Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading, Heritage Conservation Amendment Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — HERITAGE CONSERVATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 14, Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 8, Employment Standards Amendment Act. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee on Bill 28, Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. And in Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

[2:50 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

On section 1.

J. Martin: Welcome, Minister and staff, as we explore Bill 8 in a little greater detail.

[2:55 p.m.]

Section 1. This amendment act defines “temporary help agency” as “an employer whose employees work on a temporary basis for or under the control or direction of another person, but does not include a farm labour contractor.”

Can the minister tell us what actually it means by temporary? What length of time does this encompass? Is this less than a year, less than a month, a week? What is temporary?

Hon. H. Bains: A temporary help agency employs people to assign them to perform work on a temporary basis for clients of the agency. The temporary help agency includes agencies that provide unskilled casual day labour, office or administrative services and health care and social assistance services. These are employees that are supplied by the temp agency and that come in to provide temporary relief, based on a number of days or longer.

J. Martin: Thank you for that, Minister. Has there been an increase in the occurrence of these temporary help agencies that are operating contrary to the Employment Standards Act and that prompted their inclusion now?

Hon. H. Bains: The employment standards branch has heard a number of times that these are employees that, right now, we have no record of. No one knows how many and who. I think the whole idea here is to have these temp agencies registered or licensed so that we know who they are, we know where they employ those employees of theirs, who their clients are.

It’s no different, I think, in a sense, than right now we have contractors for farm labour. They are actually required to be licensed so that we know that they follow the rules. We know who they are. We know where they work, where their employees are working and for which client. I think it just will be able to give employment standards the tools to know where those employees are and if they follow the law.

J. Martin: Based on the definition of “temporary help agency,” does this mean that projects built under community benefits agreements, whose workers would be employed by B.C. Infrastructure Benefits Inc., would make B.C. Infra­structure Benefits Inc. a temporary help agency?

Hon. H. Bains: The example the member used — I don’t believe it fits the definition here, because what the member has described is: you have a company, they have their employees, and they are actually working on that project in an employer-employee relationship.

[3:00 p.m.]

Here what we are talking about is if employer A needs some temporary help because of a surge in production and this temporary agency has some employees to fill that gap, they would contact this temporary agency, and they’re working for that employer for that day. But tomorrow they could be working for another employer, once this employer doesn’t need their services anymore.

It’s quite a different situation — what we are talking about here and what the member has described.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Martin: Under the definition of “gratuity,” there’s the option to add other payments by regulation in the future. Can the minister tell us what other payments are being considered that may be added in the near future?

Hon. H. Bains: We have tried to come up with a definition of gratuity, and that definition will apply. We don’t have any other situations, at this particular point, or an intention to move into different areas. We have given us enabling language in the event that we have missed something.

I think the idea, again, here is that the servers work, and they are given a gratuity or tips as part of their service. It becomes part of their income. The idea is to protect that income from an employer who wishes to hand over the tip or gratuity to the employer or have a share in the gratuity. There are exceptions. The employer can participate in the tip pool if they are working similarly to the work that the employees are working.

J. Martin: I’m curious about some of the protocol around this. My father spent his entire life working in the hospitality industry. Whenever he pays a restaurant bill, he uses his credit card, and he tips with cash. The cash is never included on the actual receipt.

I’m wondering how this is going to be tracked and how the legislation is taking into account the different ways people show their appreciation for service.

Hon. H. Bains: I think nothing has changed in that situation. What we are trying to do with the change here is…. The tips that are left behind stay with the servers or the employees. Whether it’s the situation that the member described, we expect that that money will be transferred over to the employees. The employees who receive that tip in cash…. It would become part of their tip, and if there is a tip pool, they will be dividing among themselves, rather than the employer requiring them to share that with the employer or hand over to the employer.

The whole idea here is that the tip that is left behind for the servers is for the income of the servers. So the employer does not take that away from them.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Martin: Can the minister explain, please, why special clothing has been added to the list in section 3?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think when you compare the last changes made in 2002 to the employment standards, special clothing was missing. But if there’s a collective agreement that mentions all of those areas — hours of work, statutory holidays, annual vacations, seniority retention, recall — and if there’s special clothing mentioned in the collective agreement, this means that that collective agreement must meet or exceed the requirement of the employment standards.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

J. Martin: Under this section, “Promoting awareness of employment standards,” the director “must develop and carry out policies to promote greater awareness of this act.” So wouldn’t an employee be aware of their rights under the Employment Standards Act through the efforts of the director under this section 5? And therefore, isn’t the addition of section 6, “Informing employees of their rights,” somewhat redundant?

Hon. H. Bains: I think this is a very important section. If employees understand their rights and if employers understand their obligations — this section is a requirement that the employment standards, rights and obligations are made available to employees and employers — there will be a chance of less violation of the employment standards and also resolving the problems before they even become problems or disputes.

The employees will know whether what they’re asking or demanding is according to the employment standards, and the employer will know if they’re denying the employee certain things that they know are in the employment standards. If they have that information available readily, I think it helps both parties and helps the whole system. I think that’s the whole purpose behind it.

The member knows…. Let’s take an example of students coming out of high school or college. It’s not necessarily that they have a copy of the employment standards in their hands or that they study the employment standards requirements and they know what their rights are, but I think through this…. This will be a form that will be approved by the director so that it is non-biased and it is something that is truly factual so that the employees will have that information.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

J. Martin: Can the minister tell us who he has consulted with, to date, regarding the change of allowing 14- to 15-year-olds to engage in light work?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Two things. So how we arrived at this. A lot of work was done by BCLI. And we also did our own work, looking at what the United Nations convention calls for, international labour organizations and all other jurisdictions. They’re all right here. And going forward, how do we define what is “light work,” what is “dangerous work”? It’s something that we would be, again, engaging all those who are involved or affected by these changes going forward — employers, workers, other jurisdictions.

I think that’s how we will be defining what light work is and what dangerous work is and where a 14 and 15 can work.

J. Martin: I think the minister has to acknowledge there’s a certain level of subjectivity here. I mean, I was at an event with the cadets on the weekend, and there was a 12-year-old, 6-1, 205 pounds. I think the definition of what constitutes light work might be very different for that individual than other 12-year-olds.

I’m just wondering how the minister and the ministry are going to actually determine what light work will be defined as for this particular age group, 14- to 15-year-olds.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member needs to understand: we’re not reinventing the wheel here. All of the jurisdictions already have that. They already have a definition about what light work is for 12, 14 and 15 years. They know what dangerous work is, and they have already defined it within their jurisdictions. International labour organizations have already talked about this, and other countries have done this.

Now, I understand their economies are different and the jobs are different, going from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I understand that. That’s why the consultation with all stakeholders, the workers, the industry and those who are active as the parents. I think that work will take place so that that work and that consultation will guide us. What is defined as light work, as the member has just talked about? What about someone working in their parents’ grocery store, stacking the shelves, or working on a farm?

I think all those things will be considered, because others have already done that work in Canada. I think that’s what we will be looking at and taking guidance from — other jurisdictions and, again, consulting our own. We are different in British Columbia, different industries here. We are going to talk to different stakeholders to make sure that we do it right.

J. Thornthwaite: I have another question specifically to the light work, because this has come up with some of my constituents. I’m wondering: does the minister have a definition of what light work is?

Hon. H. Bains: The definition of “light work,” if I could read it to the member, means “prescribed work or a prescribed occupation that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers is unlikely to be harmful to the health or development of a child who is 14 or 15 years of age.”

[3:15 p.m.]

Now, I could give you some examples that come to mind quickly. For example, a clerk in an office or retail store; a delivery person for small goods and merchandise for a retail store; delivering flyers, newspapers, handbills; certain duties in the restaurant food service industry — a host, hostess, cashier, dishwasher, busing tables, a server or waiter, providing customer service, assembling food orders and cleaning. And there will be some others, as I said. Someone is going to bring us something, “But what about this? You missed that,” during the time of the debate. “What about that?”

I think that’s what we will be working on. We will work with the industry. We will work with the workers and all of the advocates and look at the other jurisdictions. And then that’s how we are going to put that list together.

J. Thornthwaite: Well, the minister probably knows that when second reading came up on this bill, I mentioned some key stakeholders that were very concerned about this bill and this particular section with regards to ages. These are the referees, the youth referees, in all sorts of sports — the soccer community provincewide, referees for hockey, etc.

They were very, very concerned about that, and that’s why I was looking specifically at what the definition of light work is, because a referee is sometimes going to get jostled around. He’s running back and forth. He’s making calls in the game. Sometimes parents aren’t too happy about that. That might not be classified as light work.

I’m very much concerned about that. I actually have an amendment that I’d like to present to the minister. The amendment is for section 6.

[SECTION 6 is amended by striking the words “14” and “15” and substituting “12” wherever it appears.]

[3:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, we are getting the copies made of the signed document, and then we will proceed with it. Give us a few minutes.

Members, on the amendment proposed on section 6, it reads: “Section 6 is amended by striking the words ‘14’ and ‘15’ and substituting ‘12’ wherever it appears.”

Interjection.

The Chair: Do you want to speak further on that, Member?

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to speak to it.

The Chair: Absolutely.

On the amendment.

J. Thornthwaite: Just to reiterate, the issue here is for referees for youth sports. I’ve got a letter here that is supported by numerous organizations. The North Vancouver Football Club, the North Shore Girls Soccer Club, West Vancouver Football Club, Bowen Island soccer, Sunshine Coast Youth Soccer Association, Whistler soccer, Pemberton soccer and many soccer associations actually are supportive of this amendment.

The reason is because a lot of these youth are 12 years old. My daughter was also a referee for North Shore Girls Soccer when she was 12. I’d like to read a little excerpt from the president of the Sunshine Coast Youth Soccer Association. He has said: “Our support for the valuable skills the kids learn as referees and the benefit they bring to youth sports…. This is not an exploitation of child labour but a really great opportunity for young people to learn responsibility and leadership while supporting effective youth sports in the community.”

As I said, most of these kids start when they are 12. The associations are very, very concerned that this bill, in this section, will negatively affect these youths’ opportunity to not only get employment and employment skills but also will negatively affect the organizations because they won’t have any student referees.

[3:25 p.m.]

That is the reason why I requested that the years 14, 15 be changed to 12, because that’s the age where the kids in youth soccer start refereeing. I would hope that the House would support my amendment.

Hon. H. Bains: First, I firmly believe that this amendment should be ruled out of order because it does not meet the House rules. The legislative counsel is available to all members to draft proper language. The way it’s written, it is not going to serve the purpose that is in the bill. For example, I’ll read you one line here: “(2)(b),” where it says “who is 14 or 15 years of age.” And with this amendment, it will read “who is 12” or “12 years of age.” It does not make sense, so I think it should be ruled out of order.

They had all the time. We had a whole week last week to come up with an amendment and do the proper language.

The concern that the member brought up — I understand that, and that’s what the consultation process is going to be. We will be consulting all of those people who have written to the member, and we will be making the appropriate definitions at that particular time.

I think this amendment cannot be accepted as it is written.

J. Thornthwaite: Well, we were under the impression, this side, that this bill was going to be coming up tomorrow. We were told at 11:45 this morning that — uh-oh — this bill is now coming up today. I was preparing the amendment, but because the government decided to fast-track this bill, that’s the reason why I had to come up with the amendment very, very quickly. So I would very much hope that the government and all sides of the House would support this amendment.

Interjection.

The Chair: Okay. Member for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. There are quite a few people that might want to speak to this while a determination is being made.

As the minister knows, there are numerous examples in this House where amendments have been made in the House without notice after discussions that have occurred on the floor of the House. That’s the whole point of committee stage, where we get to hear things moving forward. Typically, if there’s a situation when we’re looking through this, we can do some amendments. And there has been an amendment — I know it will be discussed a little bit later — that is like that. But this is not precedent-setting by any means, and the member will know that when he was on this side of the House, numerous times they made amendments while they were over here as well, based on discussion.

Speaking to this amendment, I think the minister has to acknowledge what this is doing for a lot of the people in British Columbia. If it’s that much of a concern, this whole section could be struck right out, because what the minister continuously says is that decisions will be made at a later date. There’s a reason why so many people are contacting us and saying they can’t support this section because there are too many unknowns. And every time the minister has been asked publicly, he keeps saying that this will be done by order-in-council, be done by cabinet at a later date. Businesses can’t function that way.

I’ll give you an example. What happens in — maybe it’s all communities, but I’m going to reference what I know — small northern communities that are struggling already to find staff?

Now, let me put the caveat there. Of course, every employer and every person in this House wants to have a safe working environment for anybody of any age. This is not just about anybody under 16. It’s anybody. There are examples when I was an employer, when I was hiring people who would be 40 and 50 years old and moving into a new profession, who might not know that profession, that you had to spend the time with to make sure they were adequately trained for the safety requirements of that job. So it doesn’t matter whether you’re under 16 or whether you’re over 16. The safety requirements and training need to be there in place.

I look at the minister, and I look at the government. I’m trying to think of examples like myself — my children, so many children I know in small northern communities who look for opportunities to get some experience in life. By the minister’s own wording here, if I was to understand this correctly…. When I was 12, 13 years old, I was actually helping out at construction sites. I was working, packing lumber. I was working, hammering in nails. I was doing a whole bunch of odd jobs.

[3:30 p.m.]

Under this, it might not be considered light duty, but what it did was it inspired me into a profession that I thought I’d like to take some day, at 12 or 13 years old. I ended up talking to my parents. I ended up going to BCIT and doing my carpentry apprenticeship, based on experiences in my youth. That’s what I think should be allowed.

More importantly, it should be up to the parents, not the government, to tell people that your child is not suitable to be working in the province of British Columbia. The government — and this minister — is trying to hide this whole notion of under-16 around safety. Again, this is not that we’re against this. We’re against the fact that the government is trying to dictate to people, to employers and to parents what their kids can or cannot do, which is inappropriate.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

In my riding, again, in the service sector — now, the minister said it might or it might not be — I look at a place like McDonald’s or A&W or KFC. Three of my children worked at those organizations under the age of 16 to earn a little bit of extra pocket money. If there was something that they wanted that I wasn’t able to afford, they could buy it.

I got contacted last week by a couple of single parents who said: “Is this government now going to help me, then? I’ve got my 13- and 14-year-old daughter and son who are working part-time after school in community jobs, and this government has not been able to put forward and confirm whether they will still be allowed to do that.” This single mom, and in one case a single dad, said: “How am I now going to be able to help, under my limited income, my kids, when they’re working not only getting experience but also working to help afford the little extra things that I, as a single parent, can’t afford?”

These are stories that we’re hearing right across the prov­ince. The reason why we’re hearing them is because under this bill, there has been not enough information put forward to answer the questions. I’m sorry, to the minister, but people aren’t going to, in this case, say: “Trust us. We’ll make the right decision later.”

My colleague, who put the amendment here on the floor, has a valid point. Is this going to be considered? We don’t know. Is McDonald’s going to allow the 14- and 15-year-olds who maybe only work a couple of hours a week? Well, the minister is saying yes, but he hasn’t been able to stand in this House…. He keeps saying maybe those decisions will be made afterwards. Has the minister stood here and said what is not light duty? Maybe after we’re finished this debate, he can sit there and maybe put the whole list of things that won’t be allowed, because right now all he’s saying is maybe it will be allowed.

Right now that’s why this amendment is being put forward. The way things are working right now in the province, parents have a say. I, as a parent with five kids…. If my child wanted to work at 13 years old, and I chose that I thought they were able to, if I looked into it and I figured they were going to be safe, if I looked at it and said: “Here’s an opportunity for my child to get inspired into something that might be a career opportunity when they go forward….”

I mean, I see the Minister of Education. He and I, I think, will agree on this. We’re doing everything we can — and when I was the minister — to try and instil in our youth what they might want to do when they grow up. We have jobs plans. We have career fairs. We have all these…. Why do we do that if we’re going to tell kids they can’t work anymore until they’re 16 or older?

I think this is a very reasonable amendment, because it’s going to what the crux of the issue is. It’s putting the decisions back with the parents. It’s putting the decisions with the youth in those discussions with the parents. And it also allows the organizations to ensure they have the safety mechanisms in place for all those students.

I know some of our colleagues have talked about what this is going to mean for the agricultural industry. There is going to be a whole bunch of different sections that this minister has been unable to answer, and that’s why this amendment is important, with the lack of details.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

S. Bond: I want to stand and support the amendment that my colleague has introduced. The minister sits and says: “Don’t worry about this one. Don’t worry about that one.” What we’re worried about are the words in this legislation. What it says, and we should be clear with British Columbians what it says….

It says: “In this section, ‘light work’ means prescribed work or a prescribed occupation that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers is unlikely to be harmful to the health or development of a child who is 14 or 15 years of age.”

Let’s translate that language for British Columbians. What that says is the cabinet of this government is going to determine the list of occupations, prescribed occupations, that are unlikely to be harmful to the health or development of a child.

[3:35 p.m.]

We should be clear about what we are arguing on this side. The section 7 explanatory note points out that the bill, section 9.1, “sets out rules respecting the hiring of children in a hazardous industry or hazardous work.” There is not a single MLA in this Legislature that does not agree that that is unacceptable — having children in hazardous workplaces. But what we want to argue is the fact that this government has decided, arbitrarily, that 14- and 15-year-olds need to be treated differently, that they’re going to decide with a list of some gigantic list of occupations.

Does the minister honestly expect us to believe that the cabinet of British Columbia is going to sit down and they’re going to talk about referees? I’ll tell you, my colleague has introduced that issue. That is an enormous issue. She’s listed groups in her constituency. But I can assure the minister that that is a concern felt across British Columbia.

The issue isn’t whether you’re 14 or 15 years old, in our opinion. The issue is: is it a hazardous workplace? The minister hasn’t defined that. I heard the minister muttering over there: “Well, mining.” There are jobs in the mining industry that are not hazardous that would allow for young people today to begin their work careers at an earlier age. And I happen to believe that, actually, parents should have a say about whether or not they have a role to play in deciding.

Is the minister going to allow cherry-picking? Heaven knows, they may have to stand on a ladder. Is that considered unsafe? Who is the government of British Columbia to decide the development of a child? These are legitimate concerns. The minister can shake his head and be concerned about what we’re saying, but there are no definitions in this bill. He continues to reference light duty. That can mean just about anything. It’s open to interpretation. It’s open to creating regulations behind closed doors.

Once again, we see employers and families being left out of this discussion. I would urge the minister to actually listen and take the advice related to the amendment and spend some time talking about this. I’ve actually been the Minister of Labour, and I can assure the minister that we looked very seriously at the age limit.

We’re talking about, for example, children who participate in the film industry. Not all of them are in hazardous situations. But how is that classified in the minister’s list? This bill has zero definition when it comes to the prescribed occupations.

I just think that when we live in a province where there are all kinds of opportunities for young people that are 14 and 15 years old, we suddenly have a government who thinks they know that they can have a definitive list. How’s that going to work? Every time another suggestion comes up — whether it’s cherry-picking, whether you’re a referee…. Who knows how many occupations there are for young people who are getting their first paycheque or getting some degree of work experience?

This is about the legislation. It’s not about: “Well, the opposition’s just standing up to complain.” There is a lack of definition. And rightly so. Legislation should not contain prescriptive lists because every time the government has to amend that list or change it or add another one, it would require it to be done in the Legislature.

So what does that mean? That means this government is going to go back, and they’re going to do what they’ve done with all the other bills. They’re going to start creating regulation. I don’t think that’s fair. I don’t think it’s fair to business owners who encourage young people to work for them.

The minister may not know this, but in many of those small businesses, or even in larger businesses, those owners check to see how kids are doing at school. They ask for copies of their report cards. They see it as part of their part in developing young people in British Columbia.

Now, arbitrarily, this bill says: “We’re going to sit behind cabinet doors, and we’re going to come up with a list that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers is unlikely to be harmful to the health or development of a child.” The last time I checked, and certainly when I looked at the qualifications of cabinet ministers, who over there is going to be able to decide what is harmful to the development of a 14-year-old?

All we’re asking is for this to be a pragmatic approach. In our view, there has been zero discussion about changing the age range. What we need to do is to take a step backwards.

[3:40 p.m.]

If the minister would like to go and start talking to the people who are going to find themselves on one list or another…. They’re either going to be on the permitted list or the not permitted list.

From our perspective…. If the minister can stand up today and tell my colleagues that referees are going to be considered light duty, then we’d be relieved to hear that. I’m sure that my colleagues can all get up, and we can all give the minister an example. Hopefully, today he can give us an answer. “Yes, MLA, that one will be okay.”

When you stop to think about the process that’s implied by this bill…. From our perspective, it makes absolutely no sense. The amendment makes sense, and I think it’s time the minister took a step back and supported the amendment of my colleague.

T. Stone: I, too, would like to take my place here today and support my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour in her amendment, which I believe is very reasoned.

I do find it concerning that the minister would just make an outright suggestion that it is inappropriate and out of order and that this is not the place or the time to be moving these kinds of amendments. If I was paid a dollar for every time, as a former minister, I stood on the other side of the House and had members of the minister’s party move amendments, maybe I actually wouldn’t have sought re-election last time around.

This is exactly the place where we should be discussing these issues. This is exactly the time, in committee stage, where we should be discussing this very important issue. I’m proud of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for moving this very reasonable amendment.

The issue is this. We are all hearing from lots and lots of British Columbians in our respective constituencies who really believe that this particular provision of Bill 8 is completely and totally misguided. It’s unreasonable.

Now, I haven’t had a single parent call me up and say: “I don’t believe that there should be protections on industrial worksites or worksites where there’s significant potential for physical harm or where you really are required to exert yourself strenuously. There shouldn’t be protections in place to ensure that children, let alone any…. British Columbians shouldn’t be protected in those situations.”

This provision sets up that false dichotomy, which essentially goes to saying that…. If you’re under the age of 14, you must not be able to work on any particular worksite and do anything work-related around the province, unless the NDP government, in its infinite wisdom, with its deep wells of intellectual capabilities, decides that that worksite is an acceptable worksite for a kid.

I speak, as I say often in this House, as a parliamentarian. I also speak as a dad. I have three daughters. I have my middle daughter, who is a soccer fanatic. If she can’t be playing in a game on her team, she wants to be at a practice for her team. If she can’t be at a practice for her team, then she is happy, as a 12-year-old, to be a referee for younger kids in the Kamloops Youth Soccer Association.

She doesn’t do it because she’s desperate for the $18 per game that she’s paid. She does it because she wants to be in the game. She wants to be in the middle of the soccer match. She loves it and breathes it. So do so many other kids, not just in soccer but in all kinds of sports around this province, whether it’s hockey, lacrosse, football. Pick a sport. Children — 12 years old, 13 years old — yes, are often engaged in refereeing.

[3:45 p.m.]

Now, as my very able colleague from Prince George–​Valemount just mentioned moments ago, certainly, we would be thrilled to hear the minister state very clearly on the record that refereeing in youth sports will be one of the exempted situations for employment for those under the age of 14. But it’s not here. He hasn’t said that to this point, and simply nodding as we are talking is not good enough. So we would challenge the minister to be very clear, in this particular example that I’m citing, that when it comes to refereeing in youth sports, our kids will still be able to do it.

By the way, these parents who have contacted us — and I say this as a parent as well — are also quick to point out that it’s hard to get enough referees as it is. You take the 12-year-olds and the 13-year-olds out of the mix, and we’re going to have serious issues in ensuring that youth sports are properly and adequately refereed or staffed from a referee perspective. That is very, very concerning.

For goodness’ sake, we train kids as young as 11 to babysit. We say to that 11-year-old, that 12-year-old: “Go and take a course. Here’s the course that provides you with the life skills. Here’s what to do in the case of a health issue with the child you’re looking after. Here’s what to do if there’s a fire in the house. Here’s what to do to keep the home safe while you’re looking after the children under your care.” We say that to kids who are as young as 12 years old — in some cases, 11 years old. My two older daughters have been through those programs, and they’re entrusted with looking after, in many cases, newborns.

By the way, the going rate is about ten bucks per child for babysitting. No one is getting rich, but as refereeing is, it’s an important opportunity for our children to learn about responsibility, to learn what it means to actually give your word and show up on time and do what’s expected of you and to actually earn a few dollars along the way. Are parents now expected to wait with bated breath, to hope that the NDP cabinet excludes babysitters from this provision? Or will they be included as well?

My colleague from Peace River South mentioned the challenges related to finding workers in the hospitality industry and restaurants. I hear that, too, in Kamloops. I hear from not just the big chains but a lot of the ma-and-pa shops as well, and little cafés.

A sporting goods store owner came to me the other day. He’s really concerned, because he has a couple of kids who are under 14 who work a couple of hours a week. What do they do? They make sure that the right shoes are in the right boxes. They clean up the showroom in the store after hours, put everything away, put things back on hangers. Is that considered a hazardous work environment for those 12-year-olds, those 13-year-olds? Is he now going to have to wait for the NDP cabinet, again, in their infinite wisdom, to deliberate over this and determine whether or not that’s an acceptable exclusion to this new provision that the government wants to bring in? We wait with bated breath.

How about the folks in the agriculture industry? I’ve got folks in my constituency — and I know in other constituencies — where it’s very much a part of growing up, the family farm. Going out and picking berries and getting paid for picking those berries. Going out and helping with chores around a cattle operation. No one puts their kids in with the actual cattle, which comes back to a point that’s been made a few times.

That’s: where did we lose faith and trust in parents to make decisions for their children, to understand what’s right and what’s wrong, what’s an acceptable level of risk and what’s not an acceptable level of risk? Where did that responsibility that parents have go? Since when does government always know best? Since when is it the NDP cabinet that knows better than the parents of British Columbia as to what an acceptable level of risk is for their kids?

[3:50 p.m.]

I will circle back to my opening point. That was — as the member for North Van–Seymour indicated in moving this amendment, which I support — that I also really want this minister and this government to hear loud and clear that we’re very concerned about this section.

We’re very concerned about increasing the age limit to 14, in particular, from the perspective of youth sports and our kids being able to step up, often in what is their first job, and get paid 15 to 20 bucks per game to run up and down the sidelines of the soccer pitch. It’s, frankly, no more strenuous than actually being on the soccer pitch in the game in the first place.

It’s an opportunity that I know with my daughter has taught her tremendous responsibility and discipline. It’s something that she enjoys, that she looks forward to, and it is certainly not a hazardous worksite for her.

With that, I wholeheartedly endorse the amendment that my colleague from North Van–Seymour has moved, and I would encourage all members of the House to do so as well.

I. Paton: I’d like to speak in favour of the amendment, that ages 14 and 15 would be substituted with 12 wherever it appears.

Being from an agricultural background, I believe that the government in place in this House right now has already made enough mistakes with the agriculture community in this province with overhanded rules and regulations that are falling into place regarding agriculture in this province.

It always amazes me, since I’ve come here to Victoria to take my role as an MLA, the amount of red tape and bureaucracy that’s being created in this country, not only in B.C. but in all of Canada — how big a house you can build, what you can do with your land, what you can do as a landowner, how old your kids need to be to work. I cannot get over some of the bureaucracy and red tape that we’re thrusting upon people in this country. We’re apologizing for just about everything.

I am not going to apologize for the way I was brought up. I’m not going to apologize for the fact that my son and daughter both started working when they were 11 or 12 years old. That’s the backbone of the agriculture industry in this province.

The people in Surrey that we fought for with Bill 52 and now we’re fighting for with Bill 15…. Yet the minister here is going to the people of the agriculture community in Surrey and Langley and Abbotsford and all over this province, saying: “We’re going to tell you, we know better than your mom and dad and we know better than your grandfather and your grandmother about how old you should be to be able to work in agriculture or in the sports industry.”

I grew up playing my first hockey game at age six. I’ve pretty much played hockey my entire life right up until now. I still play on an old-timers team. My children went through minor hockey. It was always so good to watch the kids — my son growing up playing minor hockey. The neat part of it was that you could never find enough adults, people in their 30s or 40s or 50s, that could come and referee hockey games at six o’clock on a Saturday morning. Same with soccer.

The beauty was that the young kids that were aged ten, 11, 12 learned to become referees, whether it was hockey, whether it was soccer. This was a big deal for them. Somebody actually gave them a uniform with black-and-white stripes and said: “You’re the linesman. You’re the referee. You are only 12 years of age, but we’ve got you refereeing the peewee hockey game on Saturday morning at eight o’clock.”

[3:55 p.m.]

These kids were so excited. To get your first paycheque, whether you’re refereeing soccer or whether you’re refereeing hockey, is a big deal. And it’s a big deal to the associations, because they can’t find people that are 18 or 19. They’ve got better things to do on a Friday night than get up on Saturday morning to referee games. So it was great to see these young people given the opportunity to become referees of ice hockey, ringette, soccer and all these different sports that we’re involved in.

Growing up on the farm, as I did — I’m still living on the farm that I was born and raised on — we had dairy cattle, we had sheep, and we had a huge chicken operation. My dad, my grandfather, were in the layers. We produced eggs. The next-door neighbours, right across the street, were dairy farmers. Literally, as a farm kid — that’s what’s so great about growing up on a farm — we were driving pickup trucks when we were 12 and 13 years old. I think we put blocks on our shoes so we could reach the gas pedal.

This is what we need to get back to. Quit creating bureaucracy and red tape and more rules about how big a house you can have and all these different things.

Surely the minister understands, from an agricultural background…. Look at the families of the South Asian community that go out in the summertime — grandma and grandpa that go because they enjoy picking berries on the blueberry farms. They take their grandsons and their granddaughters with them to earn a few bucks. Getting your first paycheque at age 12 or 13 or 14 is so important.

Think of the things that kids are getting into nowadays who aren’t getting their first jobs. Look at the gangs we have in this province. Look at the social issues we have with kids that are sitting around on a Friday night and a Saturday night and that have never even contemplated getting a job. What do they do? They get mixed up with some kids that are maybe into the bad end of town. “Let’s go do this. Maybe we’ll do a B and E at a local convenience store or something.” This is where kids get into a bad way — by not getting into the fact that they have a job at a young age.

We’ve talked this afternoon about kids getting their first job at McDonald’s or at a fast-food restaurant, but today I want to talk a bit about children and agriculture.

When I grew up, as I said, we learned to do a lot of things at a young age. We were proud to have that opportunity. I remember at age ten, 11, 12 years old, we were always out picking potatoes for the neighbours. My parents taught us how to milk cows, how to do chores. Then as time went on, the neighbours would come and say: “Hey, I need some extra help. Would you come and work for me?” It was so cool to have the opportunity to have a job at a young age, well below the age of 16, and to be able to get that paycheque.

As a farm kid, that paycheque meant so much. You’d open up your bank account. I don’t know if some of you remember before ATMs and whatnot. You’d go to the bank on Friday afternoon with your little book, and you’d check to see how much money you had in your bank account.

It was so important to have that opportunity, when I was a kid growing up, to have all these different jobs before I reached the age of 16. It just gave you such a good feeling to be able to earn a paycheque at age 12 or 13 or 14, when you’re on the farm picking berries, picking fruit, milking cows, doing chores. All those different things were so important growing up.

I’ll give you a good example. A couple of summers ago I went to FCM in Saskatoon. A good friend of mine had moved out to Saskatoon from Abbotsford. He’d bought himself a dairy farm just outside of town in Saskatoon. We travelled on a long, dusty road to get to this dairy farm. I brought the mayor of Delta with me and a couple of other councillors. We got out there, and we had a little tour of this dairy farm. A bus started coming down this long, dusty road. Off the bus came three kids that belonged to this family.

I said hi to the kids, and they went into the house with their books and their school clothes on. I’ll never forget the look of the people that I was with from the city of Delta when these three kids, about seven minutes later, came out of the house with their coveralls on, their boots on, and they went straight to the barn.

That’s what good farm kids do. They put down their books. They changed their clothes. They went to the barn, and they started getting the cattle ready for milking time. The kids started doing chores. I thought: “Wow, that’s what made this country great.” That’s what we need to do to keep this country great, giving young people an opportunity to work on the farms.

[4:00 p.m.]

Another example. Farming families are one of the last bastions we have in this country of self-employed businesses that are actually owned and run by the farm, by the farm family. I can tell you that even all over the Fraser Valley, and in my riding of Delta, farmers that grow potatoes and vegetables…. I’ll just explain how it works.

BCfresh is a huge company that you ship all your potatoes and whatnot to, to be shipped out. Farmers will get a call at four o’clock at night from BCfresh and say: “Look, we’ve got an emergency order for six tonnes of russet potatoes, and we could use them tomorrow morning. Can you help us?”

As a farming family, you’re not going to call up your contractor at 4:30 at night and say: “Hey, I need a crew to dig six tonnes of potatoes. I’ve got to have a load tomorrow morning to take to BCfresh.” What do you do? You grab grandpa and grandma. You grab your kids. You grab your niece. You grab your neighbour — whatever. You need eight people to work on the harvester. One guy drives the tractor. Somebody drives the truck. You’ve got six people on the potato harvester, and that’s how you get that load put together to go to BCfresh the next morning.

You don’t have time to run around looking for kids that are 16 years old or phone your contractor for contract help. That’s where family members get involved. That’s where kids that are 11, 12, 13 are part of the family. They get on the harvester, and they help pick that load of spuds that are needed for the next morning.

Even as a kid growing up, not only did I work lots on the farms, but I had all sorts of different jobs. It was fun. I mean, I did so many different things. It’s unbelievable. I built fish boats on the Fraser River when I was in university — wooden hulled fish boats. I worked as a greens keeper on a golf course because not too many guys knew how to drive a tractor. Also, my dad was the auctioneer at a stockyard in Vancouver.

A lot of people will never believe this. At the foot of Fraser Street, there was an old bridge called the Fraser Street Bridge. It went from No. 5 Road over to Fraser Street.

There was a stockyard called McClary Stock Yards. My dad was the auctioneer. At age ten, I would go with my dad, in the summertime, into the stockyard. They actually gave me — I think it was — my first job. I would help to hustle the cattle out of the auction ring, after they’d been sold, and down into the correct pens they had to be in, into the pen of the new owner of the livestock. That was kind of cool, working with my dad at a stockyard in Vancouver, believe it or not. That stockyard, in about 1967, finally folded up and moved to Abbotsford. It’s still out there today, called McClary Stock Yards in Abbotsford.

One other thing I did that I’m pretty proud of, besides all the different jobs I had…. Growing up in a farming community, we had a volunteer fire department in east Delta. It just kind of served all the farmland, but it also served the George Massey Tunnel and Highway 99 almost right to White Rock.

Talk about growing up fast. We had a beeper that went off in the house when there was a fire call. As volunteer firemen at age 16, we’d jump in the truck and go to the fire hall. They weren’t always burning buildings. We saw some pretty horrific stuff. It made you grow up to be a man real quick when you attended horrific car accidents at age 16 at the volunteer fire hall. You saw some pretty gruesome stuff that made you become a man quite quickly.

Without too much further ado, I want to say that this country has got to get back to some realistic initiatives. Cut red tape. Cut bureaucracy. Quit making new rules. Quit making it tough for everybody in agriculture, especially for the South Asian community. This is something that…. I cannot believe the minister would not stand behind this amendment with the South Asian community that knows it’s important to keep their kids out of the bad end of town, keep their kids out of gangs and whatnot, to give them the opportunity to work and get a job even at age 12, 13, 14 and 15.

A. Olsen: I stood and intended on speaking to this. The previous comment there is just absolutely offensive. I just can’t even believe that those kinds of words are being spoken in this House. We’re talking about how we need to get this country back to the way it was, make it great again. That rhetoric is just absolutely absurd. The comments that were just made from the member for Delta South — offensive.

The fact of the matter is, I have a 12….

Interjection.

[4:05 p.m.]

A. Olsen: It’s disgusting? Really?

The reality of this is that to pick out a community in this province and suggest that they….

The Chair: Member, are you speaking to the amendment?

A. Olsen: Yes, I’m speaking to the amendment. I’m speaking to the comments that were about this amendment. I’ll not be supporting this amendment. It’s absurd. The fact of the matter is that the official opposition has pulled out aspects of this, and they’re trying to rile up the tensions of this place.

The fact of the matter is that this province has been called a pariah by those around the world for moving the age of work so low. We are a pariah in the world because of that. The rules that are created here, the official opposition would like to pretend that there aren’t conditions….

Interjections.

A. Olsen: An outcast. The fact of the matter is, here, there are ways….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

A. Olsen: There are ways, for the options that are outlined here, for kids under the age of 14 and 15 to be able to do the things that they said that they are not going to be able to do. The reality of it is that while the former government was in, they created a bunch of laws that then were regulated. That’s what’s happening here. What’s happening here….

Interjections.

A. Olsen: It’s all good. It’s fine.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, come to order.

Proceed.

A. Olsen: The fact of the matter is that what’s being changed here is not as the members of the official opposition are suggesting that it is. It’s very similar to the way that they used to create legislation. They’re legislating the age, and then they’re going to regulate certain aspects of the industry.

I’ve got a 12-year-old son. I trust him. He’s a smart kid. He can operate very, very well in this world. There are certain things that I think…. When I think about him working in a restaurant, for example, when I think about him working in some of the places of work that have been raised here, I have got serious concerns. So as an active parent, I’ll be able to work with my son to be able to pick the kinds of things that he can do and that he can’t do. That’s what’s being allowed in this legislation.

In this world over here, they pretend like that’s not even part of the conversation — completely recreating a whole world over here that is just not even existing. The reality of it….

Interjection.

A. Olsen: It’s not ridiculous. The amendment here is to change the number to 12. Well, our labour laws are already being criticized for being 12. The fact that this government is trying to strengthen the laws to allow for parents and for there to be more protection for our children should be celebrated, not amended to younger, not amended to 12.

Then to pretend like we can come into this place and we can raise an issue of umpiring, which is something that I did, or refereeing, which is something that I did, and pretend like that’s not going to be considered as something that a youth will do. That’s ridiculous. How do…?

Interjections.

A. Olsen: Fire it up.

The Chair: Members. Members will come to order.

Interjections.

A. Olsen: It’s right in front of me.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members will come to order.

A. Olsen: Yeah, it did hit a nerve. That’s right.

Anyway, I’m going to leave it at this. The arguments that I’ve heard coming from the official opposition in support of their amendment are absurd, and I will not be supporting them.

[4:10 p.m.]

S. Chandra Herbert: We have legislation…. The Minister of Labour is proposing legislation which seems to follow the actions of such radical outliers as Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, even Alberta and Saskatchewan as well, so most of Canada. But the Liberal opposition seems to suggest any restriction on somebody working at the age of 12, 13, 14 is somehow ridiculous. Oh, sorry — 13, 14, 15.

Interjections.

The Chair: Member, could you pause for a moment. The House will come to order.

Proceed.

S. Chandra Herbert: It just bothers me that such outlandish claims have been made by the opposition about legislation which, on the face of it, makes it clear that what we’re trying to do is protect kids, trying to give parents rights, trying to give involvement of facilities, and making sure that we actually consult the public, something which I know the government, anytime I asked them when they were on the government side… But they’ve forgotten so soon. I guess they’re getting used to life in the opposition, and I wish them many happy years there.

I get it. It’s their job to criticize in opposition. But when you actually have consultation processes to set the terms of how legislation is going to go, that’s what regulations are for, and that’s how legislation and regulations get crafted.

But to suggest, as the opposition does, that any job should be done by a 12-year-old, any job should be done by a 13-year-old…. That’s just fine by them. The amendment here suggests that anybody is here….

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m going based on the amendment. I know the member is speaking not from his seat, but he never follows the rules in this case anyways. It’s better to just bark out unfounded arguments.

Reading the amendment here, what this suggests is that somebody who was under…. Now, they changed the legislation here to basically say that there could be no rules for anybody who is above 12 years old. That’s what the amendment says. I know it’s a badly crafted amendment, and it’s not one that’s gone through legislative counsel. It’s not something that’s been done in a good way.

I understand the opposition is concerned that while we were in opposition, we didn’t go through legislative counsel. To put it on the record, they never offered us that opportunity. I’m glad that the Attorney General has offered that opportunity for people so we can get better laws, but I understand they want to go to the “make it up, write it, scratch it down quickly and pretend you’re a lawyer,” pretend that it’ll just somehow work.

I worked when I was 13, I worked when I was 14, and I think it worked out pretty well. But that was with restrictions. That was with things. Suggesting that a 12-year-old should be able to do any construction task…. There’s a reason why so many young people ended up getting hit, injured, damaged at work and in front of the Workers Com­pensation Board.

Unfortunately, the opposition seems to be so keen to just allow a process, which almost nowhere else in Canada follows, to continue here. That’s children getting injured. That’s children being impacted by dangerous, hazardous work. And they want it to continue. I think it’s shameful. I’m supportive of the minister’s approach here. And I think that ensuring that we can find good ways that young people can work in a safe way, where we consult parents, we consult employers…. I think that would be a more sensible approach than just the Liberals’ knee-jerk approach to say, “Let’s just keep doing what was the process before,” which led to children getting injured across British Columbia.

I don’t support kids getting injured at 12 or 13 or 14 on a construction site, and I don’t know why anybody else would. Let’s make this clear in the law as opposed to the anecdote.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members, come to order.

Earlier the Minister of Labour raised a point of order and maintained that the amendment moved by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour was out of order, that the amendment was defective and did not achieve the desired effect. As members know, an amendment can strike out words and substitute words or simply strike out certain words or add words.

It is not the role of the Chair to determine if the amendment achieves its intended legal effect. The role of the Chair is to decide on questions of order. While the point of order is not well taken, members can keep the minister’s remarks in mind when voting on the amendment.

If there are no further comments or speakers, the question is, Members, on the amendment proposed by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour to section 6.

[4:15 p.m. - 4:20 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 40
Cadieux	de Jong	Bond
Polak	Wilkinson	Lee
Stone	Coleman	Wat
Bernier	Thornthwaite	Paton
Ashton	Barnett	Yap
Martin	Davies	Kyllo
Sullivan	Reid	Morris
Stilwell	Ross	Oakes
Johal	Redies	Rustad
Milobar	Sturdy	Clovechok
Shypitka	Hunt	Throness
Tegart	Stewart	Sultan
Gibson	Thomson	Larson
	Foster
NAYS — 44
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Malcolmson	Furstenau	Weaver
Olsen		Glumac

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

R. Chouhan: I reserve my right on a point of privilege to speak on the comments made by the member for Delta South at a later point.

The Chair: Noted.

[4:25 p.m.]

Debate Continued

M. Bernier: I want to, before I move on too much…. I know we’ve got other parts to this, but I want to make sure, as I lead into a question here, since we’re still at committee stage…. I definitely want to make a couple of points here.

It was absolutely appalling hearing what some of the members opposite, during their speeches, said. At no time did any single person on this side of the House say they wanted to put a child at risk. At no time did anybody on this side of the House say anything other than wanting to ensure that we have a safe workplace and opportunities for our youth.

For the member for Vancouver–West End to stand up and basically say to this House that that’s where we were at is completely insulting and offensive, and it’s beyond him. I am so surprised.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members will come to order.

M. Bernier: I’m so surprised by that member — that he would do that.

So hon. Chair…. See, this is what’s really exciting here.

Interjections.

M. Bernier: I’d love to get to my question as soon as the members on your side of the House actually stop.

The Chair: Members, just to clarify, we are on section 6, and Peace River South has the floor. Thank you.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. We are still on section 6. The amendment to change to 12 did not pass, but it garnered some good discussion, which is going to lead to a few more questions on this section.

For the member from the Green Party, for Saanich North and the Islands, to say in this House that anybody who employs somebody 12 years old is actually supporting child labour is absolutely insulting to the people out there in this province. This is about making sure….

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, please come to order.

M. Bernier: This is about making sure we have a bill in front of us that’s going to meet the needs….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: You just can’t control yourself, can you? No, obviously you can’t.

Interjection.

The Chair: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan will come to order.

M. Bernier: That is completely out of order. That member should be withdrawing his comments. That is completely offensive, and you should be withdrawing.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member. Okay, Member, you need to leave the chamber.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

M. Bernier: Good thing he left. I’m not allowed to say that, but good thing he left. That is absolutely offensive, and I will be reserving my right on a point of privilege.

The Chair: Member, pause for a moment.

The House will come to order.

Proceed, Member.

Debate Continued

M. Bernier: Now, in light of the few people who stood up during the last debate who were very supportive, on the NDP and Green Party side, of making sure parents don’t have choices anymore for how their children are going to maybe have opportunities…. Everybody else that spoke said that they’re very supportive of this minister’s bill. They seem to know what’s going to be allowed and not allowed.

Will the minister stand in this House right now and give us a list, then, please, of what’s heavy duty? What’s not light duty? I’d like to see the extensive list, because, obviously, the members of the NDP in cabinet have already made this list known to their members. They’ve, obviously, in their million-dollar secretariat, already shared that with the Green Party, because they’re supporting this.

Can the minister at least table in this House the list of all of the jobs that children under the age of 16 will no longer be able to work at?

Hon. H. Bains: It is quite concerning that on an issue like this, there is such an emotional discussion. At the end of the day, we are talking about our children. We are talking about their health and safety. I don’t, for a minute, believe that any member in this House wants to have their children subjected to dangerous workplaces where they could get hurt.

[4:30 p.m.]

The members know this. Over ten years, over $5 million in claims was paid to 15 years and under who were injured at workplaces. We were cited by international labour organizations for a lack of protection for our children — and our regulations and legislation. That gave us a black mark in the international community, but we continued on with that.

Members, you had 16 years to fix this and didn’t do anything. All we’re trying to do is actually catch up to other jurisdictions, catch up to the world. That’s exactly what this bill is trying to do.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I have listed a number of areas of light work. I read that here; I could do that again. But it’s not foreign to those members on that side, especially the ministers, that legislation is passed in this House and then the regulations are developed after. That is a normal procedure of running a government. That is a normal procedure of having legislation passed, and then you develop regulations to deal with the areas that need to be dealt with later.

Why don’t we have a complete list here? It’s because we haven’t consulted with the people that you want us to consult with. B.C. Law Institute consulted far and wide, and they came back with a recommendation that we need to have this type of legislation in place. I could go on and give some other lists here, but again, you need to find and then develop that list by consulting these sports teams and the people who run the sports and the tournaments. Refereeing is one of them that will continue to be allowed.

Again, you have to look at: where is the employer-employee relationship — that’s what we’re trying to work here — and what is dangerous work? We know what dangerous work is in many cases, but then there are some areas that could be borderline. That’s where the consultation piece comes in, I think — what we’re trying to do. The amendment that was proposed here, which was defeated, doesn’t solve it or give you the list that you’re looking for. It simply lowered the age. That’s all it asked for. I mean, it does not solve the problem that you are raising here. That would continue. Even if the amendment were passed, that list would still be developed through regulations, with that amendment.

I don’t understand what the opposition is trying to achieve here. All you’re trying to do is lower the age. That’s all you’re trying to do here. The international community has cited us — that we are offside with them. We’re completely offside with the international rules, the international conventions and other jurisdictions. That’s fine; they can continue to take their position. What I’ve said is that this is what we are doing and trying to achieve here, and that 12- and 13-year-old children can work with the permission of their parent and the director. I just don’t understand where the problem is coming from on that side. That’s what the bill talks about.

Anyway, I could go over the list that they’re talking about, but it is not a complete list. The complete list will be developed after consultation with all of those different areas and the people that are involved in employing children who are 12, 13, 14 or 15 years of age. That’s what we’re trying to do here.

M. Bernier: I’ll thank the minister, first of all — his colleagues, unfortunately, don’t seem to want to withdraw their unfortunate comments — for acknowledging the fact that on this side of the House, we do have the same goals and the same objectives as the minister and, I would say, as every MLA in this House: to ensure that we have a safe work environment for everyone under 16 and over 16.

My one question, then — and I know there are a few more — to the minister is around flexibility. He wanted to know why we put this forward. Part of this is about allowing for opportunities and flexibility for parents.

I’ll give him this very specific example, then. If my 13-year-old child wants to work somewhere that is not on a list somewhere and I, as a parent, figure that I am willing — I know of the job, I know of the opportunities for my child, and I know that I’m supportive, as a parent — to allow my child to work in that environment, is the parent going to have a right to decide what their child can or cannot do? Or are they going to have to, on every single job, locate a list somewhere that may or may not exist at a future date?

[4:35 p.m.]

If the job is not on the list, how do I, as a parent, now decide with my child if they can work or not? Even worse, if it is on the list and it’s in a small community like mine that has a hard time and I, as a parent, have said that I think it’s safe and I, as a parent, am working with the employer of my child to allow them to work, how can I now be exempted from this government’s list that they’re going to put together?

Hon. H. Bains: It is with the permission of the parent and the director for 12- and 13-year-olds. If both of you agree that that is an occupation that is suitable for a 12- or 13-year-old, that child can work, then.

S. Bond: I, too, want to thank the minister for at least clarifying the fact that not one single person on this side of the House would ever suggest that a child be in a hazardous working condition or in a place that puts them at risk. Those were inappropriate and offensive, frankly, to those of us on this side of the House, who work incredibly hard on behalf of our constituents.

This is about the process that’s engaged in determining what “light work” means. Could the minister describe for me the process that he will use to determine what prescribed occupations may be “harmful to the health or development of a child”?

Hon. H. Bains: As the member, who was the minister here before, the Minister of Labour, knows, it’s enabling language that gives us the authority to develop that process. Now, if the member and other members have any names, any organizations that we should be consulting, we will be more than happy to consult and take their input.

There will be an employers group that we will be consulting, a parents group that we will be consulting and workers’ representatives that we will be consulting. I think that’s the process, as the member is very familiar with, that we will be developing and making sure that we can give opportunities to every person out there who is interested in this particular area to give their input and ask those questions. Would this particular occupation be part of the exceptions? Or is it part of light duty? All of that information will be taken in, and then we will develop regulations accordingly. That’s when it’ll go to the cabinet.

S. Bond: I appreciate the minister’s answer. Ultimately, he is saying that the cabinet of British Columbia will decide whether or not a particular prescribed occupation is harmful to the development of a child. Is that correct?

Hon. H. Bains: It will be — after taking input and consulting with parents, with employers. That’s how; it is an OIC. Once it’s passed, you can always amend that in case you’ve made a mistake. You could add; you could delete. That’s what the process is.

[4:40 p.m.]

We will be learning from other jurisdictions. Alberta just did this only, maybe, a couple years ago — the most recent one. We have all the other jurisdictions that have developed this process and developed a list of light-duty and dangerous work for 12- and 13-year-olds. I think we will be taking guidance from them, guidance from parents and guidance from employers and other interested groups to make sure that we do it right.

At the end of the day, we want to encourage children to be introduced to the agriculture industry, for example — many mentioned that here — because it’s a very, very important industry. You want to make sure that our youth and our children are introduced to the industry so that they show interest, they develop interest, and they want to participate in the agriculture industry.

The idea here, again, is the employer-employee relationship that we need to develop because it applies there, largely. But working and helping on a farm, working in a parents’ grocery store, doing all the other chores — refereeing, babysitting, paper route, entertainment industry…. All the exclusions that are there will continue to be there.

We will be developing, after taking the consultation and input from the wide range of stakeholders…. That’s how this will be developed. Then the cabinet, at the end of the day, needs to be convinced that what we’re doing is right. That’s the OIC system — the way it works.

S. Bond: I have two other questions. Can the minister describe whether or not there are extensive lists in other jurisdictions? Do they have comprehensive lists of jobs that are prescribed occupations? Does it include the definition or does it include a reference to the health or development of a child?

The minister has talked…. I know he’s very passionate about this, as are many of his colleagues. So are members on this side of the House. But having a debate about the words in legislation actually matters, because what happens is that this gets interpreted by people. Our concern is that right now, we have concerns about the language in this bill. We agree, and the minister has acknowledged, that we actually care about kids being safe, too, in the workplace.

Do other jurisdictions include in their definition, or in their section that talks about prescribed occupations, the development of a child?

Hon. H. Bains: The ILO convention has that wording. Alberta adopted that just recently. I think, again, Member, it is about us. It depends how seriously we want to consult. We have shown a pattern here of doing a really proper consultation, even arriving at this bill, and looking at the input and the reports from all kinds of different organizations out there who are really serious about the Employment Standards Act. They have a suggestion — many of these.

Now, we will be consulting. The stakeholders, the parents and others will have an opportunity to guide us. We will look at the other jurisdictions, and that’s how we will be developing that list.

S. Bond: Well, I’m sure the minister could understand how we are concerned about a scope that includes not just harmful to health but also development when we have no idea what that means. The minister has just basically admitted that he doesn’t either, but it’s now going to be the law.

It goes on. It gets better, because when we get to the next section…. I know my very capable colleagues will go through and discuss that. Not only that, but we’re now talking about, when we look at hazardous industry…. It’s not just health and safety. It’s the morals of a person under the age of 16. Our point is simply that this is going to become law in British Columbia, and not one person in this Legislature, including the minister, can describe exactly what it means.

That is a concern for us, and it should be. It’s not about whether or not we want children to be safe. It’s about how that is going to be done. What are the rules? How do we understand what that actually means — the development of a child? I know that I don’t have expertise, despite having been a very long-term cabinet minister. I’m not in a position to decide whether or not…. I’m certain this minister isn’t either.

[4:45 p.m.]

Now cabinet is going to decide after hearing from somebody about what that means. Words matter, and the minister knows that.

My last question relates to the issue of director’s permission. I would like to know whether there’s been any modelling done or any homework done. Because what this legislation, again, says in sub (2) is: “A person must not employ a child who is under 14 years of age without the director’s permission.” Could the minister explain to us how many…?

You know, if we just look at this bill from a broader perspective, we’re talking about countless jobs that kids do. There’s no prescribed list anywhere, the minister has said, so we’re going to have somebody go through and create a giant list of what’s on and what’s off. Not only that but employers now, if they’re going to hire a young person under the age of 14, have to get the director’s permission to do that.

Has there been any modelling done? What kind of workload does that entail for government? Who’s the director? And how on earth are employers across British Columbia, including hockey organizations who are going to, for example, “hire” — in quotations — referees…? Do they now have to write to the government and provide forms for every single young person who’s going to lace up a pair of skates and become a referee?

Hon. H. Bains: The member knows full well, being an ex–Minister of Labour, that the director issued permits before. The only thing we’re doing is changing the age. So that process remains. Before, it was required for anyone under 12 that director permission was needed. So that process is in place. That system is in place right now. All we are doing is raising the age from 12 to 16 — and then director’s and parent’s permission for anyone under 14. And 14 and 15 do not require a director’s permission.

I mean, we’re not reinventing the wheel here. The system is already in place. All we are trying to do is catch up to other jurisdictions and international convention, which we have been cited for time and again. That’s the only difference. The system’s already in place. We inherited the system that was there when I became the minister. That system isn’t changing.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that. The question was actually: has any modelling been done? The minister, the ministry, the government is adding a whole new class of kids to that process. So the question I asked was if anyone has done any modelling to look at the impact of workload, the impact on employers who hire children who are now captured in this category.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: One thing we do know is the number of permits that were issued up until now. We also know what the other jurisdictions are doing. Certainly it will increase the workload, because now there will be more applications for permits. But we received extra resources in the last budget, so we’re fully set for it.

I think the idea here, Member, is that we want to make sure that we consult the right people, that we make sure we get the information we need so that we can develop the right kind of model so that our children will be, at the end of the day, again, safe when they go to work, and their health and safety is protected.

J. Thornthwaite: I just want to clarify. I think I heard what the minister said, but because I don’t have Hansard here, I can’t clarify it. This bill is all about interpretation. The only reason why I brought up all of this list of soccer associations in British Columbia is because they looked at the bill and thought and interpreted it that all of the referees that are under the age of 16 would not be allowed anymore, once this bill is passed, to referee in British Columbia. That’s what they think.

What I would like to get on the record from the minister is: is the minister confirming that the youth referees, starting at the age of 12, will be allowed to do so?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I think the important part here is that there has to be an employer-employee relationship, okay? A 12- or 13-year-old refereeing will be allowed by having a permit from the director and from the parents.

J. Thornthwaite: My question is, then: with regards to these youth soccer associations, or hockey or whatever, who is the director?

Hon. H. Bains: It’s the employment standards branch.

Section 6 approved on division.

On section 7.

J. Martin: In this section, we have “hazardous work” and we have “hazardous industry” both being defined by: “…is likely to be harmful to the health, safety or morals of a person under 16 years of age.”

Can the minister please explain to the House what this means — harmful to the morals? What morals? Whose morals?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Again, we are following the International Labour Organization convention. I think what we are looking at is where liquor is served and the adult entertainment industry, that kind of stuff.

J. Martin: Well, in my three decades teaching criminology, I came across an awful lot of definitions and understanding of morals and morality, and we’ve certainly seen changes with that through popular culture, through literature, through entertainment, through the film industry. Basically, from the beginning of the recorded word, we’ve seen shifting definitions of morals and what constitutes moral upbringing, what constitutes corruption of morals.

I’m wondering what definition the ministry is going to land on here, because this is quite transitory, and should this government go the full term till the fall of 2021, I suspect that there are going to be some new definitions of what is and is not moral in an ever-changing, ever-evolving society. So where is this definition coming from? Is this a new definition? Is this the ministry’s preference over a previous definition?

Hon. H. Bains: The word “morals” was in the international convention. So that’s where we picked that up. Again, as we had the debate over the previous section, we will be consulting widely so that we get the input and the presentations from people involved who would be helping us. Then we would…. Actually, again, it is enabling language for us to go out there and consult and come back and put some language together so that we are protecting children and their health and safety.

J. Martin: We have a recurring theme with this piece of legislation. There’s an awful lot of unknowns. There’s an awful lot of very vague terminology without any fixed definitions, and we have another one in section 7, talking about hazardous industry and hazardous work. I don’t know if the minister has ever been around a commercial deep fryer, but I can tell you that that’s a pretty hazardous place to be, and working the deep fryer in McDonald’s is probably the first employment of the majority of young people in North America. So who’s going to come up with the definition of dangerous or hazardous work, hazardous industry?

Hon. H. Bains: I think, again, we are working in the same theme as previously. Again, we will be consulting, and, again, the definition of hazardous work and a hazardous industry will be developed through consultation. We will work with the WCB as well, because they have quite a bit of knowledge and expertise in helping us where these children can be working, what is considered to be hazardous for them.

Member, as you know, I have said this before. The WCB paid $5 million in ten years to those who are 14 and 15 years and under who are injured at workplaces. So I think the purpose here is to ensure that we don’t subject our youth to workplaces that are hazardous for them and that are not considered to be safe and healthy for them.

J. Martin: Okay. So we’re of the understanding that this is a work in progress with a lot of “to be determined at a later date” pieces to it. What is that later date? When are we going to have some regulations and some completed definitions in place so that people are very clear on what this legislation means?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the need to develop the timelines would be balanced by the need to fix this problem and, at the same time, to have a proper consultation. So we will have a proper consultation. Through that consultation…. My goal is to do it as soon as we can, after having all of the information available to develop these regulations. I think it will be determined — how long it will take. Again, I don’t want to put a time limit on it, because somebody could come back with “That’s not enough time to consult.”

The idea here is to reach out to as many people as possible who are concerned about this issue, and then we develop the regulations that are the right thing to do to fix this problem.

Personal Statements

CLARIFICATION OF COMMENTS
MADE IN THE HOUSE

I. Paton: I made some comments earlier in this debate….

The Chair: You’re not on section 8? You are making a comment.

I. Paton: A comment.

The Chair: Okay. Proceed.

I. Paton: I made some comments earlier in this debate. I would like to correct a misunderstanding of my comment regarding youth under 16 having the opportunity to have a paying job. Families of all ethnicities have kids who work on farms.

Many families in my constituency are South Asian. It was my intention to portray that all youth of any ethnicity or in any municipality in B.C. need to keep busy with the opportunity to work.

Debate Continued

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

J. Martin: To the minister, when will the registration process be available for which a person operating a temporary help agency can become fully licensed?

Hon. H. Bains: Part of this will require developing infrastructure, a website and where these agencies can find help and come and register and then get licensed. So it’ll take some time, but we’re looking at some time later this year.

J. Martin: Has there been any thought given to what types of licensing fees and other monetary costs associated with this step of the legislation?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Section 36, actually, going down further…. The existing section, 127(2), gives us the authority to establish terms and conditions for licences. That hasn’t been determined yet. I think that will be part of the consultation, depending on how many there are.

Just like with the temporary foreign workers, we started that process, and we are doing that with the recruiters right now. That process is almost over now, and then we will be looking for the employers to register, which will be some time in the fall. The same thing will apply here. We will develop the terms and conditions for licences, and then that will be developed later.

Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

J. Martin: To the minister, what other jurisdictions have similar provisions on gratuities that resemble what’s being proposed in this section?

Hon. H. Bains: Newfoundland, Labrador, Quebec and Ontario have it. I think the member probably knows that the B.C. Law Institute report unanimously recommended these changes.

J. Martin: What “prescribed employees or classes of employees” are being considered exempt from receiving gratuities? That’s word for word in the section?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, proposed section 30.4(2) of the act provides for the power to make regulations regarding “prescribed employees or classes of employees” who are prohibited from taking part in pooled gratuities.

Right now there are no regulations that are contemplated at this time. But this will give us the enabling language. Again, in the event that we need to fix that area, then we can do that.

[5:10 p.m.]

J. Martin: I’m curious about those situations where the owner may, during a busy time of the evening or the afternoon, jump in behind the counter and wash some glasses, take some orders, fill some drinks, etc., and then once things kind of settle down and everyone’s caught up, goes back to his paperwork upstairs. No one’s really clocking. This could be 15 minutes a day. It could be a couple of hours a day.

If the owner decided that they were going to share in the tip pool because they’re performing some of the same work that servers are doing down there, what would be the process to calculate what portion of the tip this person may be entitled to?

Hon. H. Bains: I think that the intent behind here is this. The owner…. There are mom-and-pop coffee shops all over the place. If they’re doing exactly the same work as their employees on a regular basis, then they can share in the tip pool. But if they are only managing and the employees are performing all the work in the kitchen and serving, for example, in the restaurant, then those are the employees who would be sharing the pool. The idea here is that the owner and the managers who do not perform similar work, the same work, as the employees on a regular basis shall not be sharing in the tip pool.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

J. Martin: On 18, with the addition of this new section, 52.11 says: “Critical illness or injury leave.” It indicates a certificate needs to be issued by a medical or nurse practitioner before leave can be requested, much like compassionate care leave. How much personal information needs to be disclosed to fulfil the requirements of this section?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, I think if you take a look broadly on this one, these are the members who would qualify under the federal EI benefit program, and they need to meet that requirement. So I think that it’s just sufficient information so the employer understands that there is an illness in the family. And if they are satisfied that they need to care for that member, they can do that.

Again, the medical certificate, if it’s required, should actually state that the health of the family member has significantly changed, that their life is at risk and that the required care or support can be provided by a person who is not a medical professional and indicate the period for which the family member will need care. Again, like I said, the requirement is consistent with the requirement that the employee must meet or qualify for the related employment standards benefits.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

[5:15 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: Just as I start my remarks, I want to state for the record my general support of Bill 8 and the work it intends to do — most certainly on this section regarding an acknowledgment of the very real physical and psychological toll of domestic violence. I believe that this section providing unpaid leave for victims is a very legitimate and reasonable thing to do. I would like to think that any reasonable and compassionate employer would do this for the right reasons, regardless of whether or not it was law. But I also recognize that sometimes that’s not the case. Therefore, I think it’s reasonable to include this section.

I also think, though, that it might be important just insomuch as to give certainty to a victim that, indeed, they were eligible for that and shouldn’t feel like they couldn’t ask for that or be fearful that they would be at risk of losing their job and their support. So, broadly, I support this section.

Of course, as I noted in second reading, I believe there was an oversight. Back in 2015 when our government introduced an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act respecting domestic violence, I believe it was an oversight at that time to not include sexual violence. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has proposed an act to fix that, and I’m supportive of that, of course.

Likewise, I’ll propose an amendment here today. Hon. Chair, I’ll move it to section 19 standing in my name on the order paper with a note that there is a slight correction in punctuation under the definition of “intimate partner” that strikes out “, or” and replaces it with a semicolon.

[SECTION 19, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

19 The following section is added:

Leave respecting domestic or sexual violence

52.5 (1) In this section:

“child” means a person under 19 years of age;

“domestic or sexual violence” includes

(a) physical abuse by an intimate partner or by a family member, including forced confinement or deprivation of the necessities of life, but not including the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or others from harm,

(b) sexual abuse by an intimate partner or by a family member any person,

(c) attempts to physically or sexually abuse by an intimate partner or by a family member,

(c) attempts to commit

(i) physical abuse by an intimate partner or by a family member, or

(ii) sexual abuse by any person, and

(d) psychological or emotional abuse by an intimate partner or by a family member, including

(i) intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats, including threats respecting other persons, pets or property,

(ii) unreasonable restrictions on, or prevention of, financial or personal autonomy,

(iii) stalking or following, and

(iv) intentional damage to property;

“eligible person” means, with respect to an employee,

(a) a child who is under the day-to-day care and control of the employee by way of agreement or court order or because the employee is the child’s parent or guardian,

(b) a person who

(i) is 19 years of age or older,

(ii) is unable, because of illness, disability or another reason, to obtain the necessities of life or withdraw from the charge of the person’s parent or former guardian, and

(iii) is under the day-to-day care and control of the employee, who is the person’s parent or former guardian, and

(c) a prescribed person;

“family member” means any of the following:

(a) with respect to a person,

(i) the spouse, child, parent, guardian, sibling, grandchild or grandparent of the person, or

(ii) an individual who lives with the person as a member of the person’s family;

(b) any other individual who is a member of a prescribed class;

“intimate partner” means, with respect to a person, any of the following:

(a) an individual who is or was a spouse, dating partner or sexual partner of the person, or;

(b) an individual who is or was in a relationship with the person that is similar to a relationship described in paragraph (a).

(2) In addition to experiencing domestic or sexual violence in the circumstances described in the definition of “domestic or sexual vio­lence” in subsection (1), a child who is an employee or eligible person also experiences domestic or sexual violence if the child is exposed, directly or indirectly, to domestic or sexual violence experienced by any of the following individuals:

(a) an intimate partner of the child;

(b) a family member of the child.

(3) If an employee or eligible person experiences domestic or sexual violence, the employee may request leave for one or more of the following purposes:

(a) to seek medical attention for the employee or eligible person in respect of a physical or psychological injury or disability caused by the domestic or sexual violence;

(b) to obtain for the employee or eligible person victim services or other social services relating to domestic or sexual violence;

(c) to obtain for the employee or eligible person psychological or other professional counselling services in respect of a psycho­logical or emotional condition caused by the domestic or sexual violence;

(d) to temporarily or permanently relocate the employee or eligible person or both the employee and eligible person;

(e) to seek legal or law enforcement assistance for the employee or eligible person, including preparing for or participating in any civil or criminal legal proceeding related to the domestic or sexual violence;

(f) any prescribed purpose.

(4) If an employee requests leave under subsection (3), the employee is entitled during each calendar year to

(a) up to 10 days of unpaid leave, in units of one or more days or in one continuous period, and

(b) in addition to the period of time referred to in paragraph (a), up to 15 weeks of unpaid leave.

(5) A leave under subsection (4) (b) may be taken by the employee in

(a) one unit of time, or

(b) more than one unit of time, with the employer’s consent.

(6) An employee is not entitled to leave under this section respecting an eligible person if the employee commits the domestic or sexual vio­lence against the eligible person.

(7) If requested by the employer, the employee must, as soon as practicable, provide to the employer reasonably sufficient proof in the circumstances that the employee is entitled to the leave.]

On the amendment.

S. Cadieux: If I could continue to just address the amendment. I believe that my amendment fixes that oversight and eliminates the unintended consequences of creating two tiers of victims of sexual violence.

There are moments like this today when we realize that despite the vast resources and competent legislative drafters and all of the lengthy process that government goes about in proposing legislation and bringing it to this House, sometimes things get missed. I think this is also an example of where MLAs, even in opposition, have the opportunity to make legislation better. We can have an impact regardless of our status in the House, and I think that’s important to recognize.

I am appreciative of the indications of support for this change that I’m proposing today from all sides of the House. I do believe that this is the process at its best.

Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank the member for Surrey South for this amendment. I think it just shows that when we’re working together, we make progress. This is a real example, because the intent behind the changes that we are proposing is exactly that. It is that those members who have some difficult personal situations at their home or outside — that when they’re dealing with those situations, sexual violence is one of them.

Being a male, I can’t even imagine the trauma of those who go through it, who face that type of violence. Domestic violence is another area, whether personally experiencing it or whether their loved ones are subjected to domestic violence. The last thing they should have on their mind is worrying about their job to go back to.

[5:20 p.m.]

I think that’s what the intent behind this is. The one area that was missed here I think the member has brought to this House as part of the amendment, and I fully support that. I can assure you that members of my government will support this, I think, because this is the right thing to do. It’s not a partisan issue. This is an issue that has been sitting there for so long that we needed to fix. Like I said, we talked about, here, where we are in the eyes of other jurisdictions. We are catching up, in many of these areas, to other jurisdictions. They have moved ahead.

The times are changing, the needs of families are changing, and the needs of employers are changing. Our laws must reflect and meet the needs of those changes, and those changes are fast. But, I mean, these are the areas that we are talking about today, in particular in this area. They’ve been there, with this society, for a long time. Sometimes they were buried under the carpet, and people didn’t want to talk about this. But the reality didn’t change. So I think that by bringing this out and by having these changes to the employment standards….

I think it’s our duty as legislators to make sure that for those members who are facing those difficult situations at home or outside, there is job protection for them to go back to. So I support the amendment, and I really, really thank the member for bringing this amendment forward.

A. Weaver: I, too, rise to stand in support of this amendment. I thank the member for Surrey South and the minister for speaking in favour of it. I concur with the member for Surrey South and the minister that this is important, if nothing more than an oversight. This does show the good work that can happen when government is open to thoughtful ideas that are brought forward. I commend the member for Surrey South for bringing this forward.

As she mentioned, it is very similar to an amendment that we have before us in the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, which was good work done by the previous government, setting up the regulatory environment to allow the breaking of leases. It was nothing more than an oversight that perhaps, in the case of certain conditions that had not been foreseen, an extension and a broadening of what is actually involved in household violence was important to bring forward.

I think it’s pretty clear to me that we have overwhelming support here. I know my colleagues and I have discussed this, and we’re wholeheartedly behind the amendment, so thank you to the member for Surrey South.

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

J. Martin: I’d just like to ask the minister the rationale for adding the provision which allows the director to extend the time to deliver a complaint even after the time to deliver has expired.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The intent here is to provide greater clarity. For example, there could be situations where someone could be suffering from serious physical or psychological injury and they are not able to fulfil the time limits on it. Again, the director will be assessing if an injustice will occur in failing to provide that extension.

I think it will be a special circumstance that the director will be considering. Those will be some of the examples that I can come up with.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

J. Martin: So (1.3) makes reference to the alternative dispute resolution process. Has this been determined what the actual process is going to be, or is that something that is still a work in progress?

Hon. H. Bains: Further under section 25, 76(3), there are different provisions in there where the director may refuse to investigate a complaint if, for example, the act does not apply to the complaint, the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or trivial or is not made in good faith.

If the director decides to take that action, to say, “Well, we are stopping the investigation because of those reasons,” then that’s the end of the story. But if the director doesn’t make that decision of stopping the investigation because of those reasons, then, in that situation, the director must investigate that complaint. That’s what section (1.3) talks about.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again while we make way for calling other business.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:29 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 28 — ZERO-EMISSION
VEHICLES ACT

Bill 28, Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 8, Employment Standards Amendment Act. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 5:33 p.m.

Sections 25 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

J. Martin: With section 29, the B.C. Law Institute project recommended something different than this legislation, where the time period covered for which wages must be paid is from six months to 12 months. What was the rationale for, in this case, not going with the committee’s recommendation?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Member, let’s look at the real intent behind this. What we are talking about is the wages that were owed, legally owed to employees that weren’t paid. Not only is this the right thing to do to protect the workers, make sure that their wages are protected and paid according to the law, but also, all the good employers who obeyed the law, who paid the wages according to the law, now are actually left at an unfair disadvantage over these few bad employers who take advantage.

That’s why all other jurisdictions, or most other jurisdictions — New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan — all have a 12-month wage recovery period. Ontario has 24 months. Before 2002, British Columbia had 24 months.

I think the idea here is that if you pay your employees according to the law, no one should worry about it, whether it’s six months or 12 months or 24 months. But it is the right thing to do. In the event somebody is cheating their employees, they actually pay according to the law, and they are made to pay according to the law, not only to provide justice to the workers but also to support the good employers.

I want to be on the side of good employers, because the majority of them are good employers. They look after the health and safety of their workers. They pay according to the law. Why give an advantage to a few of those who take advantage of undercutting good employers and then having to pay only six months while they could owe wages for much longer? I think that’s the intent here.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

J. Martin: We have, in section 30 here, new definitions for “director” and “officer” with relation to a corporation, section 96(4) of the act. Does this extend to directors or officers of societies?

Hon. H. Bains: The director or officer of a corporation is what we are talking about. It means a corporation as defined in the Business Corporations Act and includes a corporation that, under section 95 of this act, the director treats as one employer. So if the society fits that corporation definition, then it will apply to them.

Sections 30 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

[5:40 p.m.]

J. Martin: Section 40. The transitional provision indicates that the amendment in section 29 apply to section 80 of the Employment Standards Act once the bill receives royal assent. I’m just wondering how many determinations by the director under sections 76(3) or 79 are still outstanding that will be impacted by that change in time period covered going from 6 months to 12 months, for which wages must be paid.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the way it works, Member, is if the investigation has concluded and the decision is made, then this does not apply to that. But for those where complaints were taken in and the investigation has started — the decision isn’t concluded and the final decision made — this will apply.

Also, there’s a backlog that we inherited. There are hundreds of them. Some of them may fit here. I don’t know how many. I think they need to go back and start the investigation, and then they determine which ones would have provisions here apply and which ones isn’t….

Sections 40 to 44 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:43 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[5:45 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 8, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 15, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 5:49 p.m.

On section 1.

L. Larson: In section 1, you’ve kept the same geographic areas from before. So why was it necessary to change the term from “panel region” to “administrative region”?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: First, I’d like to introduce my farm team who I have with me. I have Wes Shoemaker. He’s my deputy minister. I have James Mack. He’s my assistant deputy minister, agriculture science and policy division. I have Arlene Anderson here, director, legislation.

Thank you for the question. For about 20 years, the Agricultural Land Commission referred to them as administrative regions, so we’ve just gone back to that terminology. There has not been any change in geographical definition.

L. Larson: If there is no reason, if they were already the way they were, why do this? What is the implication of changing how we define the area from regional to administrative? If it’s not actually effecting any difference, why are we doing this?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. The changes from regional panels to administrative regions give flexibility in order to have regionally represented regions, and it gives flexibility for the Agricultural Land Commission to bring in expert panels. For example, if there was a situation around a dairy farm specifically, it would allow the ALC to have the flexibility to bring in dairy experts in order to deal with a certain application or situation.

L. Larson: The panel system that was in place did have local people who are very familiar with the farmers and everything that was happening in that local area. Is this, then, just specific to something very specialized and will not be used in a general form? Is the idea of doing this from this level to create specialized abilities? Like you said, the local panels did have, certainly, knowledge — local knowledge. So is the main focus of this, then, to create the ability to have specialized panels?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The change to allow for regional representation really allows us to choose representatives from each region so there is localized representation. Then, if need be, the flexibility is there to bring in experts into a situation. But I agree with the member: the local representation is critical, and we have allowed for that.

L. Larson: If we’re broadening the scope of this administrative region versus the panel region, are there cost implications?

Hon. L. Popham: The good news is that we may be able to see some cost savings moving from a fixed-panel system to a single commission. But again, it allows for flexibility. There have been studies in the past, under previous governments, that show that if you move to a single commission, there in fact could be savings there.

L. Larson: Just to be a little bit more specific, perhaps, on that one. It would appear, certainly to me, that specialized panels would be more costly than what was currently happening to take a look at applications, etc., in a region.

Perhaps the minister could expand a little bit on just exactly how you save money under the new system.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: What we believe is that the six-panel system is a very rigid structure, and when there is more of a workload going to some areas and not others, this new system will allow the commission to move people around, if need be, while maintaining the independence of the commission.

M. de Jong: It’s no secret there has been a fairly healthy legislative parliamentary exchange around this bill — certainly an exchange of views that has extended beyond this chamber in the public. The minister has articulated her view, on behalf of the government, for why the provisions are necessary and commended them to the House and the opposition. I have had some fairly critical things to say about the bill, and we’ll have a chance to canvass that over the course of the days ahead.

What I’d like to do, as part of the discussion around section 1, though, is perhaps explore, in ways that I don’t think have taken place in this chamber since the minister became Minister of Agriculture, the manner in which section 1 and, by implication, other parts of the legislation actually find their way into a bill — the drafting exercise, as it were. It will have application for the section we’re on, but it will also have a relevance for the sections that follow, some of which will consume a great deal of parliamentary attention.

Maybe my first question is, with respect to section 1 and the bill in general, if the minister can explain to the committee the approval process by which the ideas that she presumably had and brought to her post manifested themselves into the legislation that we see here. By that I mean, was there a request for legislation? Was she the author of that request for legislation? Is there a legislative review committee that she would have submitted the drafting to prior to the bill landing on the floor of the Legislature? A description of the process by which she, as minister, presumably said to her officials, “Here’s what I want to do. Now let’s turn those ideas into legislative form” — in this case, Bill 15; and in this particular case, section 1 of Bill 15.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. To answer the question, I received a mandate letter from the Premier. Part of that was a directive to revitalize the agricultural land reserve and commission. At that point, I struck an independent advisory committee. That committee went around and did provincewide consultation. They provided an interim report, which included recommendations on legislative and regulatory changes.

My staff, at that point, worked together and also worked with other ministry staff to come up with policy suggestions that were informed by the work that the committee had done. This gave authority to draft the legislation. It then went to the legislative review committee, and the result of that work is the legislation that we see before us in this chamber.

M. de Jong: That’s helpful. I should say that my interest, for the purpose of this line of questioning, begins where the minister indicates that the committee presented her with a report that generated some internal work. I’m not going to pursue any questioning about the committee or the activities of the committee.

[6:10 p.m.]

I think the minister said that staff took what I think she characterized as an interim report and recommendations and created policy options. I will assume…. But one is always cautious about making assumptions. Those policy options were then presented to her as minister, and she would have made decisions about which of those options to pursue. Is that correct? Or were those options presented to someone else or another body for the purpose of making decisions about which options to pursue?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I presented options to cabinet around policy, and as far as the policies that involved any decisions on cannabis, I have recused myself from that part of the file since becoming minister. And those decisions were made separately.

M. de Jong: To the minister: thank you. That’s helpful. I wasn’t intending to pursue anything other than the bill and the matters before the committee today, but I thank the minister for that additional information.

The minister has indicated that following the receipt of the report and recommendations, and the work by the staff, she then presented options to cabinet. At that point had…? Was that prior to or after the creation of a request for legislation?

Maybe the first question is: was there a formal RFL, or request for legislation, prepared with respect to Bill 15? If so, I’ll ask a series of questions. The minister can answer as best she can or as many as she can. Was there a request for legislation, and if so, who signed off on that RFL, and when was that signed off?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Yes, there was an RFL, and I did sign it. It went through the usual cabinet process. I would have signed it sometime last summer. We don’t have the exact date, but we can certainly get that for the member.

M. de Jong: I’m going to ask the minister to explain for the committee what the usual cabinet process is. I think that’s the term she used — the usual process or the “usual cabinet process” that she just alluded to.

Before I do that, perhaps I should just clarify or ask the minister to help me clarify the sequencing. She signed the RFL, the formal request for legislation, last summer. When did she receive the report from the committee in relation to the RFL?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: As far as the way that the cabinet direction works when legislation is being worked on…. We get our policy direction from cabinet. This gives us the authority to start drafting legislation.

As far as how we ended up at cabinet, we did have a…. The independent committee was able to give me regular updates as they did their work. That happened all along. On April 21, they were able to give me a preliminary draft of what they were thinking. We got an interim report on July 31. That report focused on legislative and regulatory changes.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.