. It is a problem that the current Employment Standards Act seeks to address. The current act protects child workers by ensuring that a staff member of the employment standards branch reviews applications made by the employers who want to hire children under the age of 15. The current act enables the branch to examine the worksite where the child will be employed and to stipulate conditions upon the terms of the child's employment.

For example, a child worker employed in the film industry may need transportation to and from work, an educational plan that enables the child to maintain his or her studies, or limitations upon the numbers of hours that the child can work. That is now in place, but amendment 4 under Bill 48 repeals this important provision and replaces it with a clause that transfers responsibility from monitoring children in the workplace to the people employing the children.

Further, the amendment opens the floodgates to child labour in all sectors of the economy, whereas previously, child employment was limited to particular sectors only. This government is paving the way for widespread child labour and establishing the groundwork for the exploitation of children.

The Minister of Education says: "Good grief." Absolutely — good grief is right, because the Employment Standards Act had those protections in place prior to the changes. The amendments before us right now under Bill 48 take away those minimum standards and protection for children. This government is willing to exploit children for the purpose of furthering its agenda.

I'm fearful this amendment will lead to child labourers in the farming industry, in the textile industry, the construction industry, the retail sector and various other sectors that are inappropriate for children under the age of 15 to be involved in. I'm concerned that increasing the number of child workers in the workplace will pose a serious safety risk to the children of this province.

You know, the members are heckling me. The Minister of Education, the Minister of Labour, the member sitting here behind me are heckling me, and they're saying: "Hey, you know what? So what if the government takes away these amendments. There's not going to be any exploitation. Do not worry."

Well, you know what? If the government wanted to protect the children and make sure there's no exploitation taking place or allow for that to take place in the workforce, why won't the government then leave the employment standards codes alone in this regard? Why would they take away those minimum protections for children? Why would they not ensure that protection is in place when in fact they have changed the amendment by allowing for it?

J. Kwan: Shame on the ministers who are heckling, who have taken away education programs for children…

J. Kwan: …and who have taken away students' protection. Shame on the Minister of Labour for allowing this to happen.

The Workers Compensation Board tracks injury rates among young people in B.C. Since the current Employment Standards Act limits the employment of children under the age of 15, the statistics available from the WCB are based on young workers between the ages of 15 and 19. I think these statistics will at least provide us with a glimpse of what will happen when the number of employed children under the age of 15 increases due to this bill. Between 1992 and 1996, 14,000 disability claims were filed by workers between the ages of 15 and 19.

Maybe the members think this is funny, but it is not funny, because it is people's lives that would be impacted. We just finished debating the WCB bill, where government has taken away further support for people who have been injured in the workplace and for their families by reducing the rates and making it more difficult for them to qualify for workers compensation.

You know what? The injury rate for males between the ages of 15 and 24 has historically been higher than males aged 25 and over. The overall injury rate is higher for female workers of all ages. I am concerned about the possibility that increasing child labour and decreasing the monitoring of child workers will lead to more workplace injuries and traumas sustained by children in British Columbia. You know, I wonder how the Minister of Children and Family Development, the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development

and the Minister of Education could support such an amendment when these ministers are responsible for protecting the interests of children and youth in this province.

The Minister of Education is laughing away, making light of this amendment, as though somehow children would not be impacted. You know what? I'll bet you the Minister of Education didn't even do an analysis of this bill as it impacts young people. I'll bet you she did not even instruct her staff to do a youth analysis on this issue.

This government has become so desperate to achieve these economic goals and to appease their supporters that they're relying upon the exploitation of children as a way of improving B.C.'s economy. This government has abdicated its responsibility to respect and protect children of this province, and I'm shocked and appalled by amendment 4. I'm as shocked and appalled by the behaviour of the members in this House right now, making light of amendment 4 as though taking away the protection of the rights of children in the workplace is somehow a laughing matter, as though somehow not ensuring that children are not going to be exploited and that those provisions are in the Employment Standards Act is okay.

That's what this Liberal government is all about. They will do anything to support their backers, the people who finance their campaign. They will do anything to support them, even if it means potentially hurting the children in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I'd like to highlight some other concerns that I have with Bill 48.

Amendment 2 to Bill 48 eliminates the requirement that union contracts meet or exceed the provisions of the Employment Standards Act. This means that unionized employees are no longer protected by the Employment Standards Act. I am extremely concerned about this change, as it opens the door for employers to circumvent the act by setting up unions that do not adequately address the needs of workers. It is extremely irresponsible and reprehensible for the government to deem that a group of employees are not entitled to protection under the Employment Standards Act.

Bill 48, in amendment 3, provides that an employer should no longer have to post employment standards rules in the workplace. What benefit could possibly come from this amendment? How can hanging a poster on a wall on employment standards that should apply somehow be a hardship on the employers? How does providing information in British Columbia workplaces on employment standards make it uncompetitive? Educating employees about their rights under the Employment Standards Act is important, and having this information in the workplace contributes to the education of employees. Eliminating the requirement to post employment standards rules will reduce employee awareness of workplace standards.

This amendment could only potentially be in place because maybe it is the intent of the government to allow employers to not provide information to their employees around their rights. Maybe that is the intention all along, because it makes no sense whatsoever. There is no argument whatsoever that would apply in this amendment to not require the employer to post and provide information on the rights of employees at the workplace.

You know, I have to say that people who get hurt by this lack of information…. Just to speculate on who some of those people might be, I expect that young workers would be hurt by the employer not providing information to them around their rights on employment standards — young people who are just entering the workforce, perhaps — perhaps immigrants, people who are new to British Columbia, who may not have that information and who may rely on the employer to provide that information. Now that requirement, under Bill 48, amendment 3, will no longer be in place.

That is another level at which this government is trying to contribute, in my view, to the further exploitation of workers in the workplace. There is no rationale whatsoever for this government to not make sure the information is available at a worksite. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Amendment 4. As a result of amendment 4, employment standards for children under the age of 15 are now enforced through regulations and are not in the Employment Standards Act. A director from the employment standards branch no longer has to ensure that the child's work environment is safe and appropriate for a child or secure special resources for the child, like transportation to and from a worksite. This amendment severely diminishes the role of government in protecting children in the workplace. I do fear that this amendment will open up the door for widespread child labour and child exploitation in workplaces in B.C.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Women's Equality is acting as though she's surprised. It's no wonder she's surprised. I bet you that her ministry or this minister did not do any analysis whatsoever on Bill 48 to review whether or not Bill 48 helps, protects or hurts workers in the workforce. I bet you that the Minister of State for Women's Equality did not look at Bill 48 through a gender analysis perspective and did not apply the gender lens to Bill 48. I touched on some of those comments earlier today in terms of the impacts for women. I bet you that the Minister of State for Women's Equality has voiced no concerns whatso-

She's shaking her head. I expect she has not done any such thing as be an advocate around the cabinet table for women. We've seen that as a pattern for her. I bet you that she has not done her homework on Bill 48 on this issue, as well, advocating on behalf of women. I bet you that she has not raised the issue around the shift work impacts, particularly as it impacts single parents, single mothers who have to do shift work.

You know what? If I'm wrong, then I will wait to hear the Minister of State for Women's Equality rise up in this House and make her points known around which amendment of the bill, or the bill in its entirety, hurts women or is supportive of women. I challenge the Minister of State for Women's Equality to rise up in this House and let the members know and let British Columbians know what homework she's done around Bill 48 and whether or not gender analysis has been done.

Maybe she'll get up and answer that question. My speculation is that she didn't do any such work, nor does she raise such issues around the cabinet table. What I've seen so far is that British Columbia does not have an advocate for women's issues around the cabinet table. That is absolutely clear. You know what? If I'm wrong, I'll wait for the Minister of State for Women's Equality to rise up in this House to tell us otherwise.

Let me now turn to amendment 10. Amendment 10 reduces the liability of farm labour contractors and producers for the wages of farm workers. This change makes it harder for farm workers to recover the wages owed to them.

The minister has said that Bill 48 is meant to help protect the most vulnerable workers in B.C., but amendment 10 is a direct attack against some of the most vulnerable and most exploited workers in our society, farm labourers.

When we debated the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, I gave my own personal story. My mother, as I mentioned earlier, was a farm worker when we first came here, and yes, she was exploited in the workforce. There's no doubt about it. Now, with this amendment before us, it is made even worse.

There is no requirement for liability of farm labour contractors and producers for wages of farm workers. What that means is that when employees are hired by a contractor or a producer, they could feasibly receive the money that's owed for the wages of the workers from the owner of the farm but not pay. The contractors could feasibly not pay the employees, and then they disappear. All of the hard work, the moneys earned by the farmworkers, could be lost.

Under the previous act there was a provision that ensured that it is the responsibility of the owner of the farm to make sure their contractors, their producers, pay the farmworkers, that they don't get away, with no liability whatsoever. That was a level of protection, a measure of protection, for the farmworkers. Under Bill 48 it is now going to be gone.

Under amendment 14, it reduces the daily minimum hours of work from four hours to two hours. This change, combined with the implementation of the $6-per-hour training wage, means that many employees will be called into work receiving $12 in salary and $6 to pay towards public transportation. They have to pay for their transit to and from work, leaving the employee with a salary of $6 a day of work. That's what this amendment can do. If there's any illusion from the Liberal MLAs and the cabinet ministers that somehow this is helpful for the employees, they better look twice.

If the Minister of Advanced Education somehow thinks that this is good for students, she had better think again. I just came back from the dinner break, and I saw on the news that summer employment for students is going to be much harder this year. It was reported in the news on Global. Some 12 percent of employers are not intending to hire for summer jobs, are not going to be posting summer jobs. Some 25 percent of employers are looking at layoffs for summer positions. Some 50 percent of the employers are going to be maintaining the status quo; that means no change whatsoever. The remaining employers — I believe it's about 13 percent or so — have not decided.

The headline was that it is going to be harder for young people to look for summer work this summer under the new era of opportunity and prosperity. So much for the young people for summer employment. The rates are actually going down, and that was just reported this evening in the news. That, combined with the $6 training wage, and now with a provision that says you could go to work and only make $6 a day, under the $6 minimum wage and under the minimum hours of work required under the Employment Standards Act…. A young person, an individual, could feasibly earn $6 a day after they have paid for their transportation expenses.

You tell me, Mr. Speaker: how is this good for employees? How is this good for the students? How is this good for the workers? I fail to understand the logic. That, combined with the Minister of Advanced Education lifting the tuition fee freeze…. All of a sudden tuitions could go up as much as 450 percent, and students would be saddled with that, when there's less work in the workforce and the elimination of government programs to support young people to gain experience and to earn some money so that they can go back to school.

Now we have the Employment Standards Act that takes away even minimum protection for students and young people and workers in the workforce. That's the new era of prosperity of the Liberal government. That's what we have today.

Amendment 17 allows for the employers to enter into averaging agreements with their employees. As a result of this amendment, the eight-hour workday and the 40-hour workweek will no longer exist in British Columbia. Instead, employees can look forward to

While the minister seems to believe that employers and employees will mutually agree to enter into such agreements, I fear that employers will be unable to impose such agreements upon their employees. This amendment does not take into consideration the workplace power dynamics. As a result, employees will be forced to accept work schedules they do not want to accept or face losing hours or even their jobs.

I mentioned earlier how this would impact a variety of different workers — students, as an example. This may well impact their school schedule, their academic schedule, and they may not have a choice if they want to continue the employment to earn that extra money, the little bit of money to support them while they go through the school system.

It may be that single parents, single moms who don't have child care support, are unable to do the shift work. Then what options are available to them? The government has cut the universal child care program, a program that is essential to support working mothers, working parents, in the workforce. The government has cut the universal child care program.

There is no effort being made whatsoever by this government to enhance shift work to accommodate shift workers in the child care arena. No work whatsoever is being done, yet we have an amendment before us under Bill 48, amendment 17, which would impose further hardships on workers in British Columbia.

Amendment 23 makes it more difficult for employees to qualify to receive statutory holiday pay, as if it's not enough to bring forward an amendment to say: "No overtime for you." Not only that, stat holidays may well now mean nothing for the people who are working during these holidays. That's what Bill 48, under amendment 23, allows for.

Amendment 26 restricts the ability of women to access maternity leave by forcing women to take their leave in consecutive weeks rather than in a schedule that meets their needs. This amendment fails to consider that pregnant women have legitimate reasons for taking their maternity leave in sections rather than in consecutive weeks. They could be health reasons. They could be a variety of different reasons.

You know what? The flexibility this minister and this government are so fond of was in place under the previous Employment Standards Act, but that flexibility is no longer going to be there for employees. What the minister and this Liberal government value above all else is giving flexibility to anybody else except the people who need it the most. In this case, it happens to be the employees. The flexibility is there for the employers, a potential exploitation of workers.

J. Kwan: The Minister of Labour says it doesn't make any sense. It isn't a wonder that he doesn't understand that when women need to go on maternity leave, sometimes they need the flexibility to not take their maternity leave in a consecutive period. They might need to break it up. It might be for health reasons. It may be that in the second trimester of your pregnancy, you might need to take a break, and then you can return in the third trimester of your pregnancy.

You could actually accommodate this under the previous act, but now the provision has been taken away. Women can take their maternity leave only in a consecutive period. The minister says: "Oh, don't worry. The employer will work it out." It's just like the employer who says: "Don't worry. I'm not going to pay you overtime. Don't worry, even though if you're working overtime, I'm not going to pay you. Now the Employment Standards Act allows for that, but don't worry about it. It's not going to hurt you at all."

It's just like the minister says: "Don't worry. The $6-per-hour minimum wage? Don't worry. The training wage is not going to apply to you." But you know what, Mr. Speaker? I was speaking with a former employee of the Ministry of Labour, and do you know what he told me? Even before the $6-per-hour training wage was actually set in place, that violation was already taking place. The people were implementing the $6 training wage before the day it was supposed to be implemented, and the ministry received complaints about it. You know what? They did nothing about it.

"Don't worry. Nobody's going to do that." The reality is that it is being done, and you know what? The employees have nobody to go to. What are they going to do when they say: "I am not happy with this direction?" You know what? They risk losing their job, and people cannot afford to do that.

This Minister of Labour says: "Don't worry." It isn't a wonder that he brings forward legislation amendments that hurt workers and only support…. The only people they support are the backers of the Liberal election campaign. They are the only people this government is bringing forward legislation to support — the people who backed their campaign but not anybody else. When government is supposed to be governing for all British Columbians, this Liberal government has absolutely failed to do that.

Let me just take a look at amendment 27, because it is not just an issue relating to maternity leave. Paternity leave, as well, is being impacted. Amendment 27 requires individuals taking paternal leave to take their leave in consecutive weeks, just like amendment 26.

This amendment fails to consider, once again, the needs of the parents. That flexibility is needed to be in place under this act, under the Employment Standards Act, and the government has just taken away that flexibility. You know why? That flexibility actually helps the workers. That's why. That's why, and the government is so shortsighted and so blinded with their need and demand to pay off their backers during the election campaign that they fail to bring forward a balanced approach in the Employment Standards Act. They fail to understand that parents, mothers and fathers out there who need flexibility on the leave they

may require for their children, maternity leave or paternity leave…. They fail to see that need.

Let's look at amendment 39. Amendment 39 changes the investigation requirements for the employment standards branch. The employment standards branch does not have to investigate complaints anymore. The branch only has to review complaints. As a result, employees who complain to the branch may not get the vital assistance they need. Therefore, the employers will be able to mistreat employees without being penalized for the violation of the Employment Standards Act.

Somehow the minister says: "Don't worry. Don't worry. Everything is going to be okay." You know what? If there are complaints coming forth, there is no requirement under the act to say they must be investigated, only to say: "Hey, you know what? We received a complaint."

You know what? It isn't a wonder, because there are two aspects that are driving this piece, I believe. One is a budgetary one. The ministry has gone and cut the employment standards branch staff by some 30 percent. There are no staff there to do the work that is required. If there's a complaint that is being brought forward, it is essential that those complaints be investigated to see what is going on out there. Now there's no staff to do that work. There's no requirement under the Employment Standards Act to do that work.

How is it that the government can be so sure that these complaints will be dealt with effectively? I have no confidence whatsoever, because all this government will do is pay lip service to complaints. They say they will receive them, but there is no requirement whatsoever to make sure those complaints are investigated. There's no staff to do that work, and who does this benefit at the end of the day? It benefits the employers, the backers of the Liberal government who paid for and financed their campaign. Those are the people who would be benefiting from the changes under amendment 39 of Bill 48.

Let's look at amendment 46. As a result of amendment 46, employers are no longer required to pay a day off in lieu of a statutory holiday for an employee who works on a statutory holiday. How about that? First we had no requirement to pay overtime. Then we had no requirement to pay statutory holidays, and now there's no requirement to pay a day off in lieu of statutory holidays for the employees.

Tell me: how is this helpful for the workers? How is it somehow helpful for the workers — save and except that it is not helpful for the workers? Who it helps are the employers — once again, the people who financed the Liberal government's campaign. They are the people who will be benefiting from this act. That is the truth of the matter.

Amendment 42 reduces the number of months of salary that an employer will have to pay if a determination is made against the employer. This amendment contradicts the minister's claim that amendments to the act are meant to increase penalties faced by the employers who violate the act, as amendment 42 reduces the amount of wages that an employer will have to pay if it's determined that the employer owes the employees money. That's what amendment 42 does.

It's starting to look like — and I'm not even through the entire bill on all the amendments — it's stacked against the workers at every turn. The workers are going to lose out because minimum standards are being eroded, reduced or eliminated for the workers under Bill 48.

Let's look at amendment 96. The directors of a bankrupt company are no longer liable for the wages owed to the employees. In fact, on the Voice of B.C. on Wednesday, May 22, 2002, the minister claimed that companies can already avoid liability in the case of an insolvent company. The minister stated: "You can get around it now, actually. What you do is resign as a director. You already know the company's in trouble. You just resign your directorship so you're not liable."

This statement by the minister is inaccurate. While directors of a company may resign prior to filing for bankruptcy, the Employment Standards Act has a record of disregarding the resignations of boards of directors who resign just before the company becomes insolvent. The Employment Standards Act and the employment standards branch have successfully argued that someone on the board had to initiate the action to file for bankruptcy, and as a result, someone was directing the company, and someone is liable for the company's outstanding debt to its employees.

As a result of refusing to recognize the resignations of directors, the branch has been able to hold directors of insolvent companies liable and recover wages for employees. The amendment before us now takes away that ability of the employment standards branch to hold directors of insolvent companies accountable for the wages that they owe to employees. This change makes it easier for the directors to protect their personal assets while employees are denied payment for the work they performed for the company.

The minister's statement on the Voice of B.C. misrepresents the current act by downplaying the way in which the employment standards branch has used the existing act to hold directors of companies responsible for employee wages. The change proposed in amendment 96 is an extremely unfair and irresponsible action for a government to take.

Bill 48 imposes significant hardships upon workers in B.C., and I would like to discuss whether these changes are actually necessary. Earlier today we heard the Minister of Labour and other members of the House, particularly the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, saying that we need to do this because we need to make sure there's a competitive edge, and we need to do it because the economy demands that employment standards be lower.

Do you know what? This is an important question to ask, since this government claims that the changes to

the Employment Standards Act are for the purposes of improving the economic situation of British Columbia. During the first reading of this bill the minister said: "The changes in this bill follow through on commitments made before the 2001 election in the New Era document, in which we promised to give workers and employers greater flexibility in employment standards to negotiate mutually beneficial relationships that help them compete and prosper."

Will weakening employment standards help B.C. to compete with other jurisdictions? The answer is no. KPMG consulting has produced a report comparing business costs in Canada to those of the other G-7 countries. This study provided businesses with information about what countries and cities provide for the best cost advantages.

The study concluded that Canada is the overall cost leader for 2002 with a cost index of 85.5, representing a 14.5 percent cost advantage over the United States. Canada is ranked No. 1 in terms of the cost advantage that it provides to the software, research and development and corporate services sectors. Canada was ranked No. 2 in the manufacturing sector. In comparison, the United States was ranked No. 6 in the software sector, sixth in the research and development sector, fourth in the corporate services sectors and fifth in the manufacturing sector.

When looking at the results of the KPMG study on a city-by-city basis, Kelowna in British Columbia ranked No. 1 in the Pacific region and Vancouver ranked No. 2 in the Pacific region. This ranking places Kelowna and Vancouver ahead of all of the American cities in the Pacific region — Portland; San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose and Riverside, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Seattle, Washington; Honolulu, Hawaii. Canada ranked first; Vancouver and Kelowna ranked ahead of all the other major cities in the Pacific region.

When you compare Kelowna and Vancouver to Edmonton and Calgary, one finds that B.C. cities are very competitive with cities in Alberta. Kelowna is a more competitive place to do business than Calgary. The competitive advantage in Edmonton is only 1.8 percent more than Kelowna.

The KPMG demonstrates that B.C. is a very competitive province with its neighbours, the United States and Alberta. The government's assertion that the business climate in B.C. is uncompetitive and inhospitable to business is simply false. It's simply untrue.

As a result, the measures that this government is bringing in under the Employment Standards Act are unnecessary. The only reason I can think of why the government is doing this is that they're gifting all these changes to their backers. That's why they're doing it. There is no other reason. They're just using the economic competitive-edge issue as a front for the real agenda of the government, and that is for them to give a gift to the backers of the Liberal campaign.

Prof. Stephen McBride and Russell Williams published an article titled "Globalization, the Restructuring of Labour Markets and Policy Convergence: The OECD 'Jobs Strategy'" — OECD stands for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development — in the journal Global Social Policy in December 2001. In this article, Stephen McBride and Russell Williams examined the OECD perspective that neoliberal approaches to workplace standards increase job creation and competitiveness. McBride and Williams concluded:

The article demonstrates that there is no evidence to substantiate the idea that reducing labour standards will improve economic competitiveness. Bill 48 is based upon the premise that diminishing workplace standards will improve the B.C. economy. McBride and Williams' study of the OECD job strategy warns that a race-to-the-bottom approach to workplace standards will not necessary improve the economy. Evidently, the changes proposed in Bill 48 will not serve the government's goal of improving the economic climate in B.C. Instead, the bill will simply diminish worker rights and harm the most vulnerable workers in our communities.

The real reasons behind the cuts. Are these changes a way of matching the cuts that the government has made to the employment standards branch? Since many of the changes to the Employment Standards Act will not actually improve economic activity in the province or improve the condition of employees, perhaps the real reason behind these changes is to address the drastic cuts that the government has made to the Ministry of Labour and to appease their political supporters.

The Minister of Labour has cut 38 percent of his staff, and more cuts are planned for the remaining years of this government's mandate. In particular, the employment standards branch has sustained significant cuts. Thirty percent of the branch's FTE positions will be eliminated. The branch working on residential construction has been closed. Eleven of the 19 employment standards branch offices will close. The budget for the employment standards branch will be cut by almost 30 percent over the next three years. This will no doubt reduce the capacity of the branch to enforce the Employment Standards Act.

In order to deal with these devastating cuts to the employment standards branch, Bill 48 has reduced the role of the branch in enforcing labour standards. Some of these changes include eliminating the role of directors in monitoring children in the workplace and monitoring the granting of variances and requiring employees to use a self-help kit to confront the employers about employment standards violations.

Just imagine that for one moment. When you have a complaint about your employer, the employment standards branch says, "Here you go. Here's a kit. Go and solve it yourself," as though somehow there is no issue whatsoever for the employee to go and challenge their employer. There's no risk whatsoever for the employees that they may lose their jobs, as though somehow the employer can just solve the problem. If they could solve the problem in the first place, if they were able to do that in the first place, why would they even make the complaint to the employment standards branch?

This government says: "Here you go. Go help yourself. No problem there. This will work for you. This act that we're bringing in will work for you. It will solve the complaints. In fact, it will minimize complaints. Don't worry."

I heard members of the government branch shouting and heckling me earlier by saying that I'm just fearmongering. On all of these issues they say: "Don't worry. Be happy." You know why? The only people that this government is concerned about are, quite frankly, not the people who need the government's support and help, not the most vulnerable workers, but rather the people who are in the power positions. You know what? They happen to be the backers of the Liberal government's election. That's why this bill is before us.

Eliminating the requirement that the branch performs investigations into complaints. I cannot express my dismay at the government's change on this front. Somehow, to say that you can make a complaint but — guess what? — there will be nobody there to investigate it is somehow okay. Somehow, the minister and the Liberal government think they're fulfilling their obligation to workers in British Columbia, that they're fulfilling their responsibility to ensure that standards are met in British Columbia on the employment front. In fact, it is just a shell. It's a pretence of the government doing that work, because there is no intention, no substance, no resource to back up the complaints that are there.

When the former act required that complaints were investigated, you actually put teeth into complaints. When there's no ability to investigate a complaint, it is just a shell game. It is not real in terms of the protection that is supposed to be in place under the Employment Standards Act.

Eliminating the requirement that the branch provide written reasons for determinations is another piece that is being brought forward by the minister. There is no longer going to be a need for the branch to say why they have made a particular decision. How could that be? How would one know what the rationale is behind decisions if decisions are not provided, if the reasons for those decisions are not provided and not required to be provided?

That's not all. This bill also allows for the elimination of the requirement that employers display posters from the ministry, outlining the rights of employees. My goodness. God forbid that employees should know what their rights are and that employers are required to provide that information to employees.

I can think of so many examples where workers would be hurt. I'll just use one example that comes to mind. I think about the Filipino community particularly, the live-in care workers. There is huge exploitation of live-in care workers in British Columbia. At minimum, the Employment Standards Act requires that the employer provide information to the employee around their rights. That will no longer be required under this act.

It allows for further exploitation of the workers in the workforce. That's what this change does. It has nothing to do with competitiveness. It is not even a hardship for the employer to make sure that the information is provided to their employees save and except that it would become a hardship when and if it is the intent of the employer to violate the rights of employees. That's when it becomes a hardship.

When employees know their rights are being violated, they may actually make a complaint about it. They may actually challenge that. Perhaps that's what the minister is thinking about. Well, let's eliminate that possibility, as well, so that further exploitation can potentially take place in the workforce.

The Employment Standards Act is an important tool that should be used by government to ensure that the needs of workers and employers are protected by the government in a fair and balanced way. The motivation behind changing this legislation should be to further this goal rather than to ensure that ill-thought-out cuts to the ministry can be addressed by weakening employment standards. It should not be that this government is looking to cut corners in the workplace for employers and gift Bill 48 to their backers. It should not be that this government is making these changes because it is what the financial backers of the B.C. Liberal Party want.

The opposition does not object to reinvigorating the B.C. economy, but we do object to the government subjecting children, women, parents, students and low-income earners to abuse in order to achieve the goal of improving the economy of British Columbia. The proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act indicate this government's desire to abdicate its responsibility for protecting the workers of this province. Rather than working towards protecting the most vulnerable workers in our communities, this government has chosen to expose these individuals to abuse.

When a worker identifies an employment standards violation in their workplace, the government will not investigate the complaint, and the government will not contact the employer. Instead, the government will mail the employee a self-help kit and encourage the employee to discuss the issues with the employer. Effective enforcement of the Employment Standards Act cannot be achieved by sending employees self-help kits. This government should be ashamed for downloading enforcement of the Employment Standards Act to the workers in this province.

The changes proposed in this act clearly disadvantage workers, and the opposition believes further consultation is needed before implementation of the changes to the act. The problem in this bill highlights the hasty and inadequate consultation process the government has conducted on this bill. The government needs to undertake a further review and consultation on this bill, as the current bill will introduce a new era of exploitation, abuse and inequality in the workplaces in British Columbia.

I'd like to close with this letter that was in the Vancouver Sun not so long ago. It is titled "Why I Won't Work for the Liberals." The following is an editorial written by Dave Ages, a manager with the employment standards branch. He outlines why he chose to resign from the B.C. Liberal government.

An ex-employee of the Ministry of Labour. I think he actually very succinctly put out the intention of Bill 48

Many of the issues Mr. Ages highlighted in the editorial to the Vancouver Sun have become reality. He

wrote that prior to the bill being introduced, but you know what? His worst fears have become reality.

Government should not rush to bring this bill through the House, because the ramifications of it are too huge — whether they be for children or women, for low-income workers, for the marginalized community and for the employers as well. It is not a good policy. It is not good legislation for the government to bring through and rush through in this House.

J. Kwan: This amendment is exactly the same amendment that was put forward this morning by the Minister of Finance, the House Leader, when we were debating the bill around the requirement to put forward a citizen's panel to evaluate compensation for civil servants who make $100,000 or more. It is exactly the same amendment.

The Minister of Finance, when he tabled the amendment earlier this morning, stated that he was not comfortable in carrying through the debate and voting on the private member's bill because he did not know all of the consequences of such a bill on the civil servants who make $100,000 or more. He was very concerned about not understanding what all the ramifications are.

He said: "Just hold up. Let's just stop, pause for a moment and review this matter and be thorough and thoughtful about it. Then wait six months, and when we resume debate in the House in the fall, when we come back for the fall sitting, we will then carry through with that debate on that bill." You know, a vote was called at 5:30 today, and every single Liberal MLA voted in support of that motion. The opposition did as well. We supported the notion that the government should be thoughtful about their bills and they should be thoughtful about their actions. They should give it some thought if they don't know what all of the ramifications are with a particular piece of legislation.

The same theory ought to apply now to this bill, Bill 48, because the ramifications for the workers in British Columbia could be substantive. I raised the questions earlier around potential child labour exploitation that could be allowed under this bill, and I was heckled and shouted at by many of the Liberal MLAs, including the Minister of Labour himself shouting and heckling me. The Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Education were heckling me like crazy. They said that I'm just fearmongering. That's not true. The bill actually allows for that. The way I read it, the bill actually allows for it. The amendment actually takes away the protection for children, therefore opening up the possibility for child labour and exploitation in the workforce.

Now, the government can pause and say: "You know what? We will not proceed with this bill by ramming it through the House tonight and this week." We will, in fact, stop and examine the issues which I have raised with respect to the impacts for British Columbians.

Maybe the Minister of State for Women's Equality can stop then, pause for a moment, go back to her ministry and ask her staff to do a gender analysis on Bill 48 to see how it impacts women in the workforce and whether or not the bill, the amendments that are put forward by the government, by this Minister of Labour, by the Liberal government, are somehow good for women.

The Minister of State for Women's Equality can actually stop the work that is being done by the government that could potentially hurt women significantly in the workforce. She could vote in support of this hoist motion and demand that a gender analysis be done on Bill 48. Then, she can stand up and be an advocate for women in the workforce and be an advocate around the cabinet table and show the respect that is due for women across British Columbia. In the minister's responsibility as the Minister of State for Women's Equality, she can demonstrate that she has the courage to take this challenge on, demonstrate that she has the courage to advocate for women for a change, because that opportunity is here and now for the Minister of State for Women's Equality to do exactly that.

The Minister of Advanced Education could stop and say: "You know what? This could hurt students and young people, and I don't like it. Yes, I am going to direct my staff to do a thorough analysis on the impacts on students of this bill and what those ramifications are." She could understand it thoroughly and then reject the pieces that are bad for students and young people in British Columbia. The Minister of Advanced Education has that option. I challenge her to take up that responsibility and be an advocate for students and young people, at the cabinet table in this chamber, and say: "We will stop and support this hoist motion so that I can thoroughly understand what the ramifications are for young people in the workforce today."

The Minister of Education could do likewise. The Minister of State for Early Childhood Development could do likewise, because the provision of the bill also potentially sets dangerous precedents and allows for the erosion of protection for children under the age of 15 in the workforce — for them to look and see what this bill could potentially bring about in terms of negative impacts for young people, children under the age of 15.

Then, before they proceed with it, they would say: "We're prepared to stop." As the Minister of Finance advised earlier this morning, one must understand fully what the ramifications are on government decisions and legislation before they're passed. That opportunity is being afforded right now to this government, the Minister of Education and the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.

Then the government can also give themselves — or I should say rebuild — their credibility on the issue around consultation. It would give time for the ministers and the government to consult properly with Brit-

ish Columbians — not just provide a timeline of less than one month for response on substantive changes to the Employment Standards Act but to really open up the consultation, to invite workers and organizations to come forward with their points of view, evaluate those points of view, and then consider them and incorporate those points of view into the act.

The Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia did not meet the timeline of the government in providing their input to the Employment Standards Act. In fact, I believe they were about three months late. The deadline was back in December, and the submission went in April 3, 2002.

The minister has said that he received the input from the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, and forwarded it to staff, yet when you look at the bill that's before us, there is no incorporation whatsoever of the concerns that have been raised by the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch.

Let me just highlight some of the concerns they have sent to the minister for his consideration. The letter from the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, is addressed to the Minister of Labour. Just taking some sections of the letter:

These are just some of the points that the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, had highlighted that they do not support.

If the government supported the hoist motion, they could actually stop and consider the points that the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, had forwarded to the government, amongst others, because there were many other groups that have brought forward their points of view. The government has ignored that, and they have not incorporated those changes into the bill that is being debated right now.

The government, if they believe in the principle that the House Leader, the Minister of Finance, put forward this morning on the hoist motion on the private member's bill relating to a citizens panel for evaluating compensation for civil servants who earn $100,000 or more, ought to apply that same principle now under Bill 48. I want to see who from the government bench would have the courage to support this hoist motion.

I would like to see it from the government bench members, because earlier, there were a number of different members. The member for Burquitlam had risen and actually had heckled me on this issue when I was debating this matter, saying they wouldn't have enough time to debate the issue. There is an opportunity now for them to rise up in this House so they can debate Bill 48, because the hoist motion will allow for every single member in this House to speak on this issue.

Not only that, it would allow every single member in this House to go back to their constituents and talk to them about this bill and what their thoughts are and to bring their comments back to this House. The hoist motion would allow for that. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville was heckling me about how he didn't have enough time to engage in debate because I was taking up all of the time and was wasting time, in fact, when I raised this issue.

The hoist motion will allow the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville to speak on this bill as much as he wants to. There will be no time constraints whatsoever, because the time constraints that are now facing us are time constraints self-imposed by the government. They are saying we must get through all of these bills — not just this bill, the employment standards bill, but Bill 26 and Bill 27, the two welfare bills, one with income assistance recipients and one with individuals with disabilities who are seeking income assistance.

It would allow time for these important pieces of legislation that are before the House to be debated properly, for input to be received and for the public to have a chance to look at the pieces of legislation and voice their concerns. That's what democracy looks like.

I would urge every single member of this House to support the hoist motion I've tabled before us and for them not to be hypocritical about the actions they took earlier today at 5:30 when they supported the hoist motion around the private member's bill. The same principle and the same theory they supported with that hoist motion should now apply to support this hoist motion for Bill 48.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the amendment is in order, and debate will continue on the amendment.

R. Stewart: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said I was heckling her. At the time, I was standing.

J. MacPhail: Well, isn't this an interesting week in B.C.? It's a historic week, probably not the kind of historic week that the Liberals promised British Columbia a short year and a week or so ago. I don't think any time during the months leading up to the election or during the election the Liberals said: "And oh, by the way, a year from now, British Columbia, you can count that we'll be ramming through legislation that will change British Columbians' lives forever for the worse."

It is certainly a historic week. I would say it's a week of shame. It's interesting to note that there are some people in the gallery today, even though we're debating late this evening. I note some people I had the fortune to meet last week. Mike and Patty McNamara are here from Duncan. I had the fortune to meet with them last week when I was in Duncan, Ladysmith and Nanaimo, meeting with the community on the anniversary of the Liberal election. In fact, I think that riding is the riding of the minister who has introduced this legislation, or part of it is anyway.

They were thrilled to have someone. Hundreds came out over the course of those visits, and they were thrilled in Duncan and Ladysmith and Nanaimo. Yes, hundreds came out, and they were thrilled to have someone there who was just actually listening on lots of issues. Perhaps that's why people like Patty and Mike McNamara are down here as well: to actually observe what it is their MLA, the Minister of Labour, thinks about their towns and their communities, what the Liberal government thinks about their towns and communities. I expect the people who are here observing from British Columbia or those watching television will be deeply, deeply disappointed, and not in the opposition.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant did an outline in incredible detail about what these changes to the Employment Standards Act mean for ordinary British Columbians. My colleague didn't go over the top. She gave the facts about what the changes to this legislation will mean.

Yet members of the Liberal government, thank God, are only heckling. Whether it be standing up or sitting down, heckling or not…. You can heckle from the floor as well. You can absolutely do that, unless there's a new definition of heckling, a Liberal definition that I'm unaware of. Heckling is heckling, and saying things that are completely irrelevant to the ordinary public is also completely ridiculous. I say, "Thank God they're only heckling," because we have so little time, given the hammer that's being brought down by this government, to present to British Columbians exactly what is happening in this province.

It is a week of shame. There's no other way of describing this week, May 27, 28, 29 and 30. It is a week of shame that no one could have predicted simply a year ago.

What do outsiders think about us? What does the rest of the world think about us and all these changes being brought in by the government? The downtown core of Vancouver had thousands of people over the weekend, on Saturday, suggesting what their change would be, what they thought of these changes. There were thousands, and as is typical with this government, they wrote off the thousands. Petitions are introduced here every day by Liberal MLAs signed by thousands of people that they dismiss.

This government does pretend to care about what the outside world thinks, the people beyond the borders of British Columbia. They say: "For ten years this province was brought to wrack and ruin. Thank God we're in charge now." We're still No. ten. We have no hope of getting out of No. ten. We were on a track to be out of No. ten, but we're still No. ten and we will be forever.

This government cares deeply about what people say outside, so I'm going to read from an article that was in a Seattle newspaper today, the largest newspaper in Seattle, the Seattle P-I, the Seattle Post-

Intelligencer. "In the Northwest: Protests Heating up in a B.C. Run by Far Right." Now, I want to tell everybody I'm quoting from this article. It's a long article, and I'll try and do it justice by quoting from parts of it.

What are we doing here today to correct that image? Nothing. This government is exacerbating it. In an unprecedented abuse of the democratic process, this government has put in the sledgehammer of ramming through its dictatorship of the majority to impose draconian legislation on the most vulnerable in British Columbia.

There's the image of B.C. Isn't that nice? Here's a government that says they're going to come in and clean up British Columbia, and there's our international image.

That's what people waking up in Seattle are going to think about British Columbia. Isn't that a wonderful day?

You know what? That's only half the story, as we well know. This article doesn't talk about cutting income assistance for single moms and children. This article doesn't talk about throwing people with disabilities off their pension. This article doesn't talk about the skyrocketing tuition increases, which students who can't find summer jobs, as my colleague pointed out, won't be able to afford. This article doesn't talk about the closing down of adult basic education programs.

Someone today in the Liberal caucus got up and celebrated — it was the member from Vernon — attending an adult basic education graduation program. Little did he know it would be the last one. Little did he know that those programs were going to be shut down. Probably he did know it. Probably he was seizing the opportunity to make the statement before he couldn't do it any longer.

Who exactly is being affected by the changes to the Employment Standards Act, and why is it so important that we support this motion that says: "Take six months, government. Don't ram this legislation through. Take six months. Stop this legislation. Talk to people about these changes"?

This government has not talked about these changes. The Minister of Labour says he did a consultation. If you examine the consultation the Minister of Labour did, you'll see that the only results in this legislation are what the business community asked for — nobody else. Nobody else can look at this legislation and say there's one gosh-darn thing in there that they

recommended. That isn't consultation. That's going to his friends, his political donors, and saying: "What do you want me to do?"

Hundreds of thousands of people are going to be affected. Thirty-five percent of this workforce is in unions; 65 percent isn't and doesn't have the coverage of a union. All this motion does is say: "Wait six months and actually have a discussion with those people whose lives you're changing inalterably before you ram through this legislation. Wait till the fall."

How is it that the House Leader says: "Oh, aren't these fixed sittings wonderful"? I guess now what it means is you get the opportunity to use your dictatorship of democracy to ram through legislation both in the spring and the fall. Gee, that's real electoral reform, isn't it? We have closure being brought in this week, and the government is still introducing legislation in the same week. In the same week that they're bringing down the sledgehammer, they're introducing legislation.

Who does this affect? My colleague pointed out exactly who's affected by this. I want to put out some of the personal stories, though — just in the last few days — of people who are affected by this directly, personal stories of people I have met, that 65 percent of the hard-working people in British Columbia who thought they had some protection with the Employment Standards Act and now realize they have none. They're very young. They're new workers.

I've heard the Minister of Labour once if I've heard him a dozen times talking about his job where he worked for ten hours. I think it was in a bar. He got to work in a bar, and wasn't that great, because then he could get some time off. You know what? That's great for the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour had job security in his community through his family business. Good for him. When he left school, he had job security. I guess he took time out to work in a bar for ten hours. Wasn't that wonderful? Then he could go out and not work. You know what? That's a rarity — people, if there are any this day, who are covered by some circumstances.

When our government introduced amendments to the Employment Standards Act, we did a huge review in the mid-nineties by Mark Thompson, an industrial relations expert. Mark Thompson was an independent. He's industrial relations neutral, an arbitrator. We didn't do it ourselves and have people call into our own government website and then cull through and pick favourites. Mr. Thompson was appointed, did a huge review, and then the Employment Standards Act was rewritten according to his recommendations in 1994.

We made changes subsequent to that. They were very controversial changes in our then government. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I'm sure, remembers this. We changed the hours of work and the working conditions for people in the high-tech sector, because the business community was clamouring over and over again: "We're different in the high-tech sector. We need the flexibility. We work all night. Don't you know how busy we are?" They hammered us over and over and over again, and we made the changes.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The people who were left out of that equation in terms of us taking a balanced approach were the actual workers themselves. What did business say to us? Nothing. "It didn't go far enough. We want more."

Is the high-tech sector doing well because of those changes in employment standards? The high-tech sector is suffering the ravages of a downturn in the economy just as everyone else is. They're not able to protect themselves against changes because they've got these wonderful employment standards changes that our government brought in.

We did talk to young workers in the field, who said, "Why are you making me work 12 hours? Do you not think I have family responsibilities? Why are you changing my entitlements to give benefits to the employer?"

"I love my job," they said, "and I will work hard, and I'm entrepreneurial, and I'm creative, and I love growing the high-tech sector, but why is it my family and I who have to pay the price for that?" I regret that we said: "It's because we're trying to appease the business community, and we're trying to make our economy more competitive."

The high-tech sector grew greatly in the 1990s up to the year 2001, but it wasn't because of the changes to the Employment Standards Act. Certainly, the business community didn't give any recognition that it was because of that. They moved on to another issue: "We need our stock options made non-taxable. We need the high-income marginal tax rate reduced." They didn't even pause for a second. We can speak from experience on what these changes are going to do.

Those are young entrepreneurial-type workers, professionals. Then there are young workers, 16-, 17-, 18-, 19-year-old workers, the kind of people that are having every other avenue of support cut off by the government. It's harder to get into university or college and to be able to afford it, harder to even complete high school, with class sizes burgeoning, no jobs in the summertime, all youth employment programs axed by this government, $6-an-hour minimum wage, a huge burden of red tape by the individual.

These poor new workers have to keep track of every hour and have to keep their own employment records now, because they're going to have to fight their own cases. I guess cutting red tape for this government just means that if you're a large corporation you want to cut red tape. If you're a poor schmuck of a worker, you need a big red school bag to carry around all of the records that you have to keep on your own behalf in order to protect your interests against an employer who has no regulations to govern him or herself by.

There we have a young worker at McDonald's now: six bucks an hour. She'll get to go to McDonald's for — let me see — two hours, I think it is now: $12. In my

town, bus fare for that worker will be about $3 return, under a certain age. There we are: down to $9, and if the employer jerks that worker around for those $9, it's up to the worker herself to keep track of it and bring a claim against that employer. A self-help kit will be issued. Wow, isn't that great.

I wonder if McDonald's will be putting out their own self-help kit. Maybe with a little kiddie pack they'll be putting out a self-help kit in case the worker has a problem with the employer at the same time. Maybe Ronald McDonald will be up in one corner because the industry is being self-regulated as well. Self-help kits for the workers, self-regulation for the industry: I can hardly wait to see it. Maybe the government will give McDonald's a franchise on the self-help kits. There's an opportunity for the Minister of Labour. Oh my God, I shouldn't have said it. He'll probably likely take it up only if they give him a corporate donation, I'm sure — a political donation.

That's what's happening. Immigrant workers, new Canadians: they are part of the 65 percent of the workforce who are governed by employment standards. Not only do they now have to cope with defending themselves at every turn, but they have to do it in a brand-new language. Isn't that a wonderful society.

Wow. British Columbia being open for business as long as you're a rich, corporate business person. If you're a new Canadian, a new immigrant whose first language isn't English, you better come equipped with much greater resources than you thought you needed because you're going to have to keep a stack of paper. You're going to have to keep charts of your hours of work. You're going to have to keep charts of whatever your employer paid. You're going to have regulation headaches like you've never felt before. You better do it properly, because if you get anything wrong, your self-help kit ain't going to help you correct it and the employer isn't going to be required to help you. That's what B.C. being open for business means.

What does my colleague say? My colleague says: "Take six months. Go out and talk to the people in your ridings." The member from Vernon could go out and talk to that adult basic ed class that he helped graduate last week about what jobs they're going to get now and what they think about the employment standards. That's what he could do.

Those of us who have the ability to live in a community where there's a whole bunch of small businesses could actually go talk to those workers in those small businesses who don't belong to unions and are governed by the employment standards. Some could even go and talk to the workers in the high-tech industry. You could say — I think, on behalf of my colleague, we give you permission: "What do you think about those changes to the employment standards that that bad NDP government made to give the employer greater flexibility and you working longer?" You could go…. I think we'll give you, the government, permission to go to talk to those high-tech workers and say: "How did it help?"

You know what I think you'll find? The workers who were laid off as a result of the downturn in the high-tech sector in the last year or so won't be able to answer your question because they won't be there anymore. They won't be in the industry. The changes in employment standards did nothing to protect those jobs. The great flexibility given to the high-tech sector did nothing to help them.

Then, of course, we have this legislation. Changes to the Employment Standards Act are really only one piece of the puzzle. My colleague has done a very good job in the past of putting together the pieces of the puzzle around environmental changes and how you have to read a whole bunch of pieces of legislation rammed through by this government in order to figure out the real agenda, which is to destroy any environmental protection in British Columbia.

This legislation, the Employment Standards Act, has to be read as one piece of a much larger puzzle, because the employment standards changes brought in here today remove the floor below which people cannot go in the organized labour movement.

In 1994, after wide consultation, Mark Thompson, the independent arbitrator — neutral, I should say; he wasn't working as an arbitrator — said there must be a floor in employment standards, and everybody in the province, regardless of whether they have a negotiated collective agreement or not, must be subject to that floor. No one can go below those minimum standards. Whether it be around maternity leave, hours of work or statutory holiday pay, a floor is a floor, and nobody can negotiate below that.

Why did he do that? It was because the friends of this Liberal government in the business community, the Phil Hochsteins of the world, were getting into their places of employment what we used to call rat unions. They were really the new modern version of the unions that used to sign yellow-dog contracts.

That's a historical term, Mr. Speaker. A yellow-dog contract was one where an employer, in order to avoid a real union coming in by the workers, would sign a yellow-dog contract with a union that they could easily afford and which gave no protection to the workers. Well, the modern version of that is a rat union. I think we now have a nicer term called the alternative union. I still refer to them as rat unions, but I'm probably old-fashioned. We've moved on now.

The rat unions — sorry, the alternative unions — come in, and they like to negotiate contracts that are below even the minimum standards held in the Employment Standards Act. If it's biased to say that no one should be able to negotiate below the minimum Employment Standards Act, then right, yes, I am biased. I don't think anyone should have to pay any money to anybody to have their legislated rights taken away.

Mr. Thompson recommended that every single employment contract in the province, whether it be a union contract or not, be subject to the Employment

Standards Act. That would take care of the problem of the employer colluding with unions to negotiate even less than what was in the employment standards, and that happened.

That happened. Did the world come to an end? No. It meant that a woman in the construction industry, where the rat unions were prevalent, got maternity leave. That's one example.

What has this government done? This government has said: "Oh, no longer will there be minimums." They've removed the requirement that the employment standards would be the floor even for collective agreements. Why did they do that? The biggest promoter of that request to have it removed is Phil Hochstein, the fellow who loves the rat unions. Phil Hochstein loves the alternative unions.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, I assume that you're the designated speaker on the amendment.

J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Oh, that red light terrified me. I don't know why, because there's a red light for the entire province in about 45 minutes, when this bill's being rammed through.

Anyway, Phil Hochstein, the biggest single donor to the Liberal Party in the last election, has been advocating this forever. Okay, he got his wish on this. No longer will there be a minimum protection even for people with collective agreements.

Then you have to look over to the changes to the Labour Code that this government has brought in, as well, because you still have to get the proper union in your workplace — right? Even though you've got this one piece, Mr. Hochstein needs another piece. He needs to be able to influence what union comes to his workplaces, and he got that too. Under the Labour Code, employers can now communicate during an organizing drive. Mr. Hochstein, I'm sure, is up there saying: "It was well worth my hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations to this Liberal Party, because I got the two things I need to make sure the workers at my worksites have no protection."

Every single study in industrial relations has shown that when employers have the legislated right to communicate against which no one can complain, they either advocate for no union…. No, first of all, what they do is fire union organizers. That's what they do. They fire union organizers. Then, when they have the right to communicate to those left at the worksite, they advocate for no union or they cut a deal, an arrangement, to have the equivalent of a rat union come in. In the old days they negotiated to get a yellow-dog contract.

Well, who would have thought that the days of the yellow-dog contract would be back? But here they are. I didn't see that in the New Era document. Did I miss that? Did I miss seeing yellow-dog contracts would be returned to British Columbia? I don't know. I'm going to read it again. Anybody got a copy? All those people sitting here who aren't doing anything, flip through the New Era document and see if "yellow dog" is listed there.

Maybe there's a new Liberal term for it. You know how flexibility now means "take all worker rights away"? You know how flexibility means "breaking legitimate contracts"? Maybe there's a new term for yellow-dog contract in the new era. Somebody help me. Just look it up. I'd be happy to use the new language. I'm having trouble switching from "rat union" to "alternative union," but I'm trying hard. I'd be happy to list the term that this Liberal government has for yellow-dog contract.

That's where we're at now. You have to read both of them together, Mr. Speaker. You have to read the Employment Standards Act together with the changes to the Labour Code, and you've got it. You've got almost no protection for working people in this province — almost none.

It's kind of like the principle of "how low can you go?" How low can you make those standards go? You know what? This isn't a Caribbean dance we're doing here. This is a bill that puts hundreds of thousands of workers at risk — hundreds of thousands of workers.

Let me read another column on what people are saying about the Employment Standards Act. It was in the Georgia Straight this past week. The Georgia Straight is a magazine, a newspaper. It's not CanWest Global. It didn't donate to the Liberal Party. It's read by the younger crowd, 30 and under — probably people who are subject to employment standards in their own lives.

There's what the young people who read Georgia Straight are reading about this Liberal government.

I thought it was very interesting to note in this piece of legislation that the government is saying employers can make individual contracts with employees about hours of work. Previously, in the previous legislation, it was, I think, that two-thirds of the majority, two-thirds of the people at the workplace, had to sign an hours-of-work agreement that affected the whole workplace. The employer wasn't allowed to pick one off the other.

Well, all that's gone. All that's gone, but now we have — oh — the employer having the ability to make individual contracts with workers. And what about those employees who are $6-an-hour minimum wage workers, who have to accumulate 500 hours of work before they get the real minimum wage of $8 an hour? Do you think they're going to say: "Oh, no, Mr. Employer, I'm sorry. I'm a single mom, and I've got a child at home. I can't work 12 hours"? Of course not.

Mr. Thompson is exactly right. This will become the minimum standard, the 12-hour day, because no employee — no employee, even if she's worth her weight in gold, if she's the bravest person in the world — if she needs a job and has to accumulate 500 hours before she can get the new $8-an-hour minimum wage from the $6-an-hour minimum wage, is going to protest when an employer comes up to her as an individual, where she has no protection except her own strength. She is not going to say: "I'm sorry. I can't work those hours." If she does, I predict she'll be out of a job. That's what I predict.

Child labour. Child labour. I had the fortune of working with some unbelievably skilled Ministry of Labour employees on changing the rules about child labour in this province. It was the film industry that worked with the employees of the Ministry of Labour, most of whom, I think, have either been fired or are about to be fired, to bring in minimum standards for child workers in this province.

Our film industry was ballooning in the 1990s in British Columbia, and there was a requirement for children. That makes sense. It makes sense that there be a requirement for children. Lots of movies have children in them. You can't have a 20-year-old be a ten-year-old, but we knew that there were also opportunities for abuse and so did the film industry.

The film industry cooperated fully with the then Ministry of Labour employees to bring in a permit sys-

tem. The film industry by and large were excellent employers. They didn't want any hassle. In the 1990s they loved working here in British Columbia, so they agreed readily to bring in a permit system where a child under the age of 16 needed the permission of the director of employment standards to work in the film industry.

I remember making that announcement with representatives of the film industry. The film industry did a wonderful job of accommodating the requirements for permitting children — permitting, literally — to work in the film industry. They made sure there were regular hours for schoolwork. They made sure there were regular meal hours for children. They made sure the parent of the child had complete access to the workplace.

All that's gone now. That was part of the permitting process. All that's gone now. Now we'll have children able to work in the fields picking berries, with no problem whatsoever, if the parent says so. God knows there will be parents forced into asking their child to work because of the other draconian policies of this government. Now children will be forced to work under those conditions.

I must say there are changes in this legislation that I don't think anyone could have predicted. No one could have predicted the changes. My colleague read a bit of the submission made by the Canadian Bar Association, but let me read all of it into the record.

Before I go on, I want to talk about some of the ability of this minister to even understand his own legislation. If anyone wants to actually look at how this Minister of Labour has a grasp on his own legislation, they need to examine when he was on Voice of B.C. and the flip-flopping he did on what the intent of the legislation is. It does just point out that the minister….

I could actually read it into the record, and if I have time, I think I will. It's quite interesting. What it does is to show that the minister himself doesn't really understand his own legislation, and that's more reason why this bill should be what we like to call hoisted, put aside, tabled, not debated, not passed for six months.

It's just the same way the Minister of Finance said a bill affecting the salaries of people who earn $100,000 or more in the public service should be tabled, set aside, until the government has had a full chance to review all of those circumstances. Every single Liberal MLA said yes, let's hoist that bill. Let's not debate that bill for six months, because God knows the implications it could have, the harmful implications or unintended consequences it could have for people earning $100,000 or more.

We all rose to our feet. My colleague and I joined them. The principle seemed to be a good principle. The principle seemed to be a decent principle. I was taken aback by the Minister of Finance seeing the value in such an initiative, but nevertheless, he did it, and the entire Legislature said: that's a good idea.

I expect the entire Legislature to do the same thing in supporting this amendment, because it isn't people who earn $100,000 a year who are being affected by this. It's people earning $6 an hour who are being affected by this. It's new Canadians. It's young people. It's predominantly women and students who are being affected by this legislation. This government should do the decent thing, the absolutely decent thing.

Also, I would suggest that if this government says no to putting this legislation off, if this government is insisting on ramming through this legislation, then let ordinary British Columbians have a say about it. I don't know. Maybe some people who are here are ordinary British Columbians and would like to have a say on this legislation. Let the government put this bill to committee, and let a committee call witnesses.

It's not like there's anybody else speaking except my colleague and me. There's time to have people be witnesses to the legislation, so why not do the proper thing? If they're going to vote against this hoist motion and have the committee, at committee stage, which I think is a committee of the Legislature…. Committees can call witnesses. Let people join in the debate. Let people of the ordinary public join in the debate.

J. MacPhail: We know what the member for Kamloops–North Thompson thinks about working people. We've heard him on record calling health care workers nothing more than toilet-bowl cleaners.

J. MacPhail: We know what he thinks about that. We know that he thinks the first question to ask when he met with an injured worker…

J. MacPhail: …was to say: "Well, did you do something wrong to have a box fall on you?"

J. MacPhail: I don't think the member for Kamloops–North Thompson is going to reflect the views of the public, who may be wanting to have input into this. I can pretty much guarantee that.

You know what? Here's a possibility. God knows there's no filibustering going on in the Legislature. God knows we're just raising the facts. But you know what could happen? Maybe the government could listen to the government Whip and extend the time for debating this legislation. Instead of saying to the only two opposition members, "Sit down," maybe he could rise up and have some guts and say to his government: "Stop ramming this legislation through, support the hoist motion and give time for everybody who wants to have debate here."

Isn't it ironic? The government Whip, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, wants to speak. He

wants to take it out of my time. There's two of us, and he wants me to sit down. Shame on him, but he can certainly rectify the situation. He can rectify it right now by voting in favour of the hoist motion and by saying we will not pass this legislation until six months hence. Then every Liberal can get up, and they don't have to cut into my time. They don't have to cut into the time of the opposition, which is the only group that has the guts to raise these issues. I expect, fully, that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson will stand up and say that fearmongering has gone on.

Frankly, for any Liberal to somehow suggest here that I should accede my time when they're invoking closure is simply outrageous. Clearly, they've lost their own discipline. Clearly, that discipline isn't working anymore, because they actually want to debate the legislation, but they can't without taking it away from the two-person opposition.

Well, maybe that leads to the point that the bill's being rammed through. Maybe that leads to the point that for every single reason my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant introduced in the motion to table this legislation for six months, this has the same support from the Liberal backbench as the Minister of Finance's motion that was voted on just three hours ago to do exactly the same thing on another piece of legislation — makes perfect sense.

I expect that it won't happen that way. Call me crazy, but let me just say that I predict the Liberal backbench will take a different point of view on tabling and setting aside legislation that affects people that earn $6 an hour than they may have imposed some conditions on people earning $100,000. I don't know. Something's telling me that they're going to vote against that motion, but then we'll have another opportunity. We'll have another opportunity for every Liberal backbencher to hear, to maybe listen to the public, whoever they may be — the public who may be listening on the TV or in the galleries — for that public to be called as witnesses during committee stage. I look forward to seeing what the Liberal backbenchers have to say during that time.

Here's what some of the changes are that are very concerning to the Canadian Bar Association. That's that radical group of lawyers. God knows what a radical group that profession is. Hmm, maybe they are actually. Maybe they are a bit radical. Yeah, that's true. When they disagree with the government, they speak out. That would relegate them, actually, to a special interest group. They've so far avoided the category of special interest group by this government, but unfortunately they're now a special interest group because they disagree with the government.

Here's what they had to say in a letter where they addressed the concept where the Minister of Labour suggested there should be increased competitiveness, and that's why these changes had to be introduced. The Canadian Bar Association, over the signature of Patricia MacDonald. When was this letter written? April.

J. MacPhail: You know, Mr. Speaker, it is so outrageous what the government Whip says: to table it. The one hour that I have to debate this legislation, and then it's being rammed through. He wants me to table a document. With his embarrassing record on his view of working people, I would think he would want to be silent in his embarrassment, but he continues. He continues to somehow want, even in the context of the draconian, autocratic dictatorship of closure that this government's bringing, to shut down the two lone voices that perhaps represent interests now much more so than he does.

It is shameful. It is shameful, his actions. What a surprise. He had to apologize. Even his own Premier couldn't stand the fact that he publicly called health care workers just glorified toilet bowl cleaners. He couldn't stomach that. His own Premier made him apologize.

I'd rather listen to what the Canadian…. I'd rather put on the record what the Canadian Bar Association says in my time available than accede one moment to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. If he wants to speak, change the rules of draconian closure. Open up the debate. Let everybody who wants to speak….

Here's what it says from the Canadian Bar Association regarding the minister's need for increasing competitiveness versus employee protection:

That was in the discussion document. The government actually reduced it to a two-year retention.

That's a pretty extensive list of criticisms that the Canadian Bar Association has.

So we have the Canadian Bar Association disagreeing. We have independent neutrals…

J. MacPhail: …advocating against this legislation. We have all sorts of concerns being raised by individuals. What does this government do? It says you have a couple of hours to debate this, and then we're going to ram it through — a couple of hours to debate it, and then that's it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let's see how much better this is going to make B.C. Let's see whether the Seattle Post-Intelligencer will write a story about the employee protection laws of British Columbia. Let's see what they'll say there, because the state with whom this government likes to compete and said, oh, my God, our laws were just so out of step, they required greater flexibility in order to compete with our surrounding jurisdictions…. What has this government done? The Washington State employment standards will be a shining beacon of light for employees now.

The Washington State minimum wage will be a shining beacon of light for British Columbians now, a shining beacon of light saying: "Come to Washington. Here you have some decent minimum wages. Here you have some decent employment standards." That's exactly what's going to happen. What about Alberta? Alberta employment standards exceed British Columbia's now. Isn't that interesting? This B.C. Liberal government managed to sink to a level below which even Alberta would not go. Isn't that incredible? They had chosen not to attack working people.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure that people who are observing this are very interested in the reaction of Liberal backbenchers, catcalling, mocking people who are subject to employment standards. I'm sure it's a real lesson, a real eye-opener, to see how this government-by-dictatorship views working people without union protection in this province.

I'm sure it will do a lot to stimulate the economy. I'm sure people will come to British….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure people in Washington State, in Alberta, in Quebec will wake up after this legislation is rammed through and they'll say: "Gosh, I can go to B.C. and make $6 bucks an hour for two hours. I can get no statutory holiday pay. I can work 12 hours a day, but as long as I don't work more than 40 hours in a week, I won't get paid overtime." "Actually, I could work 80 hours," they would say. They'll be gleaning through the legislation to see all the goodies that are awarded them.

I guess this government has a view that they can grow the economy out of the doldrums that's predicted for it for the next five years without working people. I guess that's what they plan. I don't know. Maybe they've got some great working invention, machinery, that will do all of the jobs that are required to grow our economy. I guess they have some great strategy to replace all of those working people who see no future in this province. I guess they'll have people who will buy the hamburgers at McDonalds. I guess they have people who will buy the shoes in Wal-Mart even though those workers have no protection in this province.

It is the right thing to do to support this motion to table this legislation until the fall, just the same way that this group of Liberals rose up together, joined by my colleague and me, to say we shouldn't pass legislation that imposes any restrictions on the earning power…. No, the legislation actually said we should impose some sort of standards on the compensation for people earning $100,000 or more in the public service, just the same way we said: "Oh, the government's doing some work on this. Let's table it for six months."

Every single Liberal MLA came in here and stood up proudly. They should stand up now on behalf of their constituents. Whereas that legislation may have affected two, maybe three, of their constituents, this legislation affects tens of thousands of each and every one of their constituents — two-thirds of the workforce, two million people. Two million people are affected by this legislation. You know what? They're affected negatively. They're having their rights taken away. There is not one right added on behalf of working people.

Mr. Speaker: We are voting on the amendment to Bill 48. The amendment reads as follows:

Hon. G. Bruce: We've just sat through three hours of debate, and it would be clear now that we are….

Hon. G. Bruce: Just finishing up. We just finished the three hours of debate in regards to this particular piece of legislation, Bill 48. In spite of all that was said in that three hours, much of it was clearly comment that was made that there wasn't the full understanding of that legislation. But let's be clear. After ten years of the trouble this province has been in, all you did tonight — the hon. members across the way — was make it clear to every person in the province why we are in that trouble.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 48, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.


	YEAS — 62

Coell	Hogg	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Hansen	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Collins
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Hawes
Kerr		Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 65

Coell	Hogg	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Stephens	Abbott
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Belsey	Bell	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Les	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Hawes
Kerr		Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

	NAYS — 60

Coell	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	van Dongen
Barisoff	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Campbell	Collins	Bond
de Jong	Stephens	Abbott
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Harris
Nuraney	Belsey	Bell
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Nijjar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Hawes	Kerr	Hunter


	YEAS — 60

Coell	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	van Dongen
Barisoff	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Campbell	Collins	Bond
de Jong	Stephens	Abbott
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Harris
Nuraney	Belsey	Bell
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Nijjar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Hawes	Kerr	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan