[ Page 6657 ]

CONTENTS

Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill M219). Mr.

Howard

Introduction and first reading –– 6657

Oral Questions

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6657

Brunette River toxic waste contamination. Mrs. Wallace –– 6658

Tabling Documents –– 6659

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

On vote 57: minister's office –– 6659

Mr. Blencoe

Lottery Corporation Act (Bill 43). Committee stage –– 6669

Mr. Lockstead

Third reading

Natural Gas Price Act (Bill 52). Committee stage 6670

Third reading

Coal Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 51). Committee stage 6670

Third reading

An Act To Amend The Trinity Western College Act (Bill PR406). Committee stage 6670

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. Segarty)

On vote 51: minister's office –– 6670

Hon. Mr. Segarty

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Michael

Tabling Documents –– 6682

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries this afternoon we have Mr. Alejandro Monge, who is a 17-year old exchange student from Spain, where he attends grade 11. He's accompanied by his British Columbia guardians, Ron and Mary Parkinson of Nanaimo and Mr. Charles Giordano from Delta. They have come to Victoria in order that Alejandro may see exactly what our provincial Legislature is about. We bid them special welcome.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery this afternoon are two constituents of mine, Mr. Vince and Mr. Greg Waring. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like all members to bid a happy welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Robert Bevan from Port Alfred, Cape Province, South Africa, and Mr. Peter Bevan. They are the in-laws of Mrs. Eileen Bevan in the Clerks' office. Welcome to them.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the House would like to join with me in wishing a very speedy recovery to Mrs. Dorothy Macdonald.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Mr. Howard presented a bill intituled Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act Amendment Act, 1985.

MR. HOWARD: The purpose of the bill is to designate that minister as the one who forthwith is to communicate to the government of Canada the opinion of the Legislative Assembly that the proposal by the government of Canada to modify the indexation of old age security payments is an imposition upon the living standards of our senior citizens and should be withdrawn from the federal government's current budget.

Bill M219, Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act Amendment Act, 1985, introduced, read a first time unanimously on a division and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM: To the Minister of Tourism. The latest tragedy to strike the Expo world's fair comes with the news that Specialty Mfg., who has been awarded a contract of some $75 million in souvenir contracts, virtually without tender, is purchasing half of its T-shirt requirements from Korea.

Would the minister explain how contracts awarded to foreign firms could possibly create jobs for British Columbians?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I question the member's use of the word tragedy; it was anything but. Also, the member is wrong when he says the contract was awarded virtually without tender. That is incorrect.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Again, on my question to the minister, the minister hasn't explained how the awarding of such contracts to foreign firms can create jobs for British Columbians. I think that's the critical issue here.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, Specialty Mfg. is not a foreign firm.

MR. MacWILLIAM: One more time with feeling: the contract has been awarded to Specialty Mfg., who is now subcontracting — or in the process of subcontracting — to a firm in Korea to supply the T-shirts. A supplement to the minister: has the minister decided to table the contract between Expo and Specialty Mfg., which apparently has no provision for local employment?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, again the member's assumption is incorrect. Specialty Mfg. has given an undertaking to Expo 86 Corporation to purchase goods and services in British Columbia and in Canada wherever possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How's the Honda?

MR. MacWILLIAM: For the interest of the members, I also have a Pontiac and a Ford truck. Again, the minister has refused to answer the question, the question being — and again once more with feeling — will the minister table the contract between Expo and Specialty Mfg.?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister told the House last week that the monopoly contract with Specialty Mfg. was awarded following a public tender in which a number of bids were submitted. This statement has since been flatly contradicted by Expo finance chairman Peter Brown. Has the minister decided to reconsider his answer, and will he begin to conduct public business as if the public interest really mattered?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, as I said last week — and I will reiterate — the tender for the souvenirs and novelties at Expo was public. There were several interested parties and it was narrowed down to two, Specialty and another B.C. company. Subsequently, the other company withdrew its bid in that case. A very equitable deal for Expo 86 was hammered out between the Expo 86 Corporation and Specialty Mfg. which stands to benefit the corporation by approximately $22 million. My statement still stands, and to the very best of my knowledge that is correct.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another supplementary. Again the minister seems to be at odds with his own board. I simply ask if he is aware of the statement that Mr. Brown has made, and can the minister explain why continually the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing in this situation? Does the minister have control of this situation?

[ Page 6658 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer to the very last part of the member's statement, Mr. Speaker, is yes.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another question to the same minister. The business community in British Columbia is very upset that this government has placed Specialty Mfg. as a buffer between the Expo 86 Corporation and the suppliers. The normal rules of public tendering will be bypassed through this arrangement. Has the minister decided to respond to these concerns by B.C. business people, who have virtually been hung out to dry by this government?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I said publicly on television last week — I think it was Thursday — that I would gladly examine any complaint or query from any British Columbia businessperson who feels they have not received fair treatment from the Expo 86 Corporation. I did not say that we would necessarily reopen contracts, but I did say that we would take a close look at every proposal and make sure everyone was treated fairly. Even that member knows full well that we cannot possibly deal at the Expo 86 Corporation with every businessperson in this province; it would be physically impossible. But we do wish to deal with as many as possible, and I make the statement here again that anyone in this province who feels they have not been fairly treated or had a fair hearing by the Expo Corporation need only contact my office, and I will make sure they either have had or will have a fair hearing.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another question to the minister, again regarding the purchase of Expo T-shirts from Korea. Expo operations vice-president Jeff McNair has said that Expo — not Specialty Mfg. — has the final say on what is sold at the fair. In view of the statement and in view of the lost employment opportunities for Canadian manufacturers as a result of the purchase of T-shirts from Korea, has the minister decided to reconsider this position?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, Expo 86 reserves the right to examine every product sold at the fair or with the Expo 86 logo on it. We want to make sure that for the price being paid by consumers they receive the very highest value possible. We realize that some goods will be made in Canada; wherever possible they will be. But we also realize, Mr. Speaker, that we must in some cases trade abroad. After all, we are encouraging trade with our Pacific Rim neighbours, and we want to shut neither Canadians, British Columbians or our trading partners in the Pacific Rim out of Expo 86.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister is responsible, through this House, for approximately $1.5 billion in public money at Expo. As the Vancouver Province has observed, secrecy breeds corruption and suspicion is never far away. Has the minister decided to lift the veil of suspicion regarding Expo by coming clean and tabling both the souvenir contract and the contract for the printing of the souvenir guidebook?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the only veil of secrecy regarding Expo, I think, is in that member's mind. Every decision of the Expo 86 Corporation board has been made public. He is also incorrect in the amount of the budget that the Expo 86 Corporation has regarding public moneys. It has been on record now for some 18 months as being exactly $802 million.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The allocation is approximately $1.5 billion. However, the minister still has not answered as to whether or not he will make public the minutes of those meetings and the details of the contracts tendered.

A new question to the minister. Two well-known local artists were enticed by Expo to prepare detailed proposals for the opening ceremonies on the basis of public competition. Those were both local artists, by the way, in the Vancouver area. My question to the minister is: will the minister please explain the reasons — and the rudeness, I might add — of Expo in subsequently cancelling the competition and again awarding a contract without competition, this time to the Hollywood designer, Tom Walker.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Once again the member is incorrect. There has not been a contract awarded to a Hollywood person, as he mentioned. If he had said that there has been a person hired to assist Expo as a consultant, then he would be correct.

MR. MacWILLIAM: One more question. Will the minister confirm that Mr. Walker has been given a budget for staging the election and the extravaganza?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Any budget ties with a person in the name of Mr. Hamilton McClymont, who has been given the sole responsibility for staging the opening ceremony.

MR. MacWILLIAM: One last question to the minister. Has the minister considered that his refusal to open the books to public scrutiny is casting doubt on the affairs of Expo, as well as on his ability to minister?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The auditor-general, Mrs. Erma Morrison, has just handed me a complete report that she has done, after inspecting the books of the Expo 86 Corporation. I hardly think that that is keeping things from the public. She has gone through the corporation from one end to the other and has given me a complete report on her findings, and I would be happy to table that report in this House.

BRUNETTE RIVER
TOXIC WASTE CONTAMINATION

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment. After some 16 years of community effort, including provincial and federal funding aimed at successfully restocking the Brunette River, a tragic fish kill occurred as a result of toxic waste contamination. Has the minister decided to review the environmental policies of the government in light of this tragic event?

HON. MR. PELTON: To the hon. member, I am as appalled as no doubt you are, hon. member, and other members on both sides of the House, at what happened in the Brunette River. Unfortunately we never know about these things until after they happen, instead of before. Insofar as reviewing the policies of the ministry is concerned, I understand that the rules and regulations that apply within our

[ Page 6659 ]

province are as strict as, if not stricter than, those in any other place. No matter how many rules and regulations we have, there is going to be, you'll find, the odd person out there who will break laws regardless of what they are. In my opinion, that is what happened in this case.

The ministry is working very closely with the federal people in trying to determine at this point what toxic chemical was placed in the river. As we all know, that killed the fish which involved 16 years of hard work on the part of a lot of volunteers, who brought a dead river back to life.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I wonder if the Minister of Environment set a standard when he authorized massive dumping of untreated waste into the Fraser. It has been suggested that this dumping also occurred.... Hydro is also allowed to get away with it. What we need is something to do with this waste. What steps has he taken to provide safe, local means of toxic waste disposal?

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that there is an ongoing program to deal with toxic wastes of every kind. We discussed in this House not too many weeks ago the problem with PCBs and other toxic wastes.

Some two weeks ago I attended a short conference in Montreal with the federal people on the disposal of toxic wastes — or special wastes, as we call them in British Columbia. There are actions underway that will deal with this problem, but it's a problem that in a lot of cases has been around for at least 75 years. Although technologies that will take care of most of these toxic wastes are rapidly coming onto the scene, they're not all here yet. So we can only continue to tackle this problem on a day-to-day basis.

As I said before, I believe it's most unfortunate that we only become involved in these things after they have happened. But unless there is someone around who's psychic and can tell us when they're going to happen, there's really not much more we can do about it.

MRS. WALLACE: It'll be around another 75 years as long as we have that minister and this government looking after our toxic waste.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, this is question period.

MRS. WALLACE: In view of the restocking effort, has the minister decided to provide provincial funds for an accelerated restocking program on that river?

HON. MR. PELTON: No, not at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted for the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs to make an introduction?

[2:30]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I've just been advised that in the gallery today we have a visitor from New Zealand, Mr. Anthony Bruce, who is a member of the Social Credit Party of New Zealand. Would the House please welcome Mr. Bruce.

Mr. Speaker tabled the ombudsman's Special Report No. 12 and appendix.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

On vote 57: minister's office, $179,377.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'd like to respond very briefly to the comments of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who took up the entire time of two members to make two points in his opening remarks.

The number one point was that he left the very distinct impression that as a result of a study by the federal association of municipalities...that indeed we should be pouring vast amounts of money into infrastructure. I would like that member and the House to know that I will be attending a meeting of ministers in August, in Saskatchewan, and that particular report will come up. But I would like to make the point to the member that indeed these problems are not always answered by pouring more and more money into them. I think we as government have a responsibility to make sure we're getting full value for the dollars already invested.

I speak particularly of one area, Mr. Chairman, and that is sewage collection, treatment and disposal. I believe we could get greater mileage out of the money already spent on behalf of the taxpayers if some changes were made. For instance, in many places throughout the entire province we have storm sewers being directed into the sewage lines, which means we are treating basically fresh water. I also believe there could be increased capacity of existing facilities if the manufacturers of toilets were convinced to produce a toilet that would flush on much less volume of water than is now the case. I estimate very roughly that the capacity now in place could be increased by 400 percent to 500 percent if we removed all this water — most of which is quite fresh — from the collection, treatment and disposal systems. It is the intention of this minister to discuss this particular item with the manufacturers of this equipment and also take a close look at those communities where some changes could be made in respect to the removal of storm water runoff.

The other point that was made was the lack of leadership in the administration of this minister with respect to serving municipalities. This member is always highly critical of the administration of this minister and the leadership that is provided for municipalities throughout this entire province. As you know, we have 144 municipalities in the province, 28 regional districts and about 322 improvement districts. So there is quite a large clientele area to look after. I'm not going to speak for the ministry myself or for my own administrative abilities or the leadership that's in my ministry; I will simply read into the record a letter recently received from a municipality, and I believe it speaks for itself. The letter is dated June 5, 1985. I'd like that member to pay particular attention to this.

"Dear Mr. Minister,

"During the twenty-third meeting of the sixth council of the District of Chilliwack, held in the council chambers, Municipal Hall, on Tuesday, May 21, 1985, at 7:30 p.m., the following resolution was carried unanimously."

[ Page 6660 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Who's riding is it?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Not my riding. Does it matter to you what riding it is? Would you like one of these from a riding you consider to be a socialist riding?

MR. BLENCOE: I just asked.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: If you would like to get a letter of this nature from a riding you consider to be a socialist riding, then I'll get you one. This reflects the attitude of all councils throughout British Columbia.

The letter goes on to say that the resolution, which was passed unanimously, is as follows:

"'That a letter be sent from the council and staff of this municipality to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his staff expressing our deep and sincere appreciation for the cooperation, enthusiasm, support, advice and the prompt and efficient attention to such matters as bylaw approvals that we have received for the past several months.'

"During the discussion of this resolution it was brought to the council's attention that the relationship, at all levels, between your ministry and this municipality is of the highest order and is directly attributed to your ministry's outstanding cooperation and support. This discussion and the resolution were reported in both our local newspapers, and it was also included in news broadcasts on local radio.

"Your ministry's efficiency is perhaps best illustrated by the time taken to receive approvals of bylaws. Two or three years ago we were accustomed to waiting anywhere from six to twelve weeks for approval. That delay has now been reduced to two to three weeks, and most of that time loss is attributable to Canada Post.

"Mr. Minister, all of us here believe that you and your staff deserve this most sincere thank you."

I don't have to go on; that speaks for itself. But if that member would like a letter of this nature from a socialist constituency, I'm sure we could get something similar.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to get into letters back and forth, and I really won't take much time responding to the minister.

I did take some time last time we sat to outline some positive agenda for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to be taking in British Columbia. As I travel the province and meet with municipal people in the next six months, I shall be continuing to outline our positive agenda and what we believe partnership is all about.

The minister talks about consultation and partnership with government. It was our side and my office that recently had to send all mayors and councils copies of the new special enterprise zone legislation. They had not been consulted about that, and many of them were calling my office — and had no information — because they were going to be heavily involved. It's our side that has had to inform those municipalities how they are going to be involved in that legislation.

MS. SANFORD: That's consultation.

MR. BLENCOE: That's consultation again.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The wrong ministry.

MR. BLENCOE: It may be the wrong ministry, but when any legislation directly affects the financial health of local government, Mr. Minister, you should be concerned about it. You should have had some mechanism in place whereby they could have known about those implications and not read about them through the newspapers, if they are going to be involved. Constantly local government finds out about potential changes in policy or implications for local government.... They find out through the back door about what's going to be happening, through the media or in some other fashion. There's not direct consultation or, I suppose, if you will, a real partnership framework.

Mr. Chairman, to reiterate quickly some of the things that we said last time in terms of how the approach to local government should be taken by senior government, I think it can be stated quite clearly in legislation or private member's bills that I have tabled in this House in this session. It can be indicated by various motions I have put forward for true partnership and how we can get together with local government, and it can be looked at in terms of the outline, the positive agenda I gave, when we were debating these estimates last week in terms of municipal infrastructure-rebuilding in the province of British Columbia.

I indicated in that discussion, and the minister talked about that today.... He's quite right: it's not a matter of always finding money to do it, but in this case we are indeed in need of municipal restructuring in the province. What I and our side of the House are calling for is leadership, goals set, management by objectives, and a clear enunciation of short-term and long-term management programs for rebuilding municipalities of British Columbia. I would remind that minister what the Premier has said, or alluded to, that he believes in. It's in the UBCM News, the April edition: infrastructure is the key to economic recovery. "In his recent televised address to the province, the Premier stated: 'We won't forget the basics, like keeping our transportation systems and our highways in shape to move existing products and attract new industry and development."'

The Premier is supposedly.... Unless there's no meaning behind those statements, the Premier himself says that's what the government believes in. Yet we have seen no restructuring program put forth by this minister or this government. The evidence is in, the analysis has been done, and we need some leadership in the province of British Columbia to rebuild municipalities. We need agreements with the federal government and between all levels of government to rebuild our municipalities.

Last time, Mr. Chairman, I gave a detailed proposal on how rebuilding municipalities can be the grassroots of our economic recovery. I gave statistics and figures of how it could be done, and why we have to do it, and why it can be the biggest generator of jobs that we have seen in many a year. That positive agenda would be rebuilding the roots of our province. As I indicated at that time — and the minister will not respond to it — clearly, unless municipalities are in good shape, unless local government is in good shape, anything you put in place is on quicksand. We believe that local government is the cornerstone of anything you're going to do in the province of British Columbia, and it has to be in good shape.

In the figures that I gave, Mr. Chairman, up to $586 per capita to upgrade these essential services would be necessary.

[ Page 6661 ]

I have suggested that we spread it over ten years. It would require an increase in annual public works budgets of approximately 28 percent. This represents a 7 percent increase in total municipal budgets. Funding for this municipal rebuilding should be shared between the three levels of government.

It is going to take leadership. It is going to take will and dedication to believe in local government to get this kind of agreement between all levels of government. This is what local government wants. This is what they're looking for: some determination to come to terms with the nitty-gritty nuts-and-bolts problems that they're facing, not some trumped-up partnership deal that was concocted in some smoke-filled room in Victoria and shovelled out: that this is partnership. We all know it's not partnership, Mr. Chairman. We all know that local government really is very apprehensive about that particular program. They want to see this government address the nitty-gritty nuts-and-bolts issues that face them daily.

I have presented in this Legislature, and I presented it some time ago but refined it in this session, a major proposal for rebuilding municipalities in the province of British Columbia, which, spread over ten years, would not just be a megaproject developed in a vacuum, but would rebuild this province and last for generations to come — not something that would be here today and gone tomorrow in a huge vacuum in terms of economic direction. Here is an opportunity for a ten-year major project in the province of British Columbia to rebuild our municipalities, put our people back to work and allow the federal government to participate as well. Supposedly they are interested in British Columbia. Supposedly they got elected on putting people back to work. What we're talking about here is the next ten-year project that could rebuild our municipalities, put people back to work and rebuild the grass roots of this province.

[2:45]

That's the challenge. But it's going to take leadership, and it's going to take goals. The UBCM is prepared. They have outlined that they want it to happen. They want a government that is prepared to sit down with them in true partnership and develop the modus operandi, develop the plan. Our side is prepared to participate. I am now in the process of developing those ideas with local government, because it's clear that it's going to take a New Democratic government to rebuild the province of British Columbia in terms of its municipalities.

Those are the concepts we've put forward. I would reiterate that if the Premier is to be taken seriously about his belief in local government, we must see a plan. We must see a plan of operation to rebuild local government in the province of British Columbia. It can be done. It must be done, or otherwise.... And your staff will tell you; they know all the evidence from the United States and other jurisdictions about, at your peril, neglecting local government. At your peril neglect local government, and see your real property taxes ten years from now escalate to rebuild those things you've neglected. Put back into place some of those essential funding formulas that you have taken away. Let's take a look at how we can start to develop a ten-year — or spread it even further if you will — strategy for rebuilding our municipalities.

We have a fine example, Mr. Chairman, of.... We have a fine opportunity to utilize the Select Standing Committee for Municipal Affairs and Housing, a committee of this Legislature. It's an opportunity for both sides of the House, with those who are involved in local government, to be able to establish that plan and that objective. That would be partnership. That would be real consultation. That would be meaningful planning for the future.

I hope the minister is not sceptical, because I think that unless we do it, we're going to run into very serious problems down the road. We've already got serious problems.

I agree, it's not a matter of throwing money. But when you've got some basic ingredients of how your community survives, if you allow those to fall apart, you are going to be in serious trouble.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to leave this particular component and go on to some specifics about some concerns I have with the current status of municipal affairs in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I think before we get away from that subject, the member should be made aware of the fact that my ministry has been looking very closely at proper planning of municipalities over the past two years. Just recently a decision was made, after considerable work and communication with others, to put together a special committee which will be charged with the responsibility of putting together a model that will indeed achieve the goals that you suggest, but in a more free-enterprise, open way, not having come down with the heavy hand of government. The idea is that we stop pouring money into straight land-use designations. Rather there would be a full comprehensive community plan done that will not only designate what land uses will take place within a municipality, but will also identify population growth, job requirements in order to support that population, types of industries suited to that community and cost of all of the services that this will require as time goes on, so that we can, by way of computer, be able to look 10, 15 years down the road and know exactly where we're going and be planning accordingly.

So — through you, Mr. Chairman, to that member — you're really coming in months and months ahead or behind with some of these ideas. But this approach that we are taking is quite different from yours, in that we will be dealing to a very large extent with the private sector on this, and they will be assisted by representation from municipalities and regional districts and my ministry. So we fully anticipate having something ready for unveiling by September when the UBCM will be having their convention.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, what the minister is referring to is a recognition by him and his staff or senior staff, or those who advise him, that he canned regional planning and made a gross error in British Columbia. He's having to bring back regional planning, because you need that kind of planning. It's an admission of failure by this government.

He talks about computer planning or some sort of study of population projections. That's what regional planning is all about — projections, economic forecasts. You've had to recognize that you have to do that on some sort of regional capacity. It's an admission of failure, and I'm pleased the minister has finally recognized.... For whatever reason, he introduced Bill 9. He has had to recognize that he made a gross error in eliminating regional planning, and he's finally bringing it back. I'm pleased to hear that he's going to do that. It's about time, because we need those kinds of projections. We have him admitting in the Legislature today that he's

[ Page 6662 ]

having to bring back planning, for whatever reasons; I suppose he had a mind-set against planning. Well, that's terrific news. I'm pleased to hear that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, let there be no misunderstanding in the member's mind. Bill 9 removed the regional plan. The regional plan will not be coming back. We are speaking only of municipal plans. The regional plan will not be coming back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further, it is not competent for a Committee of Supply to discuss the necessity of legislation or legislation.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I seek your guidance for me to talk about planning and regional planning, and cooperation between municipalities. I think that's quite appropriate. Despite what the minister says, he's had to recognize that the very items he just outlined — population projections, economic directions, that sort of thing — were done on a regional basis. It makes a lot of sense to do it on a regional basis: coalesce your effort to determine what a region is going to do.

What this minister doesn't recognize is that this province is made up of different unique geographical regions. There are certain approaches, if he understood planning and how it works today and didn't have a mind-set against it because he thought it was a way to thwart developers, but recognized that civilized societies have to lay down some kind of planning process for people simply to get on together, to start with. Well, in those regions there is.... He's outlined it; he's finally recognized that you've got to have some regional projections on population, economic growth, investment potential and that sort of thing, which I would indicate to the minister is what regional planning departments and regional plans did for a long, long time. That was one of their major mandates.

In the city of Victoria we had a cost-of-growth study. Now he's talking about bringing back some.... He has obviously picked up on some computer lingo, and thinks he might be able to do something with it. He's saying: "Maybe that's something we should do." A cost-of-growth study done by the regional district here in the greater Victoria region did the very things that he says he wants to do now. If he'd take off his blinkers about planning, he could see that that was being done, should be done. Really, this attitude is that if you mention the word planners, or have some planning departments or a regional approach to problems on issues across the province, it's a way to thwart development or free enterprise. With respect, Mr. Minister, planning can be useful to free enterprise. One of the things that industry wants to do when it moves to a region is to take a look at those regional plans. It wants to see what they have done, what the projections are. After all, we are in the twenty-first century, and there are approaches to economic development and economic growth that are essential in terms of coming out of a proper approach to planning.

We have had great frustration in the province over the last few years because we have lost many of those bright young people who were doing those very plans. The minister now says he's eliminated planning and he's going to bring it back by computer. You can't bring back proper analysis and proper planning and projections just by a computer. The minister will never agree, but he's had to recognize that he blew it. He got rid of or eliminated regional planning in British Columbia, and he now has to bring it back in some form because we need those projections. You can't have municipality after municipality developing their own economic strategy in isolation from their brother and sister municipalities next door. It takes cooperation. Maybe the minister can't understand that it takes cooperation and partnership. Municipalities have traditionally done that, and they want to do it again.

Glad to see that regional planning is coming back to British Columbia, and that the minister has had to recognize that he made a mistake. He made a gross error in the province. If we want economic recovery, we need to have that analysis and those projections made out, and we need to have staff and regional planning departments do it. We're pleased to see it.

I want to move on to a couple of issues, now that we have established that regional planning is coming back in the province of British Columbia and this minister made a mistake. I want to talk a little bit about the Islands Trust and remind the minister.... This is the minister who says he believes in partnership. With the Islands Trust, of course, we just had the most blatant power grab and centralization we've seen in this session. I'd like to ask the minister, because I suppose he's concerned about costs of the Islands Trust, why he won't authorize the Islands Trust Fund to be proclaimed.

A number of requests have been made. The Islands Trust Fund, the minister will know, would allow the Trust to take advantage of bequeaths and donations, would indeed allow the Islands Trust to be self-sufficient in the very near future, and would eliminate the problem of the Islands Trust relying on the provincial government for revenues. Why don't we allow the Islands Trust to proclaim their trust fund and not have to utilize public funds for their operation? Can the minister give us the background on that? Will the minister answer a very direct question? Will he proclaim the Islands Trust Fund?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No.

[3:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: Why? Would the minister give us a reason for not saving the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia a lot of money? Will he give us one reason why he will not allow the Trust to support itself and not be relying on taxpayers' dollars? It's a great way to save money, and that money could be utilized in other ways. Can the minister not answer the question?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It has been made quite clear to the chairman of the Islands Trust that I will not proclaim that section of the act, simply because anyone who wishes to turn land or cash over to the Trust and the Crown may do so without going to the Islands Trust. There is already a mechanism in place to receive such donations.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister or his staff — I am sure they are — aware of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, one of the healthiest trusts, if you will, in the country, which is highly successful and is recognized by all parties? It has such a mechanism. With respect, Mr. Minister, you may find that people are very reluctant to donate to government, but they might indeed donate to a non-profit society with its objectives clearly laid out and its accountability to the public

[ Page 6663 ]

directly. What this minister is doing is saying that he's prepared to see more and more public dollars spent on the Islands, when we have a fine opportunity to save the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia, I would say, at least in excess of $200,000 a year.

Why he would not save the taxpayers that amount of money I don't know, and let them collect and run their own show, and become financially self-sufficient. After all, he's always saying that we should go to the private sector and allow them to relieve the public sector of responsibilities. Here is an organization that is prepared to relieve this government of funding the Islands Trust. It's prepared to be self-sufficient. It's prepared to relieve the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia of any financial responsibility. What does the minister really want to do with the islands then? Does he still want to hold onto them, for some other purpose? Has he got another agenda again? Don't you believe in saving the taxpayers money? If you do, proclaim the Islands Trust Fund.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Again, I will not proclaim that section of the act. However, the Trust have my assurance that indeed they will stay in place. That's the desire of this minister and this ministry: to make sure that the Trust is well equipped to carry out their mandate. We will do so in spite of the rhetoric and nonsense that's been spewed out by this member, who really has a political axe to grind and nothing really constructive.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, this is a political arena and there are political issues, and the public of this province is interested in the political issues of our time. I say today that we in the New Democratic Party would proclaim the Islands Trust Fund. We would save the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia thousands of dollars by allowing it to become self-sufficient. That would be a positive move. It would be one way to allow them to get on and do their job without interference. We've got this minister who's constantly interfering in the islands; of course, as we all know, he has just taken the staff under his own wing, to direct that staff to do whatever he will.

We'll leave the Islands Trust because we're not getting anywhere. We know, Mr. Chairman, that obviously there is a plan. I will ask the minister, however, before I do leave the islands, when he will be tabling or telling the public about the administrative structure he has in mind for the Islands Trust.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: A meeting was held just recently with my deputy and senior staff, the chairman of Islands Trust and their manager, and the staffing was discussed at that meeting. The report covering that meeting has gone, or will be going, to all of the islands, through their local news media. I can assure the member that we will continue to discuss and plan any changes that are anticipated in that manner, and the islands people will be kept up to date at all times. During this process I intend, as I've indicated, to personally visit all of the islands and speak to the people, and let them know that indeed some of the rhetoric that is coming out from this member, who would like to make it a political ball, is quite incorrect; that we are very constructive and supportive; and that the Islands Trust is here to stay. We're going to see that they are able to carry out their mandate properly and efficiently, in the interests of the taxpayers.

MR. BLENCOE: Why didn't you consult with the islanders, consult with the Islands Trust, before you brought in Bill 30? You're not kidding anybody. You bring in legislation that grabs the staff, that leaves you to set the political agenda for the islands, and then you say you're going to consult. The people of British Columbia have seen through you. They've seen you fire the Vancouver School Board. They've seen you take over the staff of the Islands Trust. They've seen you eliminate regional planning in the province of British Columbia because you want to get some private initiative through on the Spetifore lands. We all know what that was all about. And now you say you're going to consult with the Islands Trust. You can't continue to con the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the member retract the accusation about the Spetifore land. It's totally incorrect.

MR. BLENCOE: Retract what, Mr. Chairman? I'm not sure....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the minister repeat the words with respect to the accusation.

MR. BLENCOE: He's very nervous.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, not at all nervous. I just would like to keep the record clear. Obviously, with his inexperience in this House and his youth, he gets off on tangents. In his remarks he accused me of removing the regional plan in order to cater to the Spetifore land wishes, and I ask to have that withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member, of course, would acknowledge that he was not impugning any...

MR. BLENCOE: No. I wasn't impugning....

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...lack of ethics on behalf of the minister at the time. Would the second member for Victoria please continue.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is still very edgy about Bill 9, clearly.

MR. COCKE: He doesn't even dare face you, Robin.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Victoria will continue on vote 57, the minister's estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: He will have to constantly face, of course, those elected people that work diligently at the local level.

I've got a letter here from the minister, and I think it sort of pertains to his attitude towards the Islands Trust, local planning and local decision-making. I'd like the minister to explain what he meant. It was addressed to me on April 12, 1984. I was writing to the minister about my views on his attitude towards local planning. His last paragraph was: "Plans are simply guides for orderly development in the future, but no plans should be cast in stone. Decisions of elected bodies, we hope, are made on firm grounds. However, such decisions, particularly as they apply to land

[ Page 6664 ]

use at the local level, should be subject to appeal in the interests of all citizens."

I'm wondering if the minister could let this House know to whom local decisions could be appealed. I would remind the minister that there is a tradition of local land use matters being decided by the local government. Has the minister got something else in mind here?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No. The letter is quite explanatory. Plans should not be cast in stone. Plans are guides as to what may take place in the future. If indeed there is some need, for whatever reason, for an amendment to the plan, then that should be brought to the attention of the elected people, and no doubt they would then make their decision in the best interests of the community at large. It's quite simple.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not talking about plans being cast in stone, Mr. Chairman. But the clear inference in this letter is that, after a local decision is made, if enough citizens or whoever — companies? I don't know; it doesn't say here — don't like the decision made by local government, there is going to be a process whereby they can have that decision turned around. We've already seen that with the minister's attitude to bare-land strata regulations. Musgrave Landing on Saltspring is a good example of this interference by Victoria in local decisions and violation of community plans.

The inference here is that the minister is going to allow some process whereby local land use decisions.... Whatever they decide, if the minister decides that he doesn't like them, he's going to find some way to change them. I hope that's not accurate. They're elected, and they make those decisions about their own land uses. Any further interference by this government or this minister in those kinds of planning decisions will be fought long and hard. We've seen it too often. There's too much Big Brother government. We need less government by senior government. Let local government, which is efficient and accountable, do its own planning. With respect, senior government should keep its hands off.

I'd like to ask the minister again: what does he mean by: "...should be subject to appeal in the interests of all citizens." You've got some ideas you're not telling us about, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, unlike the NDP when they were in office, I at all times respect those people who own land in our province, particularly our senior citizens who worked very hard over the years to obtain a piece of property that would someday be their retirement nest egg. I believe that at all times we must keep in mind, with all of the legislation that we bring in, whether it's at this level of government or any other level, respect for those private individuals who own land. All decisions must be tempered with them in mind. Therefore, as long as I am Minister of Municipal Affairs, I will insist that those people — and again I repeat, particularly our senior citizens — always have an opportunity to come back and appeal a government decision, no matter what level of government it is. That is something that that member there should respect. He shouldn't be asking this question at all.

MR. BLENCOE: Is that why you violated the community plan, changed the strata regulations and allowed condos to go ahead at Musgrave — mondo-condo for Saltspring? Is that your appeal mechanism? If anyone in the development industry happens to get your ear, you'll change the rules overnight? Is that what you mean? You've already done it, and we know you're going to do it with the Islands Trust. We know that's what you've got planned. Is that what you're going to do in the future, and is that the appeal mechanism? Or are you going to allow local government...?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm only telling what happened. It's in the record. You allowed the strata regulations to change, violating the community plan decided by the local residents so we could see some development go ahead that violates what the community wants. Is that going to be your new Big Brother, centralized Municipal Affairs ministry, running over everybody and determining what local government should have in terms of land use or zoning? Is that going to be your attitude?

There has been a tradition struck in this province and in this country that those people are elected to do a job. They fall or they get re-elected by the job they do. Land use and zoning has always been a controversial issue, no question about that. But as we have already seen, any interference by this minister and this government is an erosion of local autonomy and respect for local government, and we will not stand for it. We will always stand by local governments right to direct their own environment, to create their own objectives and their own land use planning.

That's why this minister eliminated regional planning. It's part of the same thing. He wants to take away the checks and balances that people have to say how their community should develop. I agree that we need a balance between the two, but that balance is being taken away by this government, and they continue to centralize.

As I indicated, it's quite obvious. We have had it with Bill 9, as we have with Bill 30, the power grab on the islands. We are going to see another piece of legislation come down whereby the minister is going to be able to.... It's going to be Mr. Vander Zalm revisited. We're going to see legislation that is going to allow the minister awesome powers to control land use planning and decision-making by local government. I hope we're wrong, and I hope the minister will heed our caution, will change his mind and not bring that in. By all the indications we've had so far in the last two or three years, that's coming down, and we're going to see that kind of legislation brought in.

I want to move on — unless the minister wishes to respond, and I'm sure he doesn't — to a couple of other items.

Now that we're talking about Saltspring Island and a couple of issues that I want to bring up, I wonder if the minister could outline for us the Ganges sewer situation. How does he rationalize that particular situation in light of the fact that many municipalities would like to see the grants that Ganges got for sewer, whereby we have now virtually all public money paying for the capital project, and yet we have many municipalities which can get virtually nothing for such projects?

The minister gave a huge amount of money just recently to complete that project. He's never allowed a referendum to go ahead or never had a proper study of all the options that are

[ Page 6665 ]

available for Ganges. Yet he managed just like that to find close to $300,000, if I recall, to complete a project that is extremely controversial. I recognize that it's gone on for many years, but how does he justify the huge expenditure of public money for a capital project when there are other jurisdictions who are asking? My colleague from Okanagan North would love to have some special consideration such as they got for this project.

I'd like to hear the minister, and then we'll go on with that.

[3:15]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the Ganges situation had been kicking around for years and, as far as I was concerned, after analyzing the whole situation I again came to the conclusion that it was being politically kicked around as a football. It was my decision, after we discovered that indeed both the school and the hospital had to have their facilities renewed, that the cost of that was going to be more than by completing the total project. There were already millions of dollars sunk in the ocean in there, and thousands and thousands of dollars tied up in equipment and stored, doing nothing — while we're sitting listening to people like yourself who want to stop progress in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I discovered that because it was going to cost more money to properly equip those two facilities than it would to put the whole project together, we decided to go that way. As a result of that, Mr. Chairman, we have people now, they tell me, who were opposing it before and are now asking to be part of the community that's going to be served by that sewer. Mr. Chairman, the case was brought before the courts here just recently. The Capital Regional District, which is spearheading that project won the case — a very good decision. The project is going ahead. It's going ahead because it's needed for that community. It's going ahead because the school needs it. It's going ahead because the hospital needs it. It's going ahead because there's a tremendous investment already in the ground and it's going ahead because it's going to cost less to do that than it would to facilitate both those institutions.

So I would suggest to that member that he stop this political garbage. That thing is underway and it's going to be completed, and there are going to be many people in that community who at one time opposed it but are now seeing the light and indeed will be benefiting from it by hooking up to it. The decision is made. It's finished. It's on the way and we're on to new things.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's just the compounding of the public perception that this government is.... The government in this country that continues to allow raw sewage to be pumped into the beautiful oceans and the beautiful island environments — we had it in Vancouver, we've got it off Victoria — has cut the sewerage assistance program, and we're now going to have the Gulf Island knee deep in you-know-what.

What evidence...? I'd ask the minister what studies he looked at for alternative sewage treatment. How many studies did he look at?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, for years there were thousands — I believe hundreds of thousands — of dollars spent on study after study. I didn't think that it would be responsible of me to spend more tax dollars on more studies. There are ample studies. I was totally satisfied with the studies already done saying that indeed the project should go ahead. It's gone ahead. It's finished. Just drop it. You're not going to change it.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I know we're not going to change it, because this government never changes when.... It's a totally inflexible government. There indeed are studies, and there are good studies that indicate you could have done this much cheaper. You can still do it much cheaper. The ongoing cost of maintenance of this operation is going to be astronomical. But unfortunately you want to pump raw sewage right out to that beautiful environment, as you've done in Vancouver, as you do in Victoria and as you allow in the Okanagan Lakes. The member for Okanagan North talked about that. You never come to terms, and I would say that there has never been a proper or a reasonable approach to the alternatives in terms of sewage treatment on Saltspring, because those who are in control have wanted to do things in a traditional way, which in this area has been to pump raw sewage out into the beautiful ocean and our beautiful island environment. This minister is going to compound that, and has refused to take a look at alternatives that would be cheaper in the long term. He is going to continue to pump raw sewage into the beautiful Gulf Islands, off Victoria; he's allowing it in Vernon; he's allowing it in Vancouver. He won't change the sewerage assistance so we can build treatment plants. He is the minister that will be seen as pumping raw sewage into our waters and won't took at alternatives.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The raw sewage is pumped by that member, and in tremendous volumes. The sewage from the Ganges project will not be pumped raw into the ocean; it will be treated. I already indicated to you that money was already spent on equipment some years ago and was sitting in storage for exactly that — for the treatment of it. It will not be raw sewage. The only raw sewage that we're getting is from yourself.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't get down to the minister's level.

Tertiary treatment, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member address the Chair and not the minister.

MR. BLENCOE: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister: are we talking about tertiary treatment, or is this primary treatment, which basically is just an Osterizer that grinds it all up and shoves it out? No answers? No, because you have made an incorrect statement to this House. It's primary treatment, not tertiary treatment. So we have raw sewage, for all intents and purposes, being pumped out in Ganges into the Gulf Islands.

I would suggest that there's never been a serious look at the alternatives. There's never been a referendum on the islands. The minister has said, and has been quoted as saying, that that last umpteen thousand dollars — close to $300,000.... He would withdraw that money if a referendum was held. He wouldn't give this great amount of money for this raw-sewage pumper if they held a referendum. I'd like to ask the minister what he has been scared about. Why has he been reluctant? What's he got to hide in terms of not allowing a referendum on Saltspring and Ganges to see

[ Page 6666 ]

where they want to go? They've been asking for years to be allowed a say in what kind of treatment facility they want, and they've always been denied that democratic right. Why did he tie in "no vote, no democratic referendum" to that last grant?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Sometimes it's necessary to make a decision and move in the interests of a situation, and after approximately ten years of public debates, of demonstrations, of sabotage and of all sorts of nonsense, I simply said that I was not going to commit — not $300,000, but closer to $800,000 — to this project if indeed it was going to be put out there to be kicked around again and locked in along with all of the other money that's locked in there at the taxpayers' expense. I simply said that if indeed you feel that a referendum is necessary after all these years and after numerous studies, hundreds of thousands of dollars in studies, then you may have a referendum, but you're not going to lock in another $800,000. If you want a referendum, you'll do it before that is committed. That is reasonable when you consider that those dollars come from the taxpayers of this province.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what representation he had from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on this latest amount of money to Ganges.

Did the Minister of Finance consult with the minister on this latest amount of money?

There has been no discussion between the MLA for the area and the minister on Ganges and Saltspring: is that the answer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member will direct his debate through the Chair, and the hon. member will also appreciate that no other member can stand to speak until you....

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'm prepared to sit down, but the minister's got his back to me.

I'll ask again. What discussions did the minister have with the Minister of Finance, who is the MLA for Saanich and the Islands, over this latest grant or any other particular items on the Ganges sewer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria continues.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not going to get the answer. It's quite clear by his silence that he doesn't want to admit anything to do with the Minister of Finance or the member for that area. We certainly had that during the Islands Trust debate. I think it's unfortunate that the minister is not prepared to answer and tell the public or his constituents in Saanich and the Islands what his role was in this particular aspect.

I'll move on to another topic, still to do with sewers. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this minister was responsible for change in the formula for grants to municipalities for sewer installation and sewer construction. I wonder if the minister can detail the Rutland sewer proposal and why Premier Bennett's riding gets 75-cent dollars when nobody else can.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, in accordance with our principles, we normally live up to agreements. It just so happened that that particular project had been approved prior to the change.

I'd like to elaborate very briefly on this whole question so that he has a message before he uses up too much of his time on this particular topic. There is absolutely no thought at this moment of changing that formula. My ministry, through revenue-sharing, is already committed to approximately $90 million per year for principal and interest payments on past expenditures for sewer and water. That was climbing at such a rate that, had we not done something about it, all municipalities in this province would have suffered through having their unconditional grants reduced, while the major ones, and those who could take advantage of this very rich formula, did so.

So just for his interest, the program will not be changed back. Those projects that were approved during the old 75-25 formula have been lived up to, and that applies to Rutland.

MR. BLENCOE: Not a satisfactory answer, unfortunately, for those municipalities that would like to get 75 cent dollars. They just happen not to have the Premier of the province in their riding.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that member is not only badly inexperienced, but he appears to be deaf as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I refuse to accept the comment he just made. The grant was not put through because of the particular MLA. It was put through because they did qualify while that formula was in place. Keep it clean, please.

[3:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order was probably out of order, Mr. Minister, because you would have an opportunity in ordinary debate to stand and rebut the statement of another member.

MR. BLENCOE: The Premier had a different answer, Mr. Minister. He justified this program by saying that it was a reallocation of funds that had been placed from a previous agreement. I wonder if the minister could tell us where that money was reallocated from, and why it took four or five months of secret negotiations with the city of Kelowna when that money supposedly was already there.

You don't want to answer that question? Well, clearly we've got the Premier and the minister on different sides of the issue and giving different reasons why the Premier's riding gets 75-cent dollars when everybody else gets 25 cents.

Is the minister prepared to table the evidence that there was an agreement prior to the announcement by the Premier that there was an allocation of funds? Is that evidence available and are you prepared to table it?

Stonewalling again, Mr. Chairman. No evidence. Clearly there is, I would suspect, no agreement. It's a blatant partnership of patronage for the Premier's riding. Ah, we're going to get an answer.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: There's no need to talk about need for evidence or secret meetings or so on. This is all useless tripe. There was an ongoing bylaw that protected the original qualifications, so that's there. Talk to the municipality.

[ Page 6667 ]

MR. BLENCOE: All municipalities can and probably do have a bylaw that would protect any prior arrangements they might have with the province, but not other municipalities, after a program is cancelled. In some miraculous way the Premier says: "Oh, well, this was signed or agreed to some years ago. We can take 75-cent dollars." I'd like to see that agreement. Every single municipality in the province would like to see that agreement, and see why the Premier got special treatment for 75-cent dollars for sewer in Rutland. I'd like to see that agreement — signed prior to your cancelling that program — tabled in the House. Is the minister prepared to table that information?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: We have to go on blind trust, do we? There are very few people in British Columbia who will go on blind trust with this government anymore. They want evidence — like Expo evidence. We want to know what's going on, but, of course, we're never going to find out, Mr. Chairman.

The Premier also indicated that other municipalities might also be eligible for 75 percent provincial funding for sewer projects. I think these were his words: "...depending on the nature of the project, the priority and the quality of representation given by their local MLA." Boy, if that doesn't mean underhanded — wink-wink, nudge-nudge and the right MLA is going to get 75-cent dollars.

Could the minister tell us whether this means there is no longer a specific funding formula for municipal grants? Who is it that will decide whether a municipality has the right kind of MLA or the right kind of representation? These are the Premier's words, and I remind the minister of that.

I've asked you a number of questions there. Obviously I'm not getting very far. Has the funding formula changed depending on representation?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: If and when there should be a funding formula change, it will be announced in the proper manner.

MR. BLENCOE: It's fascinating that the major exceptions to the rule that all municipalities have to go under are the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier of the province. Actually, the Minister of Finance has more than 75 cents; he virtually has 100 percent public support. But the Premier gets 75 cents where everybody else gets 25 cents. There's no satisfactory answer from this minister. He's not prepared to table the agreement signed before he cancelled the program. He's not prepared to say that the Premier has agreed that representation now is a criterion for getting various types of grants.

I'd remind this minister that municipalities throughout British Columbia had applications in for a total of $300 million for sewer projects under the 75 percent provincial funding formula. Rutland may have been one of them, but hundreds of others had applications in totalling $300 million. Why is it that the Minister of Finance's riding and the Premier's riding get the special funds when no other municipality can? Prior to your cancelling the program they had applications in. By allowing this to go through, Mr. Minister, you've changed the rules.

The Premier has clearly said that it depends on the representation. How can both the Premier and the minister justify giving his friends — I suppose — in Kelowna 75 percent while telling every other municipality that it doesn't happen to have the right MLA to get the same deal? What kind of game do we have here? We had many other municipalities lined up before the funding changed. There was $300 million requested. But you're going to tell us and the people of British Columbia that, by accident, the only two ridings that got chosen for exception and special patronage were the Premier's riding and the Minister of Finance's riding. Is that what you're telling us? All the others could come and say they applied prior to your reversing the formula.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Do you want an answer?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, that would make a change.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: There may have been $300 million or more in applications for sewer and water grants, but not all of these had their loan authorization bylaws in place. It so happened in the case of Rutland that they had an ongoing authorization bylaw in place which protected them on funding that had been approved before the change to the formula took place. As far as the Ganges situation is concerned, this is the last time I intend to respond to it to that member. Obviously, through his lack of knowledge here, I, of course, forgive him. Because of his youth and newness around here, he hasn't learned yet. But that money was not part of the sewer water program, that additional funding.... If you're interested in an answer you may wish to listen. That funding was arrived at simply because there was going to be a need to spend more than that to upgrade the facilities at the hospital and the school. It was a decision that rather than spend, I believe, close to a million dollars upgrading just for the school and hospital, that we'd use just under $800,000 of that, combine it with the funds that were already in place and all of the equipment etc. at Ganges, and complete the total project including the school and hospital, therefore benefiting the people of that community, now making it possible for many others to get the benefit of that sewer installation. That was done only because it was judged that it was the best use of tax dollars. Rather than put a million dollars into facilitating two institutions, we used $200,000 less and took care of the overall community project. That's the last time I intend to respond to that.

MR. BLENCOE: With respect to the minister, I don't care whether it's the last time or not, I'm doing public business here, and at least I will ask the questions. Let me make that determination. I will make that determination in the public interest — who I represent — not you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Jackboot opposition.

MR. BLENCOE: Dr. Strangelove talks about jackboots.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee will come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: Authorization bylaws have got nothing to do with the issue, Mr. Minister. Many municipalities had authorization bylaws, and they still have them. That doesn't

[ Page 6668 ]

mean to say they're going to get 75-cent dollars. If it does, you're in trouble, because they're all going to be lining up tomorrow.

The Premier.... I'm going to ask another question on Rutland, because here we have, I think.... This is partnership and patronage. This is what this is all about. The Minister of Finance and the Premier of the province of British Columbia.... The Premier stated on March 9 that extra funding for sewer construction in Kelowna was available because money had been set aside a number of years ago. I'd like the minister to tell us under what agreement that money was set aside; and why, if the money was available, did it takes months and months of negotiations with Kelowna and the province before the announcement was made? What was the agreement? How was that money set aside for Rutland?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's not called an agreement; it's called a bylaw. I'm not going to respond to this question again, so here it is: it was covered by an ongoing loan authorization bylaw, period.

MR. BLENCOE: So if I come tomorrow with a whole list of authorization bylaws from another municipality in the province of British Columbia, you will honour the 75-cent dollars? Is that correct? You'd better think very quickly with your staff.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I indicated earlier that we live up to commitments made. The difference here is that this was already approved. If that member can go out and have a great lineup at my door of people with bylaws in their hands that were approved prior to the change in formula, we will deal with them in a like way. I repeat, again for the last time: it was approved whenever the old formula was in place. It's not an agreement; it's a bylaw.

MR. BLENCOE: It doesn't matter whether the municipality has an authorization bylaw; that doesn't mean to say you have to give them money. We ask you again: are you prepared to table the evidence to show that that agreement was in place before the 75-cent funding formula changed? Are you prepared to table the evidence? On Rutland particularly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the Chair, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Through you, Mr. Chairman.

We're not going to get the evidence, because I think we all know there is no evidence. It was a special deal for the Premier's riding. It was agreed on; secret negotiations were done. The minister authorized it. Every other municipality that has sewer problems would love to get some special deals, but unfortunately won't be able to. We all know. There's no evidence and no tabling.

I'm going to move on to a couple of other items very quickly. There was an announcement by this minister — again part of the problem with this minister as to how he informs municipalities — of a change in grants in lieu for certain municipalities with hospitals in their ridings. For Vancouver it was in excess of a million-dollar change for their budgeting; for Victoria it was in excess of half a million dollars. There was no consultation with those local governments. There was a major change in their budgeting. It's not necessarily the issue in terms of the budget, although that's bad enough; but again what I refer to, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that they had to find out about that change through the back door, through the media — not through the minister. You can't deal with local government that way.

I had a meeting with the minister and asked him to phase in the change for those municipalities affected. Unfortunately, he wouldn't do that. That process, and those municipalities affected, many of them financially in a big way, I think again shows the basic incompetence of this minister. He continues to not inform local government about major policy changes and major financial changes, and they find out by accident. Again, I just had to send Bill 49, Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Relief Act, to council because they hadn't got it. I had to do that; our side had to do that. You know?

Here we have another example of the minister not informing those affected municipalities properly and decently in partnership, and they find out through the back door. I know the minister won't change his mind in terms of phasing it in, but I surely hope he has changed his modus operandi in terms of how he informs local government about his decisions or changes in policy. That was most unfortunate, and it's not the way to run a tight ship. It's not management by objectives. I don't think it's good management. The Municipal Affairs ministry is a special ministry, and it takes a delicate kind of approach to policy changes, particularly in these difficult times when it involves finances.

Many of those municipalities that were affected were right in the middle of their budget deliberations, and such a shift, found out by accident, in what was going to happen to them was totally, I think, unacceptable. It's just like, again.... We've just seen Bill 49 — 1 think it was Bill 49, the special enterprise bill — and the same thing has happened again. No consultation, no partnership, no discussions — here it is, folks; this is what it's all about; take it or leave it; go away. Well, Mr. Chairman, it's not acceptable. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether he has put in place a different management procedure on policy and information sharing with local government.

[3:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I'll caution the committee that we cannot discuss the content of legislation.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The move that was made in respect to grants in lieu was made in the interest of equity with all municipalities. The most noise that we've heard about that has been from the opposition member himself. So we're not all perfect, but he should know here today, and it may be a little embarrassing to him, that indeed he has made more noise about this than anyone else.

As far as the special enterprise zones are concerned, immediately that was introduced those kits were sent to all municipalities along with our update on the total partnership program. So I'm afraid you're barking up a wrong tree.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I happen to disagree with the minister. Unfortunately, we have no indication that that kind of process is not going to change, and we're going to find out. Let me ask it this way: is the minister prepared to utilize the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs and Housing for a consultation process over policy shifts?

[ Page 6669 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would be a decision of the Legislative Assembly, not of the minister, if it involved a select standing committee of the Legislative Assembly.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, would it be in order to ask the minister is he prepared to recommend or support the use of the Municipal Affairs Committee in a more innovative way in terms of policy for local government? Would that be in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, that select standing committee is empowered to do whatever it's empowered to do by the Legislative Assembly, by the whole House, and not by one specific minister.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister sits on that committee, Mr. Chairman. Can he pass comment on the committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the statement is clear. The minister cannot make that decision. Select standing committees are selected by the House and appointed to their duties by the House.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then I will just say I think I can pass comment that we would certainly welcome the use of that committee in a far more forthright, in an innovative and creative way. It's just now, this week, going to have its first meeting of this portion of the session — organizational meeting. I'll leave it there. We would hope that committee will do a lot more in the future, and hopefully we can all participate in an innovative way on that particular committee.

I don't have many more items for the minister, except to once again repeat that we hope the minister will take very seriously our concerns about municipal infrastructure rebuilding in the province of British Columbia. We hope that we will see some long-range objectives and plans laid out for the building of municipal infrastructure in the province of British Columbia. It is certainly our intention to take a look at ideas and concepts for municipal government. Through municipal rebuilding we can put thousands of British Columbians back to work.

It is our view that the current attitude of this minister and this government to municipal affairs has been a very unfortunate one in terms of treating them with respect and treating municipalities as equal partners in any kind of development process or on any proposal they come forward with. We cannot support the last year's operation by this government and this minister, in terms of how local government has been treated. It has gone from emergency to emergency, through announcements about policy changes in the newspaper to a partnership deal that really is giving money away through the back door when local government wants to talk about rebuilding its infrastructure. The whole question of how this government approaches local government, its centralization and taking away of local decision-making powers, is an issue.

Over the next few months we will be bringing forth alternatives. Many of them are already on the order paper in the form of private bills — how we think local government can be a real partner in economic recovery in British Columbia. I have tabled and presented the sketch, the concept. In future days and months, in consultation with local government, we will be putting together the nuts and bolts of that particular program. We would hope that this minister's and this government's attitude in treating local government will change in the year ahead.

We have been very disappointed, and local government has been very disappointed, in the rather paternal kind of attitude. I think the minister's remarks in the Newcombe Auditorium some months ago were very symbolic: "I'm not interested in this partnership program. We don't want to talk to you." We need real partnership, real consultation, and any proposals that are developed.... We are developing them now in consultation with local government — putting forward ideas. Those proposals and those concepts must be actually developed by local government, the UBCM or whatever forum is appropriate.

To conclude on these particular estimates, Mr. Chairman, we happen to believe that local government is the senior government chronologically and in terms of, I think, respect by the taxpayers. I think you will find — and surveys have indicated this — that local government is highly respected. That is because local residents feel they get the most value from local government.

I think we should be using those regions and municipalities, and developing regional economic plans — using local officials and their contacts with labour or management, and developing regional economic strategies for British Columbia. I have already given a number of specific concepts with which, if we have a mind to and this government has a mind to, I think we can put a lot of people back to work and rebuild local government as a crucial component in the economic development of British Columbia. It hasn't happened so far in the last few years, since I reached this House, in terms of this minister and this government. But maybe they will listen in time.

Vote 57 approved.

Vote 58: operations and administration, $7,188,968 — approved.

Vote 59: municipal revenue- sharing, $235,000,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 43.

LOTTERY CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 43; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Under this Section it's not clear, certainly to me, how the funds that will be generated by this Lottery Corporation will be disposed of. This bill does not allow for documentation; it does not allow.... Let me pose a question to the minister: will this bill, as most bills of

[ Page 6670 ]

this type, be governed by regulations that will at some point appear before cabinet and be passed by order-in-council, indicating precisely how the funds are going to be administered? And secondly, will MLAs, as has been the practice in the past, from time to time receive a list of how and where the funds have been granted?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member is not on the right section; in fact, he is not on the right legislation. Instead of reading something into the Lottery Corporation Act which doesn't exist, I think he should read the Lottery Act.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I think the Section is quite clear. The Provincial Secretary can't get up in this House and answer a question without making it appear that there's some kind of confrontation. Well, if he wants confrontation, he has come to the right member. We've got all summer, if we wanted to spend the next summer here. All I asked for was a reasonable response to a reasonable question in an attitude that is not confrontational — up to this point.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, it's not my intention to start a dispute, an argument or anything else with the member for Mackenzie. As I said a little earlier, I think he's confused on the legislation. Just to show how confused he is, I'll go to the Lottery Act, which is not the legislation we're discussing now and in which there is a section 7 which deals with disposition of funds. It's very clear, and I'm not going to read it, because I think the Chairman would be inclined to rule me out of order if I attempted to read that particular section. Section 7 of the Lottery Act, not the Lottery Corporation Act, deals with the disposition of funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 7 of Bill 43 deals with an accounting system and the disclosure of that accounting system.

Sections 7 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

[4:00]

Bill 43, Lottery Corporation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 52.

NATURAL GAS PRICE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 52; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 52, Natural Gas Price Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 51, Mr. Speaker.

COAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 51; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 51, Coal Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR406, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
TRINITY WESTERN COLLEGE ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR406; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR406, An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Ree in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 51: minister's office, $210,175.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'm pleased, Mr. Chairman, to take my place in debate of the Minister of Labour's estimates for fiscal year 1985-86. I'd like to take the opportunity to

[ Page 6671 ]

introduce my staff: the deputy minister responsible for women's programs, Isabel Kelly; Bob Gray, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, along with Stephen Stackhouse. My deputy minister, Graham Leslie, has just come in. I'd like to express my thanks and gratitude to the ministry staff for the co-operation they have shown me over the past three months as British Columbia's Minister of Labour.

I would also like to take the opportunity to introduce the grade 7 class from St. Mary's School in Cranbrook who are in the precincts. I'm sorry that I won't have time to visit with them for a few minutes.

The past three months have been a very challenging time for me, a period in which I have learned a great deal from the employer and employee community of British Columbia. It's been a time of consultation and discussion, and in many cases, of cooperation. I'd like to express my gratitude, too, Mr. Chairman, to all of the groups, clubs and organizations that I've met with over the course of the past three months and received a great deal of advice from in many matters relating to the operation of the Ministry of Labour.

The area that has occupied most of my time for the past three months is the area dealing with the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board. It is an extremely difficult and complicated area of administration and I have met with many individuals, groups, clubs and organizations across the province to get advice from them on the direction that they feel we should go, in terms of the operation and administration of the board, along with the boards of review.

We have gone a long way in the past three months, I believe, in sitting down and talking to many people in the field of labour relations, and have gotten their ideas as well on how they feel that I should conduct myself, my office and the policy-making process in our government and on the ways that we can help them achieve better understanding of labour relations across the province. Many of them have suggested new ideas and new tools that we could put in place to achieve such goals.

We will be looking at areas for change over the course of the next year. But without question the biggest change that's got to take place is the change in attitude on the part of all British Columbians recognizing both organized individuals' and management's right to exist in economic partnership with each other across our province. Anything that I can do along with the government to assist the groups in those areas will without question enhance that opportunity. Labour relations is not something that you can etch in stone. It's something that you have to spend a great deal of time at and be very patient with; it's something that you have to work at day in and day out, year in and year out, casting aside suspicions and emotions, with all of the community working together to build new bridges that will see us through the difficult and challenging period of time that our province, our citizens and our economy are in in 1985 and beyond.

The other area of responsibility of my ministry is programs for women. As I said earlier, I'm pleased to have my deputy minister responsible for women's programs with me today. Again, it's an area where we have come a long way over the course of the past few years — particularly the last ten — in providing equal access to opportunity for all our citizens in participating in our economy. But, without question, we have quite a way to go. While, again, government can facilitate all the tools for change in attitude or marketing new programs and providing opportunity, nothing will replace the change of attitude and the trust that needs to be developed across our province if we're going to make headway in that area in the future.

I had the pleasure recently of meeting with the federal minister responsible for the status of women, along with my provincial counterparts in Winnipeg. From that discussion we have initiated a number of programs through my deputy minister. I feel they are programs that will assist all our people to reach a better understanding of the economy of today and provide greater opportunities for all the community to participate fully in the development of our economy.

As I said earlier, since my appointment I've spent most of my time dealing with matters relating to the Workers' Compensation Board, and I will ask members to be patient with me and to give me some advice and guidance on where they see me going, along with the ministry, over the course of the next year to improve the industrial relations climate in our province. I beg their indulgence if I don't have all the answers to the questions they raise, but I will leave with them my commitment to get back with the answers at every opportunity.

[4:15]

MR. GABELMANN: I notice there are more staff in here than there are MLAs — almost. In any event, Mr. Chairman, we'll just proceed and see if we can go through this in a quiet and comfortable way.

First of all, I want to thank the minister for the opening comments, as brief as they were — that's fair enough. The minister has been in office for a very short period of time and, as we all know, has a lot of different things to get a handle on.

I think we probably would be supportive of the minister's apparent decision to spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to solve the dreadful problem caused by the backlog with the boards of review cases, and I trust that tomorrow we'll see a step toward putting an end to that particular problem.

I don't think I have any intention in these estimates of spending much time being critical of the minister for what he hasn't done. We have next year for that, and perhaps we'll have a longer time to talk about some of the things he might have done in his first sixteen months when we do this next year.

But I thought it would be useful, in these estimates, to raise a number of issues, not in a critical or confrontational way but just to talk about a series of things I think should be brought to the minister's attention from my perspective, so that when he is planning his work schedule for the next little while he will have some idea as to what some of the concerns are as expressed to me from members of the community and, of course, some of my own biases as well. If we approach it in that way I think we can have a fairly productive few hours of discussion on these estimates.

Structurally — just so the minister is aware of what the opposition members intend to do with this vote — we would divide it into.... I don't know if government backbenchers are going to participate, which can throw it off. And this might enable the staff to use their time more effectively too. Our intention would be to spend the most time, initially, just on Ministry of Labour operations, and then move to WCB as a separate topic and, finally — and not for any reason is it final — to move to programs for women as a third section of these estimates. For what that's worth, that's the way the official opposition members will participate.

[ Page 6672 ]

1 want to start out by saying that although I recognize that the Ministry of Labour has not been perceived as the employment ministry or as the lead ministry in employment programs, I would argue that the minister has a responsibility as Minister of Labour to be more than the person who mediates and arbitrates between labour and management in this province; he also has a fundamental responsibility to attempt to pursue goals of full employment. I recognize that at the present time there aren't a lot of levers the minister can pull in that respect, but I think that one of the objectives of the ministry, and particularly of the minister, should be to act as the spokesperson in cabinet on behalf of full employment. We really don't have anyone who's mandated to do that. We have various ministers who are mandated to deal with various parts of the economy, but we have no one person who says: "What we want overall in economic strategy is a full-employment economy." People could argue that that's the Minister of Finance's job or the Premier's job, or whatever else, but from the perspective of labour and the perspective of working people, I think it would be useful if the minister, if not in a formal way then at least in an informal way, took it upon himself to act as the lead advocate for issues of full employment.

None of us are naive enough to believe that the provincial government can bring about full employment, whatever it did. If our programs were so magnificent in this province that we reduced unemployment that dramatically, we would have an influx of population that would keep all the roads into this province full, so obviously that's not a possibility in a country like ours. But when we have almost double the unemployment of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario at the present time, there are some very real concerns. I just want to say, not to belabour it, that I think it should be a high priority for the minister to talk about full employment.

There's a debate that goes on in the community about whether or not full employment is a possibility. Economists have this intellectual debate among themselves all the time. I think politicians, from whatever political perspective they come, should be out there saying to people who are having that debate: we will not rest until we have an economy that does provide full employment. It may be differently defined — radically differently — but until we achieve a society where every single person who wants to work is able to work, those of us who are involved in politics, particularly those of us who claim to represent working people, have our jobs undone. I trust that the Minister of Labour will make speeches about that, will talk about that and will take an advocacy role in cabinet in respect of full employment.

In specific terms the minister does have the ability to affect or to assist student and youth unemployment or, to put it positively, to do something about student employment. I keep calling it student employment when I really mean youth employment, but a lot of it is obviously directed at students. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think the provincial program at the moment is paltry and inexcusable. Without worrying about the precise numbers, which I have in my file here, I think we're talking about a $19.6 million program — in that range — half of which, or a bit less than that, is funded by the province. Mr. Chairman, whether we're talking about $9 million or $10 million, if all of the money that's been allocated is spent we're not talking about very much money in terms of the need that exists out there: recognized. youth unemployment figures of 24 percent to 26 percent. There is a clear indication from university and high school students that jobs just are not available. No matter how hard people look, there just aren't jobs available.

People in the House get tired, I guess, of comparing with previous administrations, but when I think of the $25 million contribution that was made in 1974 or '75, as compared to $10 million now, we're talking about not just a drop of significant numbers in absolute terms, but an even more significant drop in terms of the value of those dollars today as compared to a decade ago.

I recognize, as we all do, that there are a limited number of dollars. I recognize in saying this that the minister himself had no part in the decision-making process that led to the agreement signed with Flora MacDonald. What I'm saying by this is that I would trust that the minister will begin discussions, whenever that's appropriate, and I assume it's not far from now, to attempt to reach a situation where in next year's program significantly more dollars are expended. We should be spending, I would say, in the $50 million range as opposed to the $10 million range in this kind of program. If the federal government won't match those numbers of dollars, so be it. Ontario didn't worry about having equal dollar contributions from Ottawa. If my memory is correct, in Ontario it was two-to-one moneys involved, provincial to federal. If Ottawa is prepared to provide, say, $10 million or $11 million next year, that's no reason to say the province should limit its contribution to a like amount. I would urge the minister to shoot for some reasonable target. I think $50 million is a reasonable target. We could easily spend $100 million or $200 million, and it would all be used very well, but I'm realistic enough to know that that's not an appropriate amount of money in the scheme of things.

I would just urge the minister not only to dig in hard in his own discussions with Finance with respect to the amount in next year's budget but also to take a clear message to the ministers responsible in Ottawa. Additional money is required. I not going to make a long speech about the social implications of young people not working, but they are profound and costly. It is costly beyond anything we're going to be able to measure in terms of lost lives and additional health costs. Suicide rates are up. Our jail populations are increasing, and there is a whole series of social implications to this massive unemployment among youth that we need to recognize.

Money invested for summer jobs will pay dividends beyond almost any other equivalent numbers of dollars that are spent by government. There are too many people in their late 20s and approaching 30 years of age who have never really worked, and if a student summer job or a youth summer job enables somebody to begin to develop a curriculum vitae, a work history, it will then enable them to do better in terms of job searches when they're on the full-time labour market. I guess we can all stand up here in the House and argue strenuously for expenditures of money in various areas, and we all do it, but with respect to this ministry at this time, I would say that expending significantly more money on youth employment would be — should be — the major priority for additional ministry funds in the next little while. I realize that it's lost for this year, but certainly next year significantly more will be available.

Minimum wage in British Columbia is $3.65 an hour and has been since December 1, 1980, and is the lowest in the country now. The minister shakes his head. I'm going to doublecheck my figures.

[ Page 6673 ]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Oh, the federal government. Yes, you got me. The federal government minimum wage.... You got me. The lowest provincial minimum wage in Canada is in British Columbia. We can smile about you catching me out on that, but the fact is that it's not good enough for British Columbia, which has one of the higher costs of living in the country, if not the highest. We're a province which has an industrial wage structure that is for the most part significantly higher, not in terms of some regional economies in other parts of the country but certainly in terms of provincial economies across the country.

An hourly wage of $3.65 is $7,000 and change a year — if you can get a 40-hour week. Pensioners in this country make more, and they don't do so well — and if the federal government has its way they'll do worse. But they still do better. One of the greatest tragedies.... The word "tragedy" gets overused. I was making that comment to one of my colleagues in question period today, Everything is a tragedy. In fact, we tend to cheapen words by using them too easily. But this is a tragedy when people can work full-time and actually be at a level of less than half of anybody's poverty line — whichever group you might want to take.

[4:30]

I'm not suggesting that the minimum wage should be doubled overnight. The shock that that would provide in the economy would be impossible to take, but we should not have gone from December 1, 1980, to June 17, 1985, without a single change in the minimum wage, $3.65 an hour.

I notice Saskatchewan, which is at $4.25 an hour, has just increased its minimum age effective, I think, September. They are a rural economy. It's inexcusable, and I know the howls of outrage that will come from some sectors of our society about an inability to pay more than the $3.65. I'm talking about the adult minimum wage, not the teenage minimum wage. They both should be raised, but should be raised in lockstep with each other. The significant thing is that $3.65 an hour is just not tolerable.

I would hope that before very many weeks or, at worst, months go by, cabinet will consider a recommendation from the minister to improve that rate — not only to improve it, recognizing that a jump of, say, $2 all at once would be impossible to take, but that there will be some indication, so people can plan. There would be some indication as to what the steps will be over the next year or two years. Give people a chance to adjust to it. Initially raise it in small amounts, but do it frequently until you get to a level.... I'm not going to propose a level; any level I would propose would be too small. But on the other hand, to pick a figure out of the air is difficult to do. I'm not going to do that at this time.

I'm proposing instead that the minister signal to the community that it's going to be raised, and it's going to be raised in the following ways: 35 cents and then another 25 cents and then another 25 cents, all within a few months or three or four months of each other — those kinds of raises, rather than doing it all at once. But let's get it done fairly quickly in the next year or two. Let's get it up to a level where we can at least hold our heads up again. We were the highest in the country, and from every standard one can imagine, we should again be the highest in the country.

Has the minister ever thought about going back and looking at W.A.C. Bennett's time in office and bringing in a ban on overtime — just saying flat out, without specific authority from somebody, that there will be no more overtime in this province? Obviously there are some situations.... You've got pipes bursting, and the plumber has to stay and work an extra hour or work all night perhaps. But why not say to the employers and to the workers in this province, until we're back to a reasonable unemployment level, which I would define as being 2 percent or 3 percent, that there would be a ban on overtime? [Applause.] I notice there is some bipartisan support for this, Mr. Chairman.

I say that on an issue like this I will receive some criticism from some of my supporters who like it. I know guys in pulp mills who, when the ships are in, are working 70 and 80 hours a week. Their paycheques are so big that their income tax adds up to being more than most of us even make — certainly more than I make. They complain about how much income tax they're paying. We could create untold numbers of jobs — in the thousands — in this province if we were to bring in that kind of arrangement.

You have to be careful with these things. There are a lot of things you have to watch for. Obviously a ten-hour day for construction camp-related jobs is a reasonable thing. Sometimes six tens are reasonable in that kind of industry too. So you might have to look at variations in construction. Most of those guys are only working six months of the year anyway, so you're not going to put a ban on overtime that's going to limit somebody's hours from 1,000 down to 800. So there are all kinds of things like that that I recognize and, I think, that anybody who looks at this kind of issue recognizes.

But there are all kinds of industrial situations in particular in which a rule like W.A.C. Bennett brought in back in the sixties, an outright ban.... I'd like the minister, when he responds, to give me some idea as to his reaction to that particular idea.

[Mr. Witch in the chair.]

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'll just move on. I guess if the minister's estimates had come up a lot earlier, I would have spent quite a bit of time talking about construction contracts being let to companies who prefer to find their labour elsewhere. I have raised it in the House on a number of occasions in question period and statement period. So I won't belabour it at this point. I'm still angry about the fact that ... not that an Alberta-based company can win a contract in British Columbia; I don't have any problem with that. Nor have I any problem at all with that company, if it's the successful bidder, bringing its keepers — key personnel, the people it keeps with it; that's a pun on the word "keeper" — with it when it goes to a job. No contractor could operate properly unless he could bring with him people who have worked with the company.

But I have a heck of a serious problem when that same company specifically and deliberately recruits its Cat operators and its truck-drivers from Alberta. That has happened on three jobs in the last year or less: Ledcor on two jobs on the Coquihalla; Douvan on that powerline between the Alberta border and Cranbrook. I'm sure the minister knows all about that particular issue. I'm sure the minister has had neighbours of his saying: "How come I haven't been able to get work on that particular job?" Unemployed electricians who string lines for Hydro, who have not worked for some time and who live in Cranbrook can't get jobs on the line that goes out of Cranbrook to the Alberta border. It's ridiculous, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 6674 ]

As I say, I'm not offended by the fact that that's an Alberta contractor. I'm not offended by the fact that the key people come with the company. But I am grossly offended by the fact that they deliberately seek workers from Alberta. They do it with a clear purpose. It's simply to prevent people who might be pro-union from coming on the job, so that they don't get organized. That's what it's all about. Plus, they think they can get away with a lower wage. Although when you look at the wages that Ledcor is paying its people in terms of hourly amount, they don't get away with it at all; they actually pay a dollar more, I think, in some cases. The benefits aren't much, so they save money in that respect.

Now I want to deal just briefly with the Charter of Rights argument. Every time I have raised it in here, I hear back that it's against the Charter of Rights. If my memory is correct, section 6(4) of the Charter of Rights allows the province to have an affirmative action program in respect of employment when the province's unemployment levels are higher than the national average. The Charter is phrased the other way — when our employment levels are lower than the national average.... But people understand unemployment, and it's common vernacular. So when our unemployment rates are higher than the national average — which they are; 14 and 15 percent compared to 11 percent in rough terms — the government is allowed to establish, as I read the Charter, an affirmative action program for British Columbia construction workers. That's not the way that particular section of the Charter was anticipated to be used. My grammar is awkward, but you know what I mean: that's not what it was designed for. There were other and loftier goals in mind when that particular section was introduced. But it's there, and I believe it can be used by the government, and should be used, to prevent the situation that we have in those two jobs — as I say, on the Coquihalla and on that B.C. Hydro lining job out of Cranbrook.

Moving to another issue in the same area, there is the question of fair wages. We have fair-wage legislation in this province. Most people don't recognize that. In all of the hullabaloo about fair wages, people forget — or they don't know — that this province has an act called the Wage (Public Construction) Act, an act administered by the Ministry of Labour. But it's not much good without regulations. My question is: are we going to get some?

In that connection, when the minister is responding about whether or not we're going to get regulations to make this legislation meaningful, I wonder what happened to the government's commitment that the federal fair-wage regulations would apply at Expo in respect of the non-union work that is being done at Expo. There was a commitment. The minister didn't make it; it was before his time. It was the commitment of the government that the federal fair wage would apply. It may be that the wage schedule and the benefits package at Expo is above what the federal fair wage guidelines would provide. Even if it is above, I think the province still, as a signal of government policy, should put the fair wage into place. If the federal fair wages aren't an appropriate mechanism to use, then more properly there should be a provincial set of regulations to make that particular legislation more meaningful.

I'll probably get back to some of these things, depending on the kind of response, Mr. Chairman. I'm surprised at how long my 15 minutes has gone.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Oh, the first shot's 30, is it? My first time as a debate leader under the new rules, and I thought I had 15 minutes. I get 30; it shows I should read the rules, Mr. Chairman.

I want to move on to labour relations in more general terms and ask the minister what the ministry's role, if anything — that would include his or the previous minister's, or perhaps the ministry's itself — was with the ILO and its proposed trip to British Columbia, as one of four provinces it wanted to have a visit with in terms of legislation. What might have happened...? Does the minister have any theories as to why the ILO decided not to come to British Columbia at this time? I'd just be curious to know what happened. While we're at it, would the minister welcome a visit by the ILO to talk about the fact that British Columbia no longer has any free collective bargaining in the public sector?

I'm not going to make a lot out of it today. We talked about it under legislation that was introduced earlier this session by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and we've talked about it in other forums. But I can't let it pass without saying that I hope the minister sees it as his job to work towards the end of this denial of collective bargaining in the public sector in this province, which is, day by day, being further denied, in terms of the way the office of the CSP operates.

Now my time is up, Mr. Chairman. We'll get back to this one after.

[4:45]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I appreciate the member and his comments, and all of the items brought up under the discussion that's just been put forward. The first of a series of comments was dealing with full employment and the responsibility of government — and indeed all of us, whether we're in government or in industry. Whether it be at the government of Canada level or the provincial government level, or even in the private sector, I think our goals, dreams and aspirations would be for full employment for all British Columbians and Canadians.

The member mentioned the amount of money put aside this year for a student employment program. The total amount of money was just short of $30 million. The number of jobs created was estimated at 17,000 jobs, which compares to last year's 7,300 jobs.

I did meet with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon. Flora MacDonald, last Friday in Vancouver, and talked to the minister responsible for employment. I look to her, over the course of the next few months, to achieve, with the government of Canada, a new employment and training fund that is currently being negotiated by both levels of government and both ministries. I hope that we will have an opportunity, once that program is finalized, to provide further employment opportunities for young British Columbians, particularly in the area of forestry, mining and tourism, as well as improving the skills of individuals who have no skills at all at the present time, or individuals who want to re-enter the workplace. In terms of re-entry, is there opportunity for them to participate in the area of expertise that they had developed prior to leaving the workplace? If not, what opportunities are available for them to participate today? So I look towards the finalization of that agreement with the government of Canada, and I look to the province of British Columbia getting a fair share of the money available through the federal employment and training fund. I look to

[ Page 6675 ]

the help of the Members of Parliament from British Columbia to secure a good share of those funding dollars for that valuable program in British Columbia, in an effort to provide future employment opportunities and training for British Columbians.

The member talked about the minimum wage. The minimum wage in British Columbia, without question, is the lowest of any provincial government in Canada. I have asked my staff to bring forward to me a full review of the minimum wage and the implications of raising the minimum wage. The member quite clearly pointed out the concerns of the community with respect to increasing the minimum wage. Some employers argue that any increase in the minimum wage would put them out of business altogether, while others have volunteered to increase the wages that they pay to their employees well beyond the minimum wage. So it's that delicate balance that one is always trying to achieve. Looking at it on the surface, yes, it is bad. I look forward to receiving the report from my staff on that particular subject matter, and will possibly take some action on it when it comes forward. But it is a complicated area and one that needs careful study before proceeding with it. Of course, people who pay minimum wage always have to bear in mind that there are other opportunities available for those employees to gain access to higher funding, should the employer not treat them in a fair and reasonable way in terms of compensating them for their labour.

I remember working in construction in 1966 on the Big Bend highway when the former government of W.A.C. Bennett brought in not a total freeze on overtime across the province, but he did leave available the opportunity for a special permit that could be applied for in extraordinary circumstances. The construction industry is one of those areas where there are special circumstances. For example, a pulp operation might be shut down for two months or so to do annual maintenance, and they would get the boilermakers' union, for example, or the electrical workers' union, to go in there over that one-month shut-down period and have them work all sorts of hours, day in day out, to get the project completed and get the mill back in production as quickly as possible. So in the proposal, without question, there is need for flexibility. While we would look at those individuals maybe earning $4,000 over the course of a week, it might be the last paycheque that they would receive for a considerable period of time. Quite clearly, today's economy is different than it was in the sixties when, although the economy was tough at that time, there were other opportunities for people to go out and participate in a variety of construction projects across our province. There is need for flexibility in those areas, and need to give consideration to every phase of an operation in terms of overtime.

I should point out to the member that I haven't considered it to this date and haven't made any recommendations in that area. I do appreciate the member's bringing it up, and I will take his comments under advisement. The mining industry and the sawmilling industry, and areas like that — I guess you could look at those areas and say, yes, we will institute an overtime ban, but again in an emergency situation where the mill is down, and there are one or two electricians working at the plant, you may find that they have already worked their quota in terms of the hours that need to be worked, and end up having the mill shut down because they didn't have fast and easy access to permits, and so on and so forth, to work the extra hours of overtime.

The Ministry of Labour has an active committee that currently is reviewing the construction industry. Representatives of the industry are on the committee. In the next short period of time I expect that the chairman of the committee, Claude Heywood, would be releasing a report on the state of the construction industry. I have talked to representatives of the industry about fair wages and so on and so forth. I recognize too that the industry has gone out and in many cases waived the provisions of the collective agreement in order to get the job and get their members working. They are to be commended for that. They've been able to reduce their costs a great deal, but they still have difficulty competing with non-union companies.

I have told them that if they look seriously at the provisions of their collective agreement.... I might be a mechanic out there overhauling an engine, and when I get the engine ready I have to wait for a period of time before the oiler comes and puts the oil in the engine so that I can start it to see if it will run properly. I think there are some provisions in the collective agreements that they may want to work on once the report is released, which might provide an opportunity for the parties to reduce their costs. Once they have done that, I will take under advisement their recommendations on ways in which we can improve their competitiveness and provide opportunities for them to seek employment.

Coming from southeastern British Columbia, I know what the member is talking about when he talks about people coming from other provinces to be gainfully employed in British Columbia — and not just on construction projects. With the opening of five coal-mines in southeastern British Columbia, people have come from other parts of the country, other parts of the province and, indeed, other parts of the world to seek opportunities in southeastern British Columbia and throughout our whole province. I feel that is one of the nice things about Canada. You have the right guaranteed to you under law to seek employment opportunities wherever you go across the country. From Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland, to Vancouver Island those opportunities are available to us.

Quite frankly, I was annoyed a few weeks ago when somebody in my constituency was arguing about an Albertan coming in and getting a job in the Elk valley. This individual was from the Netherlands, and saying that this individual from Alberta had taken an opportunity away from his son or his family, or whatever. He felt that because he was an immigrant to the country and a resident of British Columbia he should have better access to the job than the individual who came from Alberta, In all honesty, I have a difficult time with that.

I recognize and understand the need to provide employment opportunities for all British Columbians and the need to provide equal access to the workplace. But if an individual company can go out and hire its employees — one would presume, based on their skills, their qualifications and their ability to fit in with the rest of the workforce — I don't know what opportunity there would be for me to say to that employer: "This individual, because he's a constituent or because he's a friend or for whatever reason, should have access to that particular job." And quite frankly, I'm not sure that I want to be able to do that.

The powerline that the member talked about was put out to tender. The difference between the individual who got the contract and the second one on the list was $600,000. Looking at it as a trustee of public funds, without question you

[ Page 6676 ]

couldn't justify giving it to the second one on the list just because they were from British Columbia. However, that did point out the need for all of us, whether we're in southeastern British Columbia or other areas of the province, to say that we have quite a way to go in terms of sharpening our pencils and being able to go out and compete for those opportunities that are available to us across the province and, indeed, across the country.

On the matter of the International Labour Organization and its application to come to British Columbia, I welcome the opportunity for them to come to British Columbia. There is a procedure set down by the government of Canada whereby they make application through the government of Canada to come and visit areas within the country. That procedure has been laid out, worked out with the government of Canada and the International Labour Organization, and I know that the people who set out those rules, regulations and guidelines would want to follow them to the full extent. After they have followed those guidelines to the full extent, we will cooperate with the government of Canada and the International Labour Organization, and accommodate them in every way possible, both informationally and.... We welcome them to British Columbia when and if they should decide to come to our province. I hope that it wouldn't be at the political whim of one individual or two individuals who want to bypass that process just because it was convenient for them at a particular time.

[5:00]

MR. GABELMANN: I'm just going back to a couple of the points that the minister responded to. The ban on overtime....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I know we're doing this in a very rough way, both of us. The minister cited the example of a pulp mill that might be down for a couple of months for overhaul and maintenance not being a situation that occurs; it's an ongoing process and the pulp mills would like to operate every day and not shut down for maintenance. They would keep going. But the fact is if they did shut down for a period of time for overhaul and maintenance, that's the perfect time when somebody shouldn't be working 60 or 80 hours a week. There are other unemployed plumbers or electricians or painters or whatever else in the community.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The problem is that employers would rather have a small workforce and work them longer hours than have a larger workforce working fewer hours. There's some cost....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that's not so.

MR. GABELMANN: Every employer in my riding would much prefer to have people work longer hours. You go to an employer and say: "There are twice as many people available to do a particular job. Would you agree in theory with reducing the hours in half?" and they say: "We couldn't afford it. The cost of having twice as many employees is too high."

In this crazy society of ours, we say that the costs are too high for the employer to have people working 30 hours a week as opposed to 40 or more, so we shove all those costs onto society — in UIC, in welfare, health care and a million other costs. That's what we do. We shift the cost from the employer to society. That's the logicality of the whole thing. I know for a fact that people work a full 52 weeks a year, with their four or five or six weeks' holiday. They work a full 52 weeks a year at 40 hours a week, and in some industries also work an additional 10, 15, 20 or more hours a week.

It's built into the structure because the employer would rather not have somebody else on call who might only end up working 1,200 or 1,500 hours a year....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: There's an employer on the other side of the House who would like to speak, and he'll have his opportunity. But the fact is that we have ingrained in our society a pattern of behaviour at the workplace that both sides like. A lot of the guys like the extra hours, no question. Somebody has to say: "In this society and under this structure we can no longer afford to have anybody work more than 30 hours or 35 hours a week."

While we have this going on, we have the government increasing the number of hours a week that it expects its own employees to work, while unemployment is increasing. I started out by saying that my proposal was that there be a ban on overtime, with the necessary loopholes which you have to have, which we all agree with. I am now extending this to the next logical position, which is that maybe the 40-hour mark isn't the time when you start the overtime; maybe it's 30 or 32. You work your way down. But the trend recently has been the opposite.

Because more employees administratively cost employers money, the employers shift the burden of that cost from employment to society. So pensioners are expected to take a decrease in their real incomes so that society can afford to pay companies not to hire more workers. It's bizarre. I won't pursue that much further, but I don't want to lose the issue, the narrow issue of the ban on overtime where it's appropriate. The way of doing it, I think, is a universal ban with permissible exemptions.

The member talked about people coming from one part of the country, or even from the Netherlands and other parts of the world, to take jobs. I have real trouble being understood or being heard or probably being articulate enough to make my point clear on this issue. I support 100 percent the provisions of the Charter of Rights in respect of mobility rights. I believe in that. I would campaign for that. I think it's an important feature of the Charter. That's not the issue that I've been raising. I'm not saying that if Sage Creek goes ahead.... I'm not saying, to take it out of the minister's riding, that when Quintette starts to operate, as it did, that somebody from Newfoundland or somebody from Ontario or somebody from Alberta shouldn't have an equal opportunity to come, take a job, buy or rent a house and establish life as a British Columbia citizen.

I have problems with the guys who come into this province, pay their income tax elsewhere, send their kids to school elsewhere, send money home so the family can purchase groceries elsewhere, and as soon as the job is over, go back elsewhere. That's the thing that I have problems with. I'm not saying.... Because the minister seemed to think that I was advocating that the low bidder in the Hydro example by some $600,000 shouldn't have got the contract. Yes, if

[ Page 6677 ]

he's qualified to build the line he should have gotten the contract, but there should be a provision in law — if not in law then it can be done by contract — that the terms in the tender will be that a certain proportion of the workforce will be hired locally. That doesn't prevent an Alberta worker driving to Cranbrook, registering with Canada Manpower — or with the union if they can, if it's that kind of a job — and getting in line for the job. I wouldn't argue against that. What I argue against is the employer going back home and specifically recruiting in Edmonton or some other part of the country. They should hire locally. The local people may come from The Netherlands, Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland, or wherever. They might also happen to come from Cranbrook in this case, which would have been nice.

So I'm not arguing for non-British Columbia firms, because they could very easily become a British Columbia firm. They all do. McGregor became Douvan and therefore it was a British Columbia firm. Ledcor has an office in Richmond. So it's ridiculous to say: "How do you get around that?" You can't. I'm not worried about that. Let them bid. Let them win. But let them understand that they have to hire locally. That's all. It should be part of the understanding of the bid.

Okay, enough on that. Back to my list of issues. I started to talk, before the red light went on, about the lack of collective bargaining in the public service. As I say, I'm not going to pursue that. I did want to say that I am concerned, as I think a lot of people in the labour relations community are, about the — I want to choose my words carefully here — deterioration in respect for the Labour Relations Board and its operations. I'm not saying that it has got to a point.... I was going to say "yet" but I don't mean yet, because that implies that it will at some point. It's not irretrievable, in my view, nor is it past a critical or a dangerous point, but it has the potential very quickly if the present lack of trust in that board continues. If the trend lines continue, there's a potential of losing the respect that the LRB absolutely requires for it to function and for the labour law in this province to function properly. We've seen it happen in respect of the WCB. They are not parallel institutions by any means, but we've seen what can happen to how people respond to an organization when respect is lost. We saw what happened when the mediation commission of 15 years ago commanded no respect — none.

I'm not suggesting that that's where the LRB is now; it's not. But there are clear danger signals that I think need to be heeded. I think the whole idea of that board being independent, an agency to work quietly at improving industrial relations and helping to resolve disputes even before they happen, which used to happen with much frequency.... More happened behind the scenes than the public ever knew. I suspect it still does to a certain extent, but I have the sense that it's not with the same authority and ability as once was the case.

While I'm at it, let me just say that the whole concept of so-called public interest representation on the board just drives me batty. That's not what the LRB is about. The LRB is a vehicle to assist labour and management, and it should be seen as that. The people who are on it should come from those two sides. The people appointed from labour should be generally accepted by labour; likewise, the people appointed from management should be accepted by them. I recognize that it can't be written in stone, but there needs to be some process by which those appointments are happily received. Often they're not. Too often — and I want to be careful with this too — jobs, whether they're at the LRB, the board of reviews or other positions in government or quasi-government, are seen as retirement pastures. If not retirement pastures, then: "We've got to get rid of Joe. How do we do it? Oh, let's get the minister to appoint him to something." We all know examples of where that's happened. It's good for Joe, but it sure does the system a lot of disservice. When that starts to happen.... I hope there's some real concern in the minister's mind about stemming the possible disaster that could be occurring at the LRB in terms of the respect that it must have in the community.

Just while I'm at it, I don't think this is a contentious issue, but I'd like the minister's reaction to fast-track arbitrations, section 1(12) of the Labour Code, what his reaction is to encouraging that more than.... It's starting to be used more, but to encouraging it. I think he should be concerned, if he isn't, Mr. Chairman, about the cost of arbitrations and the delay. We've all seen situations where arbitration boards meet a year or two years after the fact, and this is particularly difficult in dismissal cases, where people are out of work and if the person is rehired then you're looking at a year's back pay, if the board makes that decision. And on and on. It's just unhealthy for labour relations to have unresolved issues that are in arbitration. I think it impacts badly on the whole collective bargaining system too, because some of those issues then end up at the bargaining table — in a disguised form, but they end up there — and exacerbate bargaining. So I'd be interested to know what the views are on fast-tracking.

Moving off labour relations — I'm obviously doing this very quickly and I've got two minutes in this section — I want to move into human rights. The minister might have noticed on the orders of the day that I've got notice to reintroduce or to introduce in fact a new bill on human rights, which I hope to do tomorrow or the next day. I haven't done it, because I want to be able to talk about a few of the issues. But in the minute and a half that's left, Mr. Chairman, let me just raise the McAlpine report. As the minister would remember, the McAlpine report was done a few years ago. Very little has happened. McAlpine made four major recommendations, and, in effect, with the possible exception of the fourth recommendation which related to a review of human rights — the review was done and not satisfactorily in my view, but nevertheless at least done — the other three recommendations in McAlpine's report, which was a fairly lengthy document, don't seem to have been the subject of any government attention, at least not any that's come to public attention. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, the report recommended that programs on racism and multiculturalism should be introduced into the school system, police should be....

I see the red light. I'll get back to it afterwards. Thank you.

[5:15]

MR. MICHAEL: I've been listening to the opposition critic, Mr. Chairman, and I think that the minister is indeed fortunate in having such a positive critic putting forward what he believes to be very sincere and valid ideas. I can certainly agree with a lot of what he says. I think that every member on this side of the House agrees with the concept of full employment. The problem is getting to where we would all like to be. He mentions the concept of those receiving unemployment insurance or social assistance being put to work, and I think I could agree with the concept that every person on

[ Page 6678 ]

social assistance or UIC who is employable and who would like a job should have one.

The member opposite may be interested in some figures that I've come up with after some research. I don't think I want to argue about whether it's 5 percent or 10 percent or 15 percent out, but it would appear to me that the average UIC claimant is receiving very close to the neighbourhood of $4.50 an hour — on the average — some are significantly higher, some are lower, but the average is about $4.50 an hour, while those receiving Human Resources assistance are receiving — again on the average, because a single person varies widely from a married person with three or four children — somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4 an hour. So you look at those figures and you say: "Well, surely there's something that could be worked out with industry and business — with the private sector — to offer those people a reasonable wage to put them all to work."

One clear, simple approach would be to, say, put them to work in the forests — thinning, spacing, cleaning up — over and above what the ministry is going to be doing anyway. As we all know, the ministry is committed to 200 million seedlings by 1987 and the ministry is committed to the ERDA agreement which is going to do a lot to solve those types of problems. But over and above those two announcements, there is certainly some wisdom in saying to industry: "Look, if you need some additional people...." It would obviously pay the governments to subsidize that $4 figure or $4.50 figure up by another $1 or $1.50, let the industry pick up $2 or $3 and put those people to work for $8 or $9 an hour. That's a very simple concept and carries a lot of merit.

The problem is that it's not going to resolve the unemployment problem in British Columbia, because I can assure the member opposite, if he checks through research, that the inflow of people from other provinces into British Columbia is still taking place, the average being well in excess of 15,000 a year over the last five years, disregarding the migration from other countries. If you put 1,000, 2,000, 5,000, 10,000 or 20,000 to work under a scheme like that without other provinces doing the exact same thing, you would do nothing to solve the unemployment percentage problem in British Columbia. You'd just attract that many more people in from other provinces.

I would venture to say that if someone would go to the trouble of interviewing all those in the soup kitchen lineups in British Columbia and doing a survey as to how many people in those lineups originated in other provinces or other countries during the last two-year period, you would find that at least 50 percent of the people have come from other provinces or other countries. I believe it to be higher than that, but I would be very confident that the figure would be a minimum of 50 percent.

As I say, unless the minister can get all his other ministers in the other provinces in step, along with the federal government, to institute a blanket policy along these lines, we're going to have ourselves a problem just solving the problem in British Columbia. We all have to be marching to the same drum.

I really think the answer rests in reforestation. I have no trouble advocating that government should subsidize a worker in the forests doing clean-up work, because you are not disturbing the supply and demand or the economics of subsidizing labour within the private sector. We all know the difficulties and the conflict caused when one employer is getting a subsidy and the guy down the street who has been in business for ten years is not. So there are several problems with a lot of subsidy programs. But I don't see a conflict in the forest industry, and I'm sure that same example could be carried through with environmental enhancement and things along those lines.

One of the things the member opposite did not mention and I think it's fair game to mention all facts and statistics when you're dealing with them — is that there are 47,000 more people working in British Columbia today than there were 12 months ago. It's very significant in recognizing that those are federal statistics, not provincial. It's very interesting to recognize, with the same statistical method of measurement applied in other provinces in Canada, that you can take Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and all the Maritime provinces together, and British Columbia created as many jobs in the last 12 calendar months as all those provinces combined. I think we've done our job, Mr. Chairman.

One of the other areas the member mentioned was reduced hours of work. It's a good concept, but I would suggest he try to sell that concept to the trade union movement, because they are the ones with the collective agreements. They are the ones with the agreements with the employer that calls for a 40-hour work week. There is no question that if you were to take a pulp mill, for example, that had 1,500 employees and reach an agreement on a six-hour day, the following Monday morning you could have 2,000 people working rather than 1,500. You'd clearly increase your workforce by one third.

However, the employer has a problem. Firstly, his benefit cost is going to go up. We all know that if the average wages are $18 an hour, the true cost of labour is $24. So he's still going to have that $6 base figure because of his benefits. But if the unions were to go to the employer and say: "Look, we're prepared to look at four six-hour shifts; we're prepared to do some negotiations on the benefits side so your costs aren't going to be additional," I'm sure the management would have a serious look at that. I think it's a great idea. I think there are plywood plants and many operations that work on three shifts in British Columbia where you could increase the workforce by 33 percent. But it's clearly a problem between the trade unions and the management. I don't see how the government could possibly step in and interfere with something like that and get involved in the collective bargaining process.

As far as the member's suggestion about hiring locally, again I would suggest he talk to the trade union movement. I've talked to them many times. I have problems in Revelstoke with the double-tracking and the tunnelling job. The Revelstoke union members are very mad right now. They're local, they've lived there for 15 or 18 years and they can't get hired on the project, because they're bringing the people in from outside. But again, it's clearly a union constitution problem. They have the rules and regulations, and they say they take the people, in line with their seniority, that are on the call lists. I see their argument, but to start restricting those types of things within the tendering process means we've got ourselves a lot of problems.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'd like to thank the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke for his comments.

Getting back to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). He talked about the arbitration process and the need to develop fast-tracking. The Ministry of Labour encourages

[ Page 6679 ]

the process of fast-tracking and is currently doing an extensive study on the cost involved in arbitration in principle.

The member talked earlier on about the Labour Relations Board and the operation of the Labour Relations Board. In my view, the Labour Relations Board has done a good job in British Columbia. Under the present chairman, I think it can do an even better job. What I have attempted to do since becoming Minister of Labour is to sit down with the parties of interest and talk to them about the need to have appointees on the Labour Relations Board that recognize that this is 1985, where an individual who would go on to the Labour Relations Board from the union side wouldn't go on there showing their biases against the management community and an individual from the management community wouldn't go on showing their biases against the trade union movement.

What you have to have is people who recognize the existence of each other. I would hope too that neither one party nor the other would shove someone on to me to sit on the Labour Relations Board just because they wanted rid of them in another area of their operation, because quite clearly, if that happens, I will reject that application. That's not to say that I won't get back to them and ask them for another recommendation. I will do that, but if somebody is going to play that sort of silly game, it will clearly be rejected. The chairman of the Labour Relations Board, along with the vice chairman, must fully participate in the development of that strategy.

I would also like to find a way where we would get employers and unions, large and small, to provide an opportunity for those groups to participate in the development of a healthy labour relations climate in the province of British Columbia.

One of the things that I see since becoming Minister of Labour is that some groups have three appointees on there. Other groups have none. What I'd like to do is be able to develop a list whereby all of the participating groups would be able to get their appointee maybe not on there in 1985, but maybe by 1987 they could look at the schedule, and their particular representative would be appointed to the Labour Relations Board. It is my hope that we will be able to reach that sort of consensus with the parties of interest and provide an opportunity for all of the companies and unions, large and small, to play a positive role in the development of a healthy labour relations climate in the province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: I think I understand what the minister is saying in terms of a revolving rostrum, in effect, on the LRB. I think there is some merit to that in the sense of giving everybody a chance to play a part in it.

I may not have been very clear in respect of my concern about the "public interest nominees" on the LRB. Clearly there need to be people who are appointed who come from neither side. Hopefully the chairperson — not the chairman, Mr. Chairperson — would be someone who would command the respect of both sides because he or she has a neutral perspective. There have to be others; some of the vice chairpersons of the board need to have the same kind of perspective.

That's not what I meant by the trend that appeared to be developing with the former minister, Mr. Chairman. I use the term "Chairman" in here because I've been brought to task before by persons occupying the chair saying that in this

House we have Chairmen; we don't have Chairpersons. I just want to make the point that I find the use of the term Chairman to be really archaic and not very comfortable any more. For me, two or three years ago it was uncomfortable to say Chairperson. It comes out very easily now. I wish we could come into the modem age in this House. At least in terms of discussing the men and women who occupy these positions, Mr. Chairman, we really do need to do something about our language in this House. But in any event, I've been digressed, if I can do something we do to our language, which is to butcher it.

MS. SANFORD: Just don't call him "baby." That's what they do in the federal House.

MR. GABELMANN: I won't do a John Crosbie-Sheila Copps number, I can assure you of that.

Back to the point. Yes, there need to be people who occupy positions who come at it from a neutral perspective. But the direction that the former minister was apparently embarking upon, which was to have a clearly defined third force on the board, which was a force that represented the public — the "public interest" — is a direction that I hope will be discouraged and not followed.

[5:30]

That is not to say that those people with the respect of both sides and the support of both sides.... I'm not going to name names, but we could name names of various vice chairmen over the last few years, and today too, who do have that support. Let's not lose sight of what the LRB was supposed to be. As for some of the people who end up in some of those positions, I won't mention names on the floor of the House, but I think maybe over a cup of coffee we could have a long conversation about some of the names of people who get into various positions in government simply as a pasture — as a retirement.

Back to the McAlpine report. I hadn't finished just very quickly summarizing the recommendations which I don't think have been dealt with by government. I raise them here even though you could argue, I suppose, that it's in some ways A-G responsibility too, but the report was presented to the current Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) when he was Minister of Labour by John McAlpine, and I haven't seen much come of it. As I said, there were educational recommendations. I started to talk about the law enforcement agencies, the sensitization of police forces in respect of cultural differences, and all of that. There were a few programs started, but I'm not sure there's sufficient follow-up in the way McAlpine recommended.

The question of media that he raised — for example, the KKK seems to have a forum in some media outlets in this province. We have fairly severe restrictions, or good restrictions, in respect of dissemination of racial hatred through broadcast media, but not the same for print media. These are concerns that were raised by McAlpine. I wonder: too often we get these reports and they're well worked out, and then they seem to be gathering dust somewhere.

In general terms, the Human Rights Council, let me just say very generally and very quickly.... I will introduce, as I said before, a bill which will make clear my own biases in this respect. I think the Human Rights Council has improved its behaviour and its public image dramatically in the last while. They had nowhere to go but up, from the beginning

[ Page 6680 ]

days, and they've gone up. But they're constrained by inadequate rules that govern them. I just think it's crazy that the same agency that investigates — not at the first stage but at a higher stage — also judges. That's in effect what we have. I realize it's not the same person, but it's a process that really is not appropriate at all, in my view.

I worry, too, that the concerns that we express during debate on that particular legislation about the lack of educational opportunity on the part of the council.... The fact that there isn't an education function built into that particular council is, I think, now showing up in bad ways in terms of human rights in the province. It is difficult to discuss this subject — and I'm being careful because of the rules — without calling for new legislation, which we can't do in this forum. Clearly that's got to happen. I think I'll leave the human rights stuff at that. I'm specifically interested in the McAlpine report's recommendations.

There is a whole area relating to first call on moneys from bankruptcies, receiverships and so on that I'm not particularly knowledgeable about. It's an area that crosses provincial and federal jurisdictions. But it's an area in which there are some glaring problems. I just find it absolutely offensive that the banks can come in and get higher call than people who have put work into a particular operation, and that somehow the bank's loan has a prior claim to the workers' wages. Similarly, pension funds get a lower call, and pension funds are often shorted as a result of the banks coming in and getting the first moneys. I recognize the jurisdictional thing and that we can't solve all of these problems provincially. But it seems to me that there needs to be an overall attack on this entire issue.

I can't come up with specific recommendations right here on the floor of the House. I'm not skilled enough to do it. I realized, when I started to do some study of my own into the subject, that it was a much bigger topic than I had ever imagined. But there need to be some clear principles delineated and enunciated by government. The first one must be that the first call on available moneys — I'm speaking very generally — must be for the work that was done; not the capital that was loaned, but the work that was done. I would hope that perhaps the minister, if he hasn't already, would have some serious work being done in-house on that particular topic; then, once there are some proposals ready, that he would farm them out to the affected community and probably have some discussions with the federal government as well, in respect of their legislation, to get into a situation where we don't have workers or their pension funds being shorted as a result of bankruptcies and the like.

An issue that has been raised just in the last few days, Mr. Chairman, relates to another subject altogether. The vocational rehabilitation services of the Ministry of Labour have apparently decided to quit assisting the — I'm looking for the correct terminology — hearing-impaired students who were attending Gallaudet College in Washington, D.C. The background, quickly, is that we do not have higher educational services for hearing-impaired students, so the vocational rehabilitation services were providing financial assistance. It appears as if that money is now being eliminated; that assistance is being cut off, not for the current students as much as for the future of the program.

I wonder if that's true, first of all. This is very recently.... I haven't had a chance to go through the bureaucracy to sort it all out, as I normally do with these kinds, of things, but I wanted to raise it in the estimates now because it's just been brought to my attention. It appears as if the ability for hearing-impaired people to (a) gain employment and (b) gain good employment in terms of remuneration is immeasurably assisted in the cases of those students who have been assisted by this particular program. Yet it appears to be ended.

I wonder if it's true, and if it is true, why, and what alternative mechanisms...? Is it being transferred to another part of government? What's happening here? Why is this particular assistance apparently being phased out?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member for North Island mentioned the McAlpine report, and of course that is five years old. In the three months I've been Minister of Labour, I haven't had really time to have a look at it or study it. I do know that the human rights protection act was born out of that report some years ago.

The operating engineers, in discussion with my caucus colleagues.... The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) and the members for North Vancouver, Surrey and so on have had extensive discussion with them. They passed on information to me with regard to the pension issue that you brought up. I have had extensive discussion following receipt of that report from the operating engineers. I have asked my ministry to bring forward to me some recommendations. I have also sent a letter to the federal minister asking for his action in areas where it does impact on federal legislation. So I have got my ministry personnel working on that particular issue at this time.

The vocational rehabilitation service of the Ministry of Labour is, as the member mentioned, a very valuable program. We have exhausted the funds in that budget, but we're looking at innovative ways that we can help the individuals involved. I have a meeting with them next week, with the parents, and I can't give the member any commitment beyond that. But I do give him a commitment that they will receive a fair hearing. I do understand their concern. I do understand the need to provide funds for the program for those students to be able to go out and receive an education and become full participating members of the community. So when I meet with the parents next week, we'll have a talk about it and see how we can help them achieve that goal.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate both comments. I didn't expect the minister to get up and give me a 15-minute speech on what the government has done on the McAlpine report. I recognize it's five years old, and I recognize that it has had a low priority. That is precisely why I wanted to draw it to the minister's attention, because I think it has sort of been neglected. It may have been because of changes in ministers over the years, or it may have been a policy decision to ignore it. I'd be curious to know sometime in the future what, if anything, will come from it.

I went kind of quickly over the whole question of payment of wages. I gather one of the problems is that the courts have decided that the Builders Lien Act supersedes the Employment Standards Act, and that creates a certain problem. The fact that the definition of wages.... Maybe I'm wrong about that; I won't pursue it just to see what the reaction is.

Going back to the Builders Lien Act, if that's the case I'd be curious to know whether or not the minister is prepared to deal legislatively with that decision so that wages can take a priority again — if not again, at least that they can take a

[ Page 6681 ]

priority. The definition of wages has historically never included pension benefits and those kinds of things, but every worker at the bargaining table knows that when five cents goes into the pension fund, it's five cents less on the hourly wage. Your labour costs may be $18 an hour labour and $6 an hour benefits. The wages are $24 an hour. You may only get $18 in cash, at least on the top, but it's $24 an hour, and we've got to make sure our legislation reflects that fact so that the wages can be protected. That's the crucial issue.

I think it goes beyond that. In looking at this whole question, there are a lot of other implications. It baffles me why employers have any representation on boards administering pension funds. Employers gave that money away at the bargaining table to the workers, and then they expect to have some say as to how the pension money is going to be invested. There are situations in the construction industry.... I think of the operating engineers' fund, for example, where it's six and two — six labour and two employers. Why there are two employers is beyond me. But that's fair enough. At least the workers whose money it is have the control over it. But in other instances, it's four and four. From memory, I guess the IWA-FIR agreement is four and four. There are others where employers have a majority.

[5:45]

It's workers' money. They take it either in cash, as part of their hourly wage, or they put it into a pension fund. If they choose to put it into a pension fund, they give the control of it to the guy who has just given it to them. It's bizarre.

So, in looking at all of these questions, I think we really need legislation that deals with private pension plans in a collective kind of way. Some of these things should be dealt with in that review leading up to some proper legislation. But I really do think that we have to find a way of.... Perhaps amendments to the employment standards legislation, beginning with the definition of wages....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As the member is well aware, legislation is not in order in estimates.

MR. GABELMANN: I recognize that I'm out of order. I've been so careful today, Mr. Chairman; I've left half my speech on the table, as it were, because half of it requires talking about legislative changes.

So, without dealing with the need for a legislative change, may I say that if the wage definition were different in the Employment Standards Act, it could perhaps deal with this. That might be an initial solution that the minister might want to look at before going through this much more complicated, longer look at pensions in general and claims on bankruptcies in particular.

Apprenticeships. I haven't talked at all about the apprenticeship system in this province. It has not been an issue of long debate in this Legislature in recent years probably because the B.C. apprenticeship program is a relatively good system. I think there are lots of niggling things that I could raise about concerns that we have, but on balance it's not a bad program. There's one point. That Provincial Apprenticeship Board task force that reported to the former Minister of Labour, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — whenever that was; early this year, I believe.... I have it here somewhere; it's that book with a brownish cover. In any event, one of the recommendations in that report was that there should be some kind of government assistance to subsidize the final year of critical trades. I just mention that. I don't expect the minister to be familiar with the detail of all those recommendations, but that's a recommendation that I think really has some merit.

I would hope that it would be looked at just in terms of improving what is a relatively useful system in British Columbia — one that has avoided being subject to political warfare, as so many other things have in British Columbia. I think here we see an example of.... When an element of government programs has managed to have the trust of all of the parties involved in it, avoiding the political warfare, then the program can benefit from it. I'd just be interested to know what kind of standing it has in the ministry — if not today, then maybe tomorrow even.

I just have a couple of other small things, and then I'll sit down. There is a piece of legislation that I believe is the responsibility of the Attorney-General — the Good Samaritan Act. I raise this in the Labour estimates inasmuch as there is under the WCB a system to award payment to victims of criminal injuries. I wonder if the minister — it's not the major priority of his activities, no doubt — might have a look at the feasibility of extending the Criminal Injury Compensation Fund to also include compensation or some kind of insurance program, perhaps, for good samaritans.

I see it a lot on the coast, where people go and rescue people in boats who are having.... You know, you may see somebody floundering, and you go and rescue them. All your insurance policies go out the window once you start doing that kind of thing. If you're dangling, as a volunteer, at the end of a rope on a helicopter and picking somebody out of the water, your insurance policies for extended health care or whatever are out the window. It seems to me that....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes. It's a good samaritan principle. We have a Good Samaritan Act. The good samaritan across the way is responsible for it, I guess. But it doesn't have those kinds of protective provisions. I didn't raise it in the Attorney-General's ministry, because I think it's an appropriate thing to tie in with the criminal injury compensation program of the Workers Compensation Act. That's just for future discussion, Mr. Chairman.

The final issue in this portion of these discussions that I have was raised by the Teamsters....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me just finish this, and then we can start tomorrow with the WCB stuff. That might be the most effective way of dealing with this.

The armoured-car industry. I wonder what response the minister is prepared to give in answer to letters of April 12 from the teamsters' union to him in respect of — here comes a sexist word again — manning in the armoured-car industry and the requirements. Staffing is the word that I would use. Manning implies that men do it. One of the problems in our society that a lot of people don't understand — and this is the third part of our discussion of these estimates, when we get to women's programs — is that when you use language that implies gender....

Interjections.

[ Page 6682 ]

MR. GABELMANN: We're not perfect, Mr. Chairman. Let's make some beginning steps. I mean "woman" has some odious....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on....

MR. GABELMANN: This is Minister of Labour. Women's programs, Mr. Chairperson, are appropriate discussion under the Ministry of Labour because the minister has the program.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Look, most of the people who vote for me think I'm out to lunch when I talk about these kind of issues. But you know, in ten years it will be strange to use words like "chairman" and "manning." We will wonder how we ever used them, because they will have gone out of the language, thank God.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. In the meantime, would you please address the Chair on the minister's estimates, which is not with respect to the dictionary.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I've been very good at addressing the Chair, because I've used the term "Mr. Chairman" frequently this afternoon in my sexist way.

In any event....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, it's a struggle sometimes. But you know, I have less of a struggle with the loggers and miners and fishermen in North Island on this issue than I do with members of the government.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: But, you know, we can learn. It has become a bit of a laughing matter, and I understand that. You know, I'm not going to get uptight about it, because I think progress is made by relaxing about these kinds of issues. But we can learn from other languages. The Germans have no problem, and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) should know this. The Germans have no problem with the term fishermen. They call them fishers — simple, non-sexist. One of these days, hopefully with the excellent programs that the minister operates under the ministry's women's programs, we will get to a point where we no longer have these kinds of sexist....

But back to manning, Mr. Chairman. Has the minister had an opportunity to respond to the letters from the Teamsters about the armoured-car industry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the government House Leader.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie tabled the annual report of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, 1985.

MR. BARNES: If it's not too much trouble, I rise to request that the House congratulate Mr. Dave Barr on his success in coming in second place in the golf tournament down in the States. Can we do that?

MR. SPEAKER: No, we can't, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Oh, what a shame.

MR. SPEAKER: Those are the breaks.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.