[ Page 8575 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 53). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

On section 12 (continued) –– 8575

Mr. Cocke

Division

On sections 15 to 17 inclusive –– 8575

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Division

On section 23 –– 8577

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. King

Ms. Sanford

On section 31 –– 8577

Mr. Levi

Hon. Mr. Hyndman

Ms. Brown

Third reading –– 8581

Employment Development Act (Bill 26). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis.)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8581

Ms. Sanford –– 8581

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 8584

Mr. Howard –– 8587

TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 53, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 53; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 12.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, as we all know, section 12 amends section 67 of the Health Act. In one way I can see the advisability of changing the section where it says that forest and mining camps and their facilities, such as water supply and so on, should be inspected every year in April or May. We can see deleting the April or May from the act. but to suggest that we eliminate a basic standard of inspection — in other words, calling for a yearly inspection — and leaving it up to the medical officer of the area, is a very dangerous precedent.

The explanatory note tells us that this provides more flexibility, and it does. It provides a great deal more flexibility — flexibility to overlook those inspections. The inspections are made for the reason that we were trying historically, through public health, to protect the workers from illness. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) should be jumping up on this section and arguing that we should not in any way downgrade the inspection service to these camps, and so should the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. McClelland). Let's examine it this year. We know, for example, that we are short at least 15 health inspectors, mostly in the outlying areas in this province. Nine health districts have reported that they are short 15 health inspectors. Naturally, if a medical officer is thinking in terms of his priorities, all he'll be doing is inspections of absolutely critical areas and reported problems. It's not always the reported problems that bring on bad situations, such as a number of illnesses as a result of poor water, poor sanitation or because of poor ways of handling food.

To back off the mandatory inspection of at least once a year at this or any other time for all these facilities is, I think, a very bad mistake.

We know that the tax on our whole system of health care is extremely high. The reason it's high is because of the fact that there is not enough preventive service.

I once held the Health portfolio; I recognized very quickly how easy it is for a Minister of Health to spend money only in statutory areas. The money has to be spent on hospitals, doctors' remuneration and on other statutory areas. Public health has always been an option, so if you are going to starve any end of the system, that's the end of the system you starve. I find that is implicit in this: we're starving that particular end, the preventive end of health care. It's a mistake.

In the first place, it's a mistake that we're running short-staffed in areas all over the province. Let me tell you what those areas are: central Fraser Valley, northern interior, Selkirk, Skeena, Peace River, East Kootenay, central Vancouver Island, upper Island and North Okanagan. Think about those areas and then think in terms of what we're doing when we say that there is no need for a mandatory inspection at least once a year. I'm quite prepared to see the government bring in an amendment which would say that it need not be done in April or May. I think that is not necessarily cost effective, because that way you're concentrating too much of your personnel in one particular job at a specific time of the year. I think it should be spread throughout the year.

But having said that, I believe that each and every facility should be examined and inspected once a year on the basis of providing the preventive service that I think is so necessary. I think the government should think that over very clearly. I think the minister should bring in an amendment now changing it only to alter the dates, but not altering the once-a-year mandatory inspection. I think that's just pure logic in the face of the fact that we do have an increasing number of illnesses and, as a result, an increasing tax on our hospitals and medicare system. Think in those terms, and then think in terms of reducing a preventive service. We can't vote for this section, Mr. Chairman, in this form.

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 20

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

MRS. DAILLY: This section amends the Library Act. I thought I should inform the House; I'm sure that will wake everyone up. The Library Act amendment actually makes

[ Page 8576 ]

some rather major changes. The first comment I want to make on these changes is that to my knowledge....

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we can have a little bit of order. I don't think the minister can hear me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. DAILLY: The major concern I have is that these major changes have been done without any consultation, to my knowledge, with the two major groups involved, the B.C. Library Association and the B.C. Library Trustees. When the minister responds to my comments and questions, I wonder if he would first comment on why, when major amendments are being made, there was no consultation through himself or his staff about these major changes.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not major.

MRS. DAILLY: Somebody across the floor suggests that they are not major changes. I hope, as I continue in this debate, that I can point out to the minister that, as far as the associations involved in libraries in this province are concerned, they are major changes. If you don't understand that they're major changes, to the member who keeps interjecting, I hope you'll just listen quietly for a moment or two and I'll try to point out why they are.

Firstly, I should say to the minister that you are to be commended for one of your changes about which the associations involved are not concerned. It's where you have now given the right to the municipal council to place an alderman on the library association board. There is no objection to that, because the public libraries also have that.

The concern is not with that; the concern is that for some reason it says that that person may be removed from his position "with or without cause." I wonder if the minister could comment on the "without cause." This has brought about an expression of concern from the association involved. They are concerned that maybe through some petty rivalries or jealousies that could happen on any council, somebody who has been doing a good job on the board of management of the library but does not meet with the favour of someone else on the council may be removed for no particular reason. It leaves an aura of uncertainty about the appointment of this member if the council can remove this person at the whim of a few on council. There is no objection to putting the alderman on, but why is this "without cause" put in there?

The other part I'd like to deal with is in section 17. Do I have your permission to carry on?

Section 17 is really the source of a major complaint from these two associations, who, I want to repeat, were not consulted on this. The major concern here is that this section has been amended to state that the sums to be paid for the continuing work of the library association must be approved by the council. "For its approval" was never in before. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the people concerned consider this to be almost insulting. It's not that they don't believe that the government assists in the funding of these libraries and that the municipal council has the final approval. They've always known that. But they suddenly find that through this section there is an assumption that these people who voluntarily give up their own time to run for a board of management of a library association are really being told: "Look, your work in the past has not been fiscally responsible, so we are now inserting 'for its approval' after 'municipal council' in this clause."

What I'm trying to express to the minister on behalf of the association is that they feel that it is almost insulting to suggest that these volunteer people.... They already have major controls on these people through the actual financing section of the act, through the way they are elected and through the fact that an alderman is going to be placed on it anyway. They have always dealt with the councils — the majority of them; in fact, all of them. They have consulted with them carefully before the budgets were finally approved. They want to know why this is put in. They feel that it is almost a slap in the face to all the work that has been done so well by these people who have given up so many hours of their own time to work unpaid on library boards.

Basically what I want to conclude with, Mr. Chairman, is that the associations involved feel that (1) they were not consulted on these major changes; and (2) they do not understand why those two major changes were put in there. I wonder if the minister could comment on this.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, in terms to these two amendments to sections 15 and 16 of the Library Act, I think the member would realize that most people in the library field are well acquainted with these changes. In fact, these amendments are provided on the specific recommendation of the Library Advisory Council, which advises the ministry on these questions, as well as by the UBCM, by specific resolution. It recommended that there be more accountability in terms of libraries' budgeting in specific cases where the municipality is funding these organizations — as it is in most of them — to the degree that they do.

It might clarify the matter if I just made the following comment with regard to both sections. Part 2 of the Library Act provides for the formation of a public library association for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a library in the locality. Presently the only means of obtaining a seat on the board of management of a public library association is through annual election by the general membership of the association. At the request of councils requesting representation on these boards of management, and with the recommendation of the Library Advisory Council, section 9 therefore is amended to provide for appointments to the board of management by the funding body.

Also, part 3 of the Library Act provides for the establishment and operation of municipal public libraries, and it presently states only that library boards shall lay before the municipal council a detailed estimate of the sums required for the ensuing fiscal year. Some boards have interpreted this wording to mean that the municipal council cannot amend the board's budget. Upon the urging of the UBCM by resolution, and on a recommendation of the Library Advisory Council, it is proposed to amend section 25 to read that the boards' estimates shall be laid before the municipal council for approval, and that sums approved by the municipal council "shall be paid over as required."

This amendment is specific to municipal public libraries. It does not apply to libraries operated by regional districts, inasmuch as the regional district already has the power of approval under the regional district bylaw required to establish the library system. An example of that is the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola regional library system. It does not apply to a regional library district established under part 4 of the act, inasmuch as the power of approval rests with the library

[ Page 8577 ]

board composed of representatives appointed by the member municipalities and school districts. Once again, these amendments are on the recommendation of the Library Advisory Council and by the resolution of the UBCM, who want a little more accountability in terms of their supplying the major funds to libraries.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) also asked why the section includes the power to dismiss an appointee with or without cause and to appoint another in his place. I think that's quite a common specific clause in terms of board appointments so that it's very clear that their appointee can be placed there or removed at their discretion.

Sections 15, 16 and 17 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 21

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 18 to 22 inclusive approved.

MS. BROWN: I was standing, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Was the hon. member standing when section 23 was called?

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If this is deemed to be standing, she was standing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, if the hon. member indicates to the Chair that she was standing when the section was called, the Chair will recognize the hon. member. If the hon. member was not standing, then having passed....

MS. BROWN: Just a minute. Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing saw me like this, then I was standing. Was I? Thank you. I was standing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member indicates to the Chair that the member was standing. The Chair recognizes the member way back on section 23.

On section 23.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I gather that this section has to do with the appointment of the new Deputy Minister of Labour responsible for women, and I'm wondering if he could just tell us very briefly what she has been doing since June 1.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Since June 1, the deputy in charge of women's affairs has been busy developing policy. She has had a number of meetings with people interested in this particular field. She has also received a number of concerns and is in the process right now of organizing staff and space in Victoria and Vancouver. Perhaps I'll have more to say about that during estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On this section, it should not go unnoticed that this is the first such appointment in the government service of a woman responsible for women's affairs. Whenever I speak or attend public meetings, I am pleased to find this appointment so well received by the public. In conjunction with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), I'd like to congratulate the Labour minister for this move.

MS. BROWN: I too would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour for recognizing the need of women, a need eliminated by that Minister of Human Resources when, as Provincial Secretary, her first act was to fire the coordinator of women's affairs. So I too would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour.

MR. KING: This section provides for one or more deputy ministers. How many deputy ministers does the minister have, and what is his ultimate objective in terms of surrounding himself with support at public expense?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have one deputy minister now, and this will be the second appointment. To the best of my knowledge, there are only two deputies in the Ministry of Labour.

MS. SANFORD: Is the minister going to continue with that deputy, since his budget has been cut in half and he presumably has only half as much work as last year?

Sections 23 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

MR. LEVI: Could I ask the minister what it means to correct a cross-reference? One day I hope some minister in this House is going to have the temerity or the guts to come in and write things in plain language. I spent three days trying to understand this mess in here. Maybe the minister could tell us what he wants us to pass. Is anybody getting beaten out of something in here? We're dealing here with amendments related to a section of the act which really is commercial tenancies, more than anything. What's going on here?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: First, to answer the member's question, my clear understanding is that nobody is getting beaten out of anything. The purpose of this amendment is to correct a previous cross-reference in the legislation. I'd be

[ Page 8578 ]

very happy to take the member's concern as notice and in estimates perhaps we can go through it in more detail. My simple understanding is that a previous cross-reference was, in effect, a typographical error, and this provides what should have been the earlier correct cross-reference.

MS. BROWN: I think the minister is looking at the wrong section, because section 4 of the act has been struck out and replaced by a section from the Commercial Tenancy Act. Something major has happened here. My colleague has asked for an explanation, and I am very curious to know what really has happened. A whole section of one act has been replaced by a section from another act — from the Commercial Tenancy Act. What are you doing? That's really what we're trying to find out.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: The wording of the amendment before us is very straightforward. It simply refers to one phrase which in turn refers within it to four section numbers and replaces that phrase with a similar phrase with four different section numbers.

MR. LEVI: I would have thought the minister would spend a little time on this. Maybe we'll get the Attorney-General to do the....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a mistake.

MR. LEVI: It's a mistake? Are we talking about the legislation or the minister? Come on. I'd like the minister to answer this. It says here: "...is amended by striking out 'sections 8(2)...." Section 8(2) says: "Notwithstanding that a tenant does not take possession of residential premises, rights under a tenancy agreement are capable of taking effect at law or in equity from the date specified in the tenancy agreement to be the commencement of the term of the tenancy agreement." Now I know that all my non-lawyer friends understand this, but I don't understand it. What are we doing here? It's no good for the minister to say to us: "Well, let's pass it and we'll talk about it in my estimates."

AN HON. MEMBER: After it's law?

MR. LEVI: We'll have the L-G in on Friday and it'll be law and we'll have to wait until the next session to get it amended. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) knows what I mean. I can remember when we were on that side and he used to ask the same questions, but he got much more intelligent replies than I'm getting. Give us just one explanation of one section; make it understandable, because it's not understandable. You're taking that section out and you're going to substitute, for example, section 11.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Has it got to do with vouchers? I don't think we're in the same section, are we? My God, there's a lot of stuff in this book. Take it easy there, Mr. Chairman, I'll be with you in a second. It's just the way these things are put together.

We're even in worse shape here. It says here in section 11(1): "Section 4 of the Lord's Day Act (Canada) does not apply to the tenancy...." What's that doing in there? We're not talking about that. Subsection (2) says: "Subject to section (13)3...." It is not clear what is going on in this bill. It's all very well for the Attorney-General to say: "We're correcting a mistake." What is it that you're correcting? It's an extremely confusing way of doing legislation. Maybe the lawyers understand it, but we don't. I'm sure the tenants don't. Does the minister want to take a run at it and explain to us what the impact of taking out section 8 is? I don't want to hold up the debate, but I think it's worthwhile to try to understand it.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Going back to the basic amendment before us, the act itself in section 4 refers to four sections from the Commercial Tenancy Act. The wording of section 4 in the Residential Tenancy Act is: "Unless inconsistent with this act, sections 8(2), 9, 10 and 28 of the Commercial Tenancy Act apply to residential premises and tenancy agreements under this act." The purpose of the amendment is to correct those references by providing sections 11, 12, 13 and 32 as the corrected sections.

If I further understand the member's question, he's asking what the effect of all that is, and he refers me to section 11 of the Commercial Tenancy Act, which reads as follows:

"Rents reserved and made payable on any demise or lease of land determinable on the death of the person making the same (although such person was not strictly tenant for life thereof) or on the death of the life or lives for which the person was entitled to the land, shall, so far as respects the rents reserved by the lease, and the recovery of a proportion thereof by the person granting the same, his or her personal representatives, be considered as within the provisions of section 10."

Section 10 then refers to rents recoverable from an undertenant where tenants for life die before the rent is payable.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think the simplest answer — and certainly the wording of those two sections goes back some decades, if not centuries, in English landlord and tenant law — is to go back to section 4 of the act, which says that the intent of the amendment is to provide that unless inconsistent with the Residential Tenancy Act, the now-referred-to sections in the amendment, which are 11, 12, 13 and 32, apply.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, all he's done is read the sections to us. We can read. We read the sections. What does it mean? Section 4 of the Residential Tenancy Act has to do with someone dying who owns property for life, and if they die before they've paid their rent or something.... Would you please give it to us in absolutely clear, simple language. What are you trying to do with this amendment?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: To use this particular case of sections 10 and 11 as an example, the result of the amendment as passed would be that unless they were interpreted to be inconsistent with the Residential Tenancy Act, for example, the provisions of sections 10 and 11 of the Commercial Tenancy Act will apply. Sections 10 and 11, read together, deal with the question of a tenant enjoying a tenancy for life, and in the course of that tenancy for life have sublet to an undertenant, and then dies. The issue is recoverability of rent. In principle, it is deemed to be recoverable.

[ Page 8579 ]

MR. LEVI: We're a bilingual Legislature — the language I understand and the language he speaks, which I don't understand. Did the minister get some representation about this issue? Is it from the lawyers or from some irate tenant? Does it relate in any way to 1627 Barclay Street? Is it a subissue that's suddenly arisen, or is it, as the Attorney-General says, that somebody messed up or maybe didn't do it quite properly?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I have had no external representations with respect to this amendment. Officials within the ministry have come forward to say that by virtue of the intention of the legislation, the earlier cross-references, those which we are now seeking to correct, were incorrect, and the proposed references to sections 11, 12, 13 and 32 should be the correct ones.

MS. BROWN: That's fine, except that I don't understand why a decision was made to wipe out sections 8(2), 9, 10 and 28. It says quite clearly that this protects a person who is a tenant for life, or who inherits property from an estate. Why has a decision been made to eliminate section 8(2), for example? Don't read them to me; I have already read them.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Without reading the sections, it is simply on policy grounds. In determining what sections, if any, of the Commercial Tenancy Act should, in the Residential Tenancy Act, specifically be stated to be applicable unless interpreted as being inconsistent, the correct sections were felt to be sections 11, 12, 13 and 32, as opposed to sections 8(2), 9, 10 and 28. Put simply, those responsible for the administration of the Residential Tenancy Act felt that those sections of the Commercial Tenancy Act which might on occasion have some value, use or relevance to residential tenants, and therefore should be considered as applicable unless inconsistent, were the numbers intended by the amendment, and not the first ones.

MS. BROWN: Maybe the minister will then tell us what the policy change is. What has the government decided to do by eliminating sections 8(2), 9 and 10, which tenants enjoyed under the act? What has this government decided to do in terms of taking that away from them? What policy changes are we witnessing? These sections have to do with recovering rent if someone dies before paying their rent. How will tenants be affected as a result of taking those sections out? No legal jargon, just the change.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: First of all, there will be no impairment or prejudice to tenants by the change. Indeed, the amendment should improve or strengthen the position of tenants. I would refer the member back to section 4 of the Residential Tenancy Act. The structure of that section is to say that, unless inconsistent with the thrust of the Residential Tenancy Act, certain sections of the Commercial Tenancy Act will apply.

Let us suppose there is no section 4 of the Residential Tenancy Act. The Residential Tenancy Act would be sitting there with certain rights and benefits applicable to tenants. The question might then arise: okay, what about another existing piece of legislation, the Commercial Tenancy Act, which might have within it a phrase, section or clause that could be deemed to be of relevance and help to tenants? Does any of that apply? The answer of the Residential Tenancy Act, in putting in section 4, is to say that certain sections of the Commercial Tenancy Act, as a matter of policy which might be deemed to be relevant to the kind of tenancy contemplated by the Residential Tenancy Act, should be deemed to be applicable unless inconsistent. At an earlier time the officials of the ministry clearly brought forward four section numbers, and on reflection or review they felt those were inappropriate and that the appropriate section numbers were the ones now provided.

MR. LEVI: If you didn't understand when we started, you sure aren't any better off now. He's a master of obfuscation. Let me ask you something. As I understand it, we're amending a section of the Residential Tenancy Act. One of the things that is implied here by striking out 8(2), 9, 10.... Let's look at 28. Section 28 in the act deals with the landlord's right of entry. There was a long series of debates in this House when we brought in the bill in the original stage: what are the rights of the tenant? What are rights of the landlord to enter? It's prescribed in there exactly how he does it. You're taking that out. It "...is amended by striking out 'sections 8(2), 9, 10, and 28'.... Let me get the assurance of the minister.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I think the member raises a good practical example that will let me more simply explain why this amendment is, if anything, of benefit to tenants. Section 28, to which he has referred, under the Commercial Tenancy Act, sets forth a procedure by which a landlord can move to heave out a tenant. Now that procedure set forth is far more strict and narrow and harsh in terms of a tenant than under the Residential Tenancy Act. Therefore one thing this amendment does is to remove any question or doubt and to make clear that the provisions for the removal or eviction of a tenant are those clearly to be found only within the pages of the Residential Tenancy Act. That removes what could be, if not amended, a very ambiguous point open to argument by a landlord who might choose to try to proceed under section 28 of the Commercial Tenancy Act — which, as I say, is a far harsher and more strict approach to tenants than under the Residential Tenancy Act.

MR. LEVI: I submit this to the minister. We've gone through about 15 minutes of this. It's not easy to understand. He has just arrived at explaining the thrust of the legislation.

MS. BROWN: Well, he's just figured it out himself.

MR. LEVI: Maybe the Attorney-General slipped him a note. That's the very point with this kind of legislation. Obviously everybody's very sensitive about amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act. I got a couple of calls about it. You came pretty close to making me understand what the intent was. If that was the case, why would you come in this way and amend the Residential Tenancy Act in this section? Why don't you amend the other one? Amend the Commercial Tenancy Act. That's what's difficult about understanding. I know section 4 deals with commercial tenancies, but it's very confusing because when you remove — as you say in here — section 28, I think any reasonable person looking at the act itself would think that that's gone. So where have we lost our way here somehow? Really, I'm very serious about this. We're amending the Residential Tenancy Act and all we keep talking about is the Commercial Tenancy Act.

[ Page 8580 ]

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: To answer the member, I think he's just stated — in his own words — the correct answer. There are two categories of tenancy and tenancy legislation in the broad sense in this province. Dealing with traditional residential tenancies, you've got the Residential Tenancy Act. Dealing with so-called commercial tenancies, you've got the Commercial Tenancy Act. To go back to my comments earlier in the debate, as a matter of policy.... May I say that much of the Commercial Tenancy Act embodies principles of landlord and tenant law long established in English law, and the wording reflects that. As a matter of policy, those charged with framing and administering the Residential Tenancy Act quite properly said: "Look, we've got the Residential Tenancy Act; it may be there are some provisions in the Commercial Tenancy Act which are helpful or relevant to residential tenancies." Hence section 4 of the Residential Tenancy Act gets created, which is a section that seeks to say that unless inconsistent with the Residential Tenancy Act, certain sections of the Commercial Tenancy Act shall be deemed to be applicable.

The sections first chosen turned out not to be appropriate, fair or correct. I'm not, for example, familiar with any litigation that has ever developed on section 4 of the Residential Tenancy Act, but it has been reviewed by officials in the ministry and it was felt that the first selected section numbers from the Commercial Tenancy Act were not appropriate. Using the example of section 28, which we just talked about, there were some appropriate sections which, if corrected and brought in under section 4, would be of some value and help to the Residential Tenancy Act, its purposes and, in particular, tenants.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what's happening here. The sections which are being eliminated have to do with property owned by a person who has inherited it and is a tenant for life. These sections really talk about what would happen if that person who owns the property as a tenant for life dies before the rent is paid, or something to that effect. What the minister is doing is changing the rules that presently exist, which say that if you die as a tenant for life before the rent payable to you becomes payable, then your executor or whoever has the right to go and collect the rent and this kind of thing.

He has changed the rules now and introduced a whole new set of rules, and all we're trying to find out is why. What are the ramifications of this decision to change the policy about what happens to the tenant for life? For example, what happens if there is a bankruptcy and all these other things? Really, we don't need to be told we've taken out section 4 and put in section 8, or whatever; we don't need that kind of information. What we want is an explanation of what happens to a tenant for life if that person should die or whatever before the rent is paid. That's all we're trying to find out.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, let me try to answer that in simple terms. The sections of the Commercial Tenancy Act previously applicable and previously referred to in section 4 essentially deal with the mechanisms and procedures by which a landlord can chase a tenant for rent or eviction. On review those were felt to be inappropriate to the Residential Tenancy Act, because the Residential Tenancy Act provides its own mechanisms for that. They are broader, more flexible and fairer insofar as tenants are concerned.

So the sections which, in my language, relate to the procedures and rights of landlords to chase tenants and collect rents or back-rents are taken out, and what is replaced essentially are sections that do not deal with the mechanisms, procedures and rights of landlords chasing and recovering rent, but rather sections that in certain cases deal with how you would determine how much of a rent is in fact due in the case of an undertenant from a tenant for life — perhaps in the case of a bankruptcy situation.

The new sections brought in by way of reference — in the simplest language I can put it — tend to deal with quantifying amounts due under a tenancy, whereas the sections taken out by way of reference tended to deal with the mechanisms and procedures for chasing down the rent or evicting a tenant.

MR. LEVI: I've got some problems with the elimination of section 28, and I am still not clear. Section 4 of the Residential Tenancy Act is amended by striking out sections.... You need a map to get through this thing. The minister, I think, knows what I'm referring to, Mr. Chairman. Section 28 is the landlord's right of entry. Am I wrong in presuming that this section is in some way eliminated?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Well, you've got to go back to the wording of section 4, particularly the opening phrase. Section 4 of the Residential Tenancy Act says that, unless inconsistent with this act, the section — in this case 28 — applies. So taking that example that the member has raised, if we look at section 28 of the Commercial Tenancy Act, it is a section that outlines a procedure a landlord can follow to terminate a tenancy. I think the member would agree that that section is harsher, faster, less flexible, and far more prejudicial to tenants' interests and rights than is the case under the Residential Tenancy Act. Hence section 4 of the Residential Tenancy Act, as it currently reads and before amendment, would appear on its face to be in error because it's in such contrast to what's in the Residential Tenancy Act; or, if it's not in error and there is valid ground for saying it's consistent and applies, it is certainly prejudicial to tenants. The result of the amendment is, therefore, to delete any reference to the possible consistency or use of section 28 of the Commercial Tenancy Act, which is a far harsher remedy in terms of tenants' rights than what exists under the Residential Tenancy Act.

MS. BROWN: I just want to say that I am very disappointed that if the minister was planning on amending the Residential Tenancy Act, he didn't look at some of the recommendations which have been submitted to him by tenants' groups about the kinds of amendments they want. Tenants want amendments that say, for example, landlords can't discriminate against them because they have children, or that landlords can't discriminate against them because they are in receipt of income assistance; they are on welfare. Those are the kinds of amendments that they ask for, and I'm sorry that the minister decided to amend the Residential Tenancy Act and not include those kinds of amendments.

The second thing is that I'm sorry he didn't read the amendments before he came in here, so that he could have given us a clear explanation of them when we asked for it earlier.

Sections 31 to 36 inclusive approved.

[ Page 8581 ]

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 53, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: My opening remarks will be relatively brief with respect to Bill 26, which, as I have observed on other occasions, is one part of a broadly based package introduced by the government this year, commencing on April 5 insofar as legislation is concerned, to stimulate employment and activity associated with a number of endeavours in British Columbia at this particular time.

Through the Employment Development Act, Bill 26, the government of British Columbia is establishing a new Cabinet Committee on Employment Development. The committee, incidentally, is chaired by my colleague the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), with a wide base drawn from cabinet. The new cabinet committee's responsibilities include a very wide spectrum of activities which will promote immediate stimulation of new employment opportunities, consistent with the short-term problems in which we find ourselves and, more importantly, with building the long-term economic base of the province of British Columbia.

As I indicated a few moments ago, the introduction of this bill, along with the complementary Housing and Employment Development Financing Act, reflects this government's determination to provide more jobs for the people of the province of British Columbia. The Housing and Employment Development Financing Act has established a new financing authority to fund job initiatives which will be coordinated in large measure by the cabinet committee that I've referred to in this context.

Additionally, the cabinet committee's responsibilities and activities include coordinating the expenditure of a $132.9 million employment account appropriated under the act. These funds will be applied over a wide range of government programs, including apprenticeship training, job creation, silviculture in the forest sector and vocational rehabilitation for workers injured on the job. Second, the committee will channel the province's substantial capital-spending program into regions of the province hardest hit by unemployment. Third, the committee will oversee the development of effective manpower planning, training and forecasting. Fourth, it will coordinate negotiations with other governments to generate specific job-creation measures and initiatives. Fifth, it will coordinate and review various ministry employment programs to ensure an integrated, cost-effective approach to the development of that policy, and then the implementation of the programs. Finally, there will be ongoing meetings with various delegations, representatives of local government, community groups, employees and trade unions on job creation initiatives and opportunities.

In summary, this legislation establishing and formalizing the new Cabinet Committee on Employment Development is to play and, in fact, is already playing a key role in the province achieving its full economic potential in both the short and long term. Recognizing that the chairman of the committee, the person responsible for the activities of the committee, will want to speak at significant length, I therefore move second reading of Bill 26.

MS. SANFORD: This government is really amazing. The minister stood there with a straight face.... I didn't see him blush once or look embarrassed for one moment during the introduction of this bill, which is a bill that is not at all what it appears to be.

People looking at this piece of legislation would assume that the government is really going to do something about the problem of unemployment in this province. They see a fund established for $132 million, and they see a special committee of cabinet established in order to come up with job-creation programs. This legislation is largely deceitful, because it's not much more than a shuffling around of moneys from existing programs that are funded year after year in this province. This bill provides virtually nothing in terms of a new program to create jobs. I'm surprised the the minister was able to stand there and present this piece of legislation. It is an attempt to convince the people of the province that this government is even concerned about the problems of the unemployed.

Over 90 percent of that $132 million that this fund establishes comes from existing programs in other ministries. For instance, there's the $23 million in the apprenticeship training program which is normally found in the Ministry of Labour and has now been shuffled over to this fund in an attempt to try to convince the people of this province that they're doing something new about employment. How on earth is this an employment development bill when you've got moneys shuffled around from other ministries from existing programs? Vocational training out of the Ministry of Education — $54 million — is now in this fund, which is trying....

HON. MR. SMITH: This is bookkeeping.

MS. SANFORD: You are exactly right. I couldn't agree more with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) on this issue. It is nothing but bookkeeping in an attempt to deceive the people of this province.

MR. HOWARD: Book juggling.

MS. SANFORD: That's all it is. That annoys me, because what they are doing is playing games with the people of this province, people who are losing their homes and are desperate for work. They're trying to deceive them into thinking that something is going to come out of this legislation that is, indeed, going to be of great assistance to them.

The schedule which accompanies this piece of legislation admits that there is only $25 million in new funds. Why on

[ Page 8582 ]

earth didn't you bring in a bill which said that you had $25 million designed to create employment in this province, instead of this kind of chicanery of presenting a bill that says $132 million? It's deceitful. The people of this province are suffering enough without having this government playing games with them with respect to their employment prospects in this province. People are losing their homes. Families are breaking up. It's very misleading.

I mentioned earlier that they should have brought in a bill which presented $25 million in new funds, but even that would have been inaccurate, because this government first of all cancelled the youth employment program and then decided a couple of weeks later that they should really initiate the youth employment program again. Again, this is a program that has been in existence for years and years and years in this Province; it was introduced by the New Democratic Party when they were in office. They reintroduced it, and they took $10 million out of that $25 million, which they're calling new funds, to establish the old program again. That's what they did, Mr. Speaker, so now we're down to $15 million. Maybe we should have had a program that would have at least introduced a bill bringing $15 million in new funds; then we'd be getting down more to the real situation that we are facing. We find it cruel when the government plays this kind of joke on the people of the province — $132 million!

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Then the minister went on to talk about the other program for which this cabinet committee is going to be responsible, related to housing construction. This is the program which was contained in another piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, but they knew when they brought in that piece of legislation that there was no way that the federal government was going to allow the tax deductibility for that program. They knew that; that program is very similar to this one.

Mr. Speaker, they're raising the hopes of the unemployed; they're misleading people who are suffering in this province. What on earth do the people of this province have to go through before people like Trudeau and this government are going to do something about the problems of unemployment, other than bringing in a bill for $132 million when there is not $132 million in new job creation programs? The best they can offer is not much more than a shuffling around of existing funds for existing programs; it's pathetic and it's tragic for all of those people out there. We have a desperate need for jobs in this province, and this is the best that they can offer — a bill which misleads the people.

The unemployment figures, Mr. Speaker, right now in this province are sitting at 10.9 percent, and they will probably be higher when the new figures come out again on Friday of this week. The real total, when you take into account the hidden unemployed, is 220,000 people in this province looking for work. And what does this government do? They introduce a bill that is over 90 percent misleading.

We just received the UIC claimant figures, Mr. Speaker, from the various Manpower offices in the province, and I think that these are so shattering that I want to read them into the record today. What has happened is that in June of this year compared to June of last year.... Now listen carefully to this: in June of last year there were 78,000 UIC claimants at the various offices in this region. In June of '82, it's gone from 78,000 to 178,000. That is an increase of 227.6 percent in a year under this government. We're following along, following Trudeau all over the place, jumping every time Trudeau calls. It was this Premier who went back to Ottawa to push for higher interest rates. Do you recall that? Higher interest rates is what he wanted, and Trudeau listened. He felt that higher interest rates were the solution to our problems, and look at the mess we are in right now: the bankruptcies, the rate of unemployment, and the tragic situation that so many families in this province find themselves in.

I would like to read the percentage increases for each of the manpower offices listed for this province. I'm going to read those percentage increases into the record so that people will know what has happened in the past year under the direction of Trudeau and this government. In the Abbotsford office there was a 235 percent increase; in Coquitlam, a 254 percent increase this June over last June in the number of UIC claimants. The percentages are higher than that, because now so many people are laid off for such a long period of time that they are no longer eligible for UIC and wouldn't be registered at these manpower offices. In Mission, there was a 219 percent increase; 210 in Chilliwack; 205 in Hope; 281 percent increase in Burnaby; 307 percent increase this year over last year at this time in Langley. I don't think the people of Langley are going to be very happy about expenditures on Broadway shows when they have a percentage increase like that. They're not going to be very happy with their MLA and his kind of activities when we have increases of 307 percent in one year. Surrey, 292; New Westminster, 251; Maple Ridge, 244.

We have yet to come down under the 200 percent increase in the number of claimants at UIC offices in one year. There is not one on this list that is under 100 percent. Fraser Street, 268; 10th Avenue, 240; Richmond, 257; East Hastings, 243; Hornby Street, 203; West Broadway, 220; North Vancouver, 273; Sechelt, 223; Duncan, 146; Squamish, 247; Victoria, 206; Courtenay, 196; Campbell River, 185; Port Hardy, 178; Powell River, 209; Port Alberni, 337 percent increase this June over last June. My colleague the MLA for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has been fighting on behalf of his constituents trying to get Ottawa and Victoria to do something about the desperate situation that those people are in. Nanaimo, 196; Kamloops, 225; Revelstoke, 225; Vernon, 195; Salmon Arm, 218; Princeton, 248; Penticton, 205; Kelowna, 223; Cranbrook, 186; Creston, 212; Nelson, 219; Trail, 219; Grand Forks, 150; Fernie, 279; 100 Mile House, 256; Merritt, 201; Dawson Creek, 198; Houston.... Omineca, what are you doing up in Houston? The increase there is 334 percent for UIC claims. All of the speeches he makes in this House are on wolves, and he has an increase in the unemployment insurance claims of 334 percent in a year.

I certainly hope the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will get up and propose some solutions today to that government. The government doesn't have many of its own. The have a lot of juggling of figures and bookkeeping, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) points out.

Houston, 178 percent; Vanderhoof, 234; Mackenzie, 214; Fort Nelson, 227; Quesnel, 170; Fort St. John, 209; Prince George, 232; Kitimat, 187; Smithers, 251; Terrace, 282; Prince Rupert, 191 percent increase.

The situation is critical — it's desperate. They bring in a bill in which 90 percent of the money is shuffled from other departments for existing programs, trying to pretend to the people of the province that they are indeed doing something about employment. The situation is so serious, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 8583 ]

that we have mountains of clippings that have come from various newspapers throughout the province pointing out what the situation is. This article, for instance, from the Province of June 15 has a big headline which says: "In Kamloops They Say Their Prayers — Unemployment is Hotdogs, Beans and Constant Worry." Is the government not aware of the problems that are created by those levels of unemployment, and those kinds of increases?

This one is from my own Comox District Free Press. "Two Hundred Seek Few Jobs — New Restaurant Took an Application Every Minute." They were open to take applications for a few jobs, and 200 people applied in two hours. They had 20 jobs available at the minimum wage. A similar restaurant opened earlier in the year in Kelowna, where they had 700 people apply for the few jobs available. Again, I assume it was at the minimum wage.

Here we have an article concerning a Vancouver personnel consulting firm. It says that times are so tough that not one of 5,000 companies took advantage of its free student placement offer — not one of them made an inquiry. Layoffs sweep mining, and we all know what's happened in the forest industry. Mr. Speaker, we have an epidemic of layoffs. There are more layoffs in a month than this government is proposing to create in all of its job-creation programs. They're so bereft of any new direction or any new ideas, but they're so keen to follow Ottawa and Trudeau that we have this incredible situation.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to come to order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the stress that these levels of unemployment cause in our society is commented upon in the latest edition of the M-B Journal. This came out in June. There's an article on the front page of their journal with respect to what's happening to the people in British Columbias. I'd like to quote a couple of paragraphs from this article:

"Sign of Hard Times; Stress Sickness Increases.

"How are you feeling these days? Headaches, inexplicable aches and pains, tired all the time, not sleeping as you used to, finding it hard to concentrate, yelling at the kids? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, chances are your job is getting you down, or worse still, you're worrying whether you'll even have a job.

"But if it's any consolation, you're not alone. According to Dr. Linton Kulak, director of Mac-Blo's occupational health centre, there has been a 'noticeable increase in stress-related sickness during the last six months or so.' It's showing up in its divisional operations, as well as head office, and can affect anyone from top executives to the guys on the greenchain — women as well as men — and cuts across all age groups. Even employees whose jobs are relatively secure have wage cuts and freezes to contend with.

"How do you cope when your monthly take home pay drops dramatically? You've got a growing family and perhaps the mortgage is up for renewal at 20 percent instead of 10 percent. It causes stress. It causes sickness. It causes wife-battering. It causes alcoholism. It causes vandalism."

It's very interesting that the person in charge of Mac-Blo's occupational health centre, Dr. Linton Kulak, has noted this increase in stress-related diseases as a result of the lack of job opportunities and the costs that people have to face these days.

People look to Ottawa. They saw the new budget come down and found little consolation in what Ottawa had to offer. They look to Victoria and see this bill for $132 million, 90 percent of which is money out of existing programs. The government must be desperate to try to convince the public that they're doing something about this major problem. What else would account for the deceit that's contained in this legislation?

Interest rates are up again. I see Victoria shuffling around these various bits of money. As the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) said, "bookkeeping" is what it is. They cancelled the youth employment program and then reintroduced it using seven separate press releases to re-establish the program at $10 million. Way back in 1975, when we also had a difficult economic time in this province, there was $30 million in the fund to try to help young people who were out of work. The unemployment rate for young people is around 20 percent. They don't want press releases; they want jobs.

This government is so lacking in planning that they were completely unprepared for this downturn in the economy. Now they're scrambling desperately and putting together funds out of existing programs to try to convince us that they in fact have a job-creation program.

Why isn't the government more honest about what it's doing? Why doesn't it say it has $15 million, and that it's going to be using that $15 million to get in on the federal government bridging program in order to do something about housing? We don't know vet what they're going to do about housing under this particular program because the funding, which is contained in schedule B of the estimates, says that there is a total of $25 million being made available for job creation initiatives. That really is incorrect; it's only $15 million. Emphasizing housing and forestry, these initiatives are to make use of available federal unemployment insurance funds, with additional provincial funding, to provide needed employment opportunities. We've been told that $10 million of the remaining $15 million is going to be used in this bridging program, and we'll support this. If it creates even one job in this province, we'll support it.

But where is the housing money, and how is it going to be spent? Is it going to be the remaining $5 million? It probably isn't, because they are also using dribs and drabs of this existing new fund in order to spend $75,000 here, $50,000 there and $25,000 somewhere else. They continue to make announcements on things like dyking and ditching programs, using money which should be coming out of other existing funds. Mr. Chairman, why don't they get involved in creating some employment that's meaningful and immediate? We as a caucus presented some time ago a "Let's Get to Work" program where we had 26 special suggestions in all kinds of fields, including housing, forestry and tourism. That government has not utilized one of those suggestions. They prefer to shuffle money around from other ministries into this job creation fund.

What's the matter with the B.C. Savings and Trust Corporation that was approved unanimously in his House all those

[ Page 8584 ]

years ago? Why have we never seen the report that came in about initiating that program? Why is the government not willing at this stage to proclaim that legislation, to give people in this province some relief in their mortgages? My colleague suggests they haven't done it because it might work. Why don't they quit selling out our resources? Why don't they quit selling raw logs and shipping them out of here when they should be processed here in this province? Why not? Why don't they get involved in more secondary processing and manufacturing? They closed down the Railwest plant.

Every action this government takes creates more unemployment. The restraint program has caused layoffs in the hospitals; there are unemployed nurses, hospital workers, homemakers and teachers all over the place. They're being led around by the nose by Trudeau. That's why they're not getting anything done. They jump whenever Trudeau calls; in fact they make proposals, such as high interest rates, that Trudeau accepts. Why don't they expand their training programs? Now is an excellent time to expand that training program. There is less money in the apprenticeship program this year than there was last year. When people are out of work, the least the government can do is to make sure that they are trained so that when the economy does turn around we will at least have skilled people who are ready to go to work instead of having to import skilled people, as has been the practice for so long.

This legislation is a pathetic performance on the part of this government.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I was interested in listening to the remarks of the member who has just taken her place, and I'm always in awe of the tremendous amount of negativism that can be exuded by the socialist opposition in this House. They continue to talk negatively about everything that comes before them in a positive program, and when they are talking to people they continue to give that kind of negative point of view. The glass is never half full; the glass is always half empty, in the eyes of the opposition in this House. In this particular bill we see not only an attempt but a very effective tool to assist the very things that that member has said are the ills and the problems that exist within the province today.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would like, first of all, to give a reaction to the amount of money.... This is a new committee. This bill sets up a new committee, and the dollars that are involved — as the member who has just taken her place has said — are a small amount. She used the word "deceitful." I would say that the only deception is in the words of the official opposition, as portrayed by that member when she tries to make out that this committee will not be effective and will not do a job. Already it has actually had an effect and has done some very effective things. The amount of money that she mentions — the $132 million.... She talks about it being $132.9 million, giving the impression that that is not a lot of money and that it is just a token.

First of all, let me assure the House and that member that this is the beginning of a program which will, in the future and through the rest of the eighties, be an effective program and which will, in years to come, be built upon. The $25 million that she isolated from that $132.9 million, which we in turn have said is for the greatest number of new initiatives that we can bring, is joined by other moneys from other ministries, which in turn is new money in this year of 1982. This House is debating new money. There is no such thing as old money.

The greatest threat, I would suggest, to those people whom she talks about with emotionalism — and rightly so.... We are all concerned about those people who are out of jobs in this province. There are approximately 4 percent more unemployed today than there were a year ago today. The greatest threat to their job security and their future opportunities is the negativism espoused by the official opposition in this House, because it gives them no hope. It gives them no opportunity ahead of them. We have heard her talk about the need for retraining, and we would agree with that. That is one of the things that this committee can take on.

First of all, let me describe the committee. The committee is made up of members of cabinet. We have the authority to call on other members of cabinet, and have done so, for expertise and help in many areas in these few weeks that we have been meeting. It ensures a combination of natural and human resources in the province; it sets priorities. It can attack and resolve problems which we meet each and every day. We can coordinate programs and we can redirect investment toward new priorities, and we can do all of those things, Mr. Speaker, without delay. I think that the goal is economic well-being in the eighties, preparing for an upturn, which this province will have — and in the next few months, I suggest but also helping during this downturn in the economy.

The changes that this province and this nation are undergoing at the present time, as certainly portrayed so well with the discussion on the budget from the federal government this past week.... This nation is undergoing massive changes in job creation and in economic planning. We have higher energy prices and accelerating technology, increased job-skill needs, tougher international competition and a need, above all, for better productivity in this country. That has been seen so very realistically through the presentation of the Trudeau budget this past week. If that member can in any way combine the desires and the motivation of this government with the Trudeau government's motivations.... I fail to see how there can be any connection at all.

It surprises me greatly that that same party, who will get on their feet and will fight the restraint program which was introduced by this government — the first government in Canada to come to grips with what was truly happening in this country — is also stating today that we need to have changes in our programs. Yet it stands to fight those changes on the floor of this House this morning. You can't have it both ways. You can't have economic health in this province and ignore the restraint program. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that Bill 26, which sets up the employment development program and committee.... It is a committee which is addressing itself to just the very things that the member brought to the House this morning.

I'd just like to correct a couple of things. First of all, the student job-creation initiative has been a very worthwhile initiative in this province. Contrary to what the member has said, the committee took a look at that program, changed some of the old kinds of initiatives taken under that program, and in a concerted way and very quickly — within a very few days — had the 1982 student job-creation program on its way. I'm pleased to tell you that some 1,100 students are on the job today because of that program. That's hardly a small amount

[ Page 8585 ]

of initiative taken by this committee. That's a very useful and exceptionally good initiative — 1,100 students and youths from universities and colleges are at work in the province today.

We also have within that group people who are a particularly active group in the province today. Thanks to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), there is a future for those who are going into high-technology positions, and we have a special job creation area for young people in that particular area which is working and supported by the Science Council of British Columbia.

In the Ministry of Tourism there are tourist kiosks that are manned by young people, and information centres and museums throughout the province which are being looked after by the young people of our province. Our Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who administers the program, has again done a tremendous job of getting those young people to work. The member who has just taken her place seems to downgrade that program, but I have to tell you that the 1,100 students who are involved are very pleased indeed that they're working today.

I'd also like to tell you just a bit about what the committee has done in terms of the forestry bridging program. I believe that program will have a very good acceptance throughout the province. Already, some 20 projects are underway. People in the forestry industry, those who are going to have an opportunity to have a job today instead of being at home collecting unemployment insurance, are investing time in making the forest resource a better resource for when they get back to working full-time.

I'd like to say a word or two about the housing situation in the province, because I do believe it is during a downturn in our economy that we should be building an inventory of homes. I don't think it has gone unnoticed that in the last few months the crisis in housing, in those areas in which rentals were such a need, has diminished. We now have a different side of the coin entirely. Instead of having a nil vacancy rate in the cities of Victoria and Vancouver, we have For Rent signs going up everywhere. That situation prevails today and has been brought on by an economic situation where people who would not ordinarily have been taking places in their parents' homes are now going back to those homes and creating those vacancies.

There is no question that in the next two years there will be a great need for housing, and that position will change just as dramatically as this year has brought a change in the housing situation in the province. I suggest that this is a very exciting time, with housing creating such a spinoff in other resources in other areas, to be planning housing in the province. Our committee is hoping that with the other bill that is before the House we will have the responsibility and opportunity to do that. The Housing and Employment Development Financing Act which is before this House will grant the authority to spend some $250 million on housing.

I would like to say that from my point of view, I would think that the housing needed in the province is the kind that has been long forgotten. Young people who want to have a first start in a home and now live in a suite, perhaps of 600 square feet, would perhaps like to have a small starter home which they could build onto. I am told by housing authorities that these can be built for $26, $28, and $30 a square foot. I see that as a tremendous capability for our committee in order to bring a lot of jobs onstream. I think of housing as creating landscaping, creating retail sales and creating the kinds of purchases which are now going unbought and unexpressed because people have that aura of uncertainty around them even when they have cash in the bank, which all of our savings accounts attest to today. I would just like to say that that housing program will initiate a tremendous number of jobs, and our committee will be very close to that housing initiative.

I also would like to pay tribute to the capital spending program of the government. We talk in this bill of $132.9 million, but a lot of the programs which are going on in building and job creation in the province today.... Many of those jobs are created by building by government. These are the necessary hospitals and schools that are being built at the present time. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when one has some $1.26 billion being expended in 1982-83 in capital spending programs, this kind of program is in itself job creating. Our committee is also addressing those kinds of job initiatives, because translated into jobs, this expenditure will result in a continued construction employment totalling some 7,000 person-years as well as 3,800 person-years of new jobs over the next several years. These cover construction trades such as carpenters, electricians, plumbers, labourers, and trade helpers. That expenditure alone, Mr. Speaker, will increase a gross output of about $2.7 billion after all the indirect and induced economic impacts are taken into account. It can hardly be called a small initiative. It can hardly he called a token, and is very much a part of the economic program of the province.

I would like to share that the committee's responsibility is, of course, to create new jobs by working with labour and management and with the long-term plans of the government. Coordinating the $132.9 million employment development account is very much part of its mandate. It also has responsibility for recommending methods for generating new jobs and stimulating industries with funds derived from the Housing and Employment Development Financing Act, as I have just portrayed, and overseeing the development of effective manpower planning, training and forecasting.

It would seem to me that the member's suggestion about wanting to have more training is simply saying that she agrees with the things this committee is taking on. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) are both on the committee. The committee is looking at the long-term program for training and at getting our people ready for the upturn in the economy, which will be here in British Columbia. Just as quickly as we saw the downturn in the economy overtake the province and this nation, so we will be coming out of it. By effective manpower planning and training, we will be ready for it.

To me it seems intolerable that we have the conundrum of needing skilled workers in this province and this nation and are now having to import some skilled workers because we have not had the opportunity to train them ourselves. In these last few years there has been a very aggressive attempt to put together a very good training program in this province. But in light of the new type of economy which we have in this country today, there is very much more to do. The type of planning and program which our committee is addressing is going to be most effective.

As it happens, there is a lot of waste at the present time. It has escaped governments in all jurisdictions throughout this country, not least this province. To have a proper job-training

[ Page 8586 ]

program in this province which would give opportunities to young people is so very important.

I would like to see the day when a young person could go to one place in the community, without being jockeyed around to a whole series of places, and say what he would like to learn, and get that kind of action immediately. I think that's the kind of thing our committee would like to see done. That has the concurrence of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education, who want to coordinate in a much more effective way to greet the 1980 needs for job training and programs for young people, and for all ages.

There is going to be another phenomenon, one which is with us even now; that is, the retraining of those who leave a job because either the position closes out or the plant closes down. That's going to be one of the largest jobs for people of all ages, not just for those who are coming out of school. That, of course, has to be addressed in a meaningful way, particularly in this economy. So these next two years are very important ones. I'd suggest that the next 18 months are very important for this committee inasmuch as the training aspect alone is one we should be looking into and grasping, and doing a particularly effective job on. In the next 18 months we can be training people to take advantage of the upturn in the economy when it comes.

Another mandate of the committee is to coordinate negotiations with other governments to generate specific job-creation measures and initiatives. We did that very effectively with the federal government on the forestry bridging program. With our $10 million we initiated $37 million worth of job-creation forestry work. It should be noted here that it's not just for forestry; we are also exploring areas in the mining industry which can take advantage of that bridging program with UIC. I think that's a very important thing, because many governments at all levels throughout the province, and also the national government, have that mandate and should be working with all governments in the country. We also will review and coordinate job creation for the future as well as for jobs now.

Another mandate is to meet and work with representatives of other levels of government, community groups, employees and trade unions to promote job-creation opportunities. All those groups have a special need and interest in coming forward with ideas and suggestions, and I know they will. Already we have had the opportunity to meet with some groups, and we will be doing so more aggressively as time goes on. I do think there is a great need in the discussion on this bill to understand that although we have had a very good coordination of committees within the ministries of positions and programs that we could put forward for job creation, this particular committee has an opportunity to act very quickly. With all of the ministers that serve on this committee, we are able to have the quick action that is needed.

I would like to name a couple of projects which I think are particularly interesting to all members of the House in terms of women's non-traditional employment opportunities. In our committee we have looked at opportunities for women to apply for the higher-paid occupations from which they have been traditionally excluded, and I think that the appointment of a deputy minister responsible for women's programs is an example of a positive response to these expectations. In addition, the employment opportunities program of the Ministry of Labour has established a women's non-traditional employment program. It seems to me that these initiatives by the Ministry of Labour, endorsed and supported by the committee, are very important to the future of women's opportunities in this province.

I would also like to mention that all of the bodies that are associated with employment opportunities for skills training and employment preparation.... In reference to such large projects as northeast coal, there will be thousands of new jobs available for appropriately trained British Columbians. I can look at some of the economic initiatives that are going on today in the province, all initiated by the government of British Columbia, which, interestingly enough, have not been mentioned in this House in conjunction with the new committee. That new committee can have a great influence on all of those programs — such as the northeast coat — inasmuch as there will be new positions for those people trained for those positions.

Manpower planning and forecasting is going to be a very large part of not only the northeast coal project but others as well. I can think of those that will take place right in the city of Vancouver and that are going on at the present time; they are going to be needing all kinds of people in the months and the years ahead, and some of those people are going to need particular training in their field. I would think that the training programs offered by public institutions are both timely and appropriate. In this cabinet committee we can improve forecasting functions, like the critical trades study, which has already produced forecasts of requirements for some 28 trades.

I would not take the criticism that this has been a deceptive program as a valid criticism, and I don't think the member would expect that I would. But I would like to say that if we are to be considering what is deceptive in terms of serving the people of British Columbia, I would think that we could not on the one hand have criticism that we have cancelled old programs, which we have not done, and then say that we want to have new programs.

Before us today in this House is a new initiative which has the capability of acting quickly and which has built into it job creation cooperation with industry and labour — the capability to do a tremendous amount to change the economic climate in the province. We start at a time which is the province's lowest ebb in terms of its economic downturn, and that is not the fault of either this committee, this House or this government. But since we are dealing with reality, Mr. Speaker, we also have to suggest that this committee will have the capability to provide — and already has provided — initiatives which have seen people in the northern and southern part of this province and in east, west and central B.C. have jobs, and we will have more jobs in the future. I do not look at those initiatives that we've already taken as either old hat or small; they have done a tremendous amount in the past in giving job creation. What is important is that this committee will be able to coordinate and will be able to act quickly to bring about a better coordination and climate in the province because of the mandate that has been given to them.

I see this as a very important committee for the future of our young people in the province and for those who are among the unemployed at the present time, and who will be retrained for other work in the future. With housing initiatives, transportation initiatives, the programs we have in our natural resources and the people we have to work with in this province, this program can be an initiative for good, for job creation and for job retraining. It is an initiative which can only augur well for the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 8587 ]

So I support this bill. On this kind of initiative, surely the socialist opposition in this House can see its way clear to throwing away some of the negativism that is the hallmark of that party's program. If there is any program at all, it is a negative one; it is that things will not work. This is a time in the history of our province and our country when we all have to make it work. We have to get together and make sure these initiatives and things do work. I hope members opposite will put aside their partisan views in order to serve those people whom we wish to serve, in order to give opportunities to those who will be coming out of high school, university and colleges next year and this year, and to give help to those who are out of work this year and next year, instead of short-term programs to give them unemployment insurance and, down the line, perhaps income assistance.

That is not what we want for our people. For a short time yes, but not for the long term. What we want for them is stability and opportunity. We have that opportunity in the act before the House today. Bill 26 gives all the people in this House the opportunity to rally for the good of the people of this province. I put it to them, as I put it to this House today. Bill 26 is an initiative which all members of this House should support. If they do not, then they are just talking when they speak about the plight of the unemployed. This is an initiative which can assist the unemployed. This is an initiative which can assist those in our province today who want some hope for the future. This is a start to a committee which will, in the future, be meaningful, active and very quick in its decision-making. They have been in the past and will be in the future. I very much ask the support of all members of this House for something that truly means something to those generations of young people who we in this House are all hoping to serve.

The unemployment that we have in the province is about 4 percent greater than it was a year ago. At the same time, in many cases we have retail sales in different areas of the province which are some 30 percent below those of last year. All of that can only be created by the fact that there has been the kind of negativism that we have heard in the last few minutes in the House. There is no question that part of the problem that faces our province and nation today is insecurity caused by the kind of talk that we've heard from the member opposite. Although I don't place that solely on her shoulders, I do say that the self-fulfilling prophecy of doom and gloom is very real in the nation today. If we would have those people lift up their sights and thoughts, take away the negative feeling they have and support such an initiative, I would suggest that we would be going a long way toward giving the hope and security that we need for our people in British Columbia.

I very much support the creation of this committee and the motivation behind it, because I believe that it will give that hope to those people whom we all serve. I would challenge the socialist opposition of this House to do something positive for a change for the people whom they claim to represent.

MR. HOWARD: I don't know why it is that the chairman of the cabinet committee to be established under this bill always looks on the gloomy side of things and always takes the darkest view of whatever is facing her. I wish she would be open and positive once in a while — give some indication that everything isn't as bleak as she perceives it to be and give some hope to the unemployed in this province instead of always knocking everything that comes along as an alternative suggestion. She spoke of "the glass being half-empty." In reality, Mr. Speaker, what the bill reflects is a half-hearted commitment on the part of the government to the unemployed in this province; a half-empty attitude about what she would do with respect to job creation in this province; a half-hearted approach to the problems that we're facing — problems that were brought into being because the Premier of this province went back to Ottawa in 1978 and urged the federal government to embark upon a high interest rate program. The Premier of this province went to his buddy, Prime Minister Trudeau, and urged him, pleaded with him, to carry on with a program of higher interest rates because that, said the Premier, was what was necessary to get this country going again. Well, it got it going all right: it got it going downhill at such a clip that we may end up in a disaster, all because the Premier of this province foolishly and ignorantly thought that high interest rates were the solution. The chickens are coming home to roost. Unfortunately, it's the people of the province who are suffering as a result of that foolish and ignorant policy of the Premier of this province in 1978, which he and this government still support.

It’s also an invariable situation that whenever that minister, the chairman of this cabinet committee, speaks it's always necessary to put the record straight, to clear up the obfuscation that she spreads over everything. It was not the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) who isolated that $25 million; it was the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) who isolated it.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Human Resources is now correcting what she said. The record will show what she said. Look at the the estimates book, schedule B, part A, new funds, $25 million; part B, existing programs. That's in the estimate book. It isn't imagination on the part of the member for Comox, who did an excellent job, incidentally, in analyzing the impact of this bill. The Minister of Finance and the government brought in the estimates and schedule B and said: "Here it is. Old money — that's existing programs — so much money: new funds, $25 million." As the member for Comox pointed out, $10 million of the new funds came from some other place; it’s not new at all.

Secondly, just in passing, the chairman of this Cabinet Committee on Employment Development was gloriously extolling the situation that 1,100 jobs have been created this year under the student employment program. She thought that was a hallmark of attainment in providing jobs for students. When one has a narrow vision — like this government has — of what the potential of this province is, when one has a selected tunnel approach to the employment possibilities in this province and when one does not care about student employment, they might think that 1,100 jobs created is really something to gloat about.

Let's put it in contrast, Mr. Speaker, because that same student employment program existed in 1975. The government in 1975 was an NDP government led at that time by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barrett) and the Minister of Labour then was the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). In that year the student employment program created 13,000 jobs.

MR. BRUMMET: Why didn't you win the next election?

[ Page 8588 ]

MR. HOWARD: We hear that voice crying in the wilderness from the other end of the room. He'll have an opportunity to speak.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) identified this piece of legislation precisely and accurately when he called across the floor at the earlier stages of the debate when the member for Comox was giving her analytical view of the bill. He indicated that it was bookkeeping. That's precisely the identification of this piece of legislation — bookkeeping, or, more appropriately, book juggling.

I have some other remarks to make following along in another direction and I wonder if I might, therefore, move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.