[ Page 7819 ]

CONTENTS

Petroleum And Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands) Act (Bill 18). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading — 7819

Engineers Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading — 7819

Ministerial Statement

Social housing. Hon. Mr. Kempf — 7820

Mr. Blencoe

Tabling Documents — 7820

Oral Questions

Regal Place housing project. Mr. Blencoe — 7821

Premier's principal secretary. Mr. Stupich — 7821

Alleged union intimidation. Mr. Parks — 7821

BCRIC shares. Mr. Williams — 7821

New paper plant for Canada. Mr. Williams — 7822

Advertising of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Macdonald — 7822

Vancouver municipal finances. Mr. Mowat — 7822

Expo passes. Mr. MacWilliam — 7822

Cypress Park. Mr. Macdonald — 7822

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

On vote 54: minister's office — 7823

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Gabelmann Mr. Howard Ms. Brown Mr. Skelly Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Richmond

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1986

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like the members of the House to join me today in welcoming a dear good friend of mine from Terrace who is the business representative of the Tunnel and Rock Workers' Union. He has done a tremendous amount to advance the cause of working families in that area. So would the House join me in welcoming Mr. Bruce Ferguson.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to welcome two very good friends and excellent citizens of Richmond, Olga and Milan Ilich.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce a longtime friend from Powell River, Mrs. Edith Jones, and her friend from Victoria, Mrs. Beth Taggart. I hope the House will join me in welcoming them.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming three members from the University of British Columbia Alma Mater Society — three young people who, I'm sure, will be the leaders of the future: Glenna Chestnutt, Rebecca Nevraumont and Nancy Bradshaw. Would the House join with me in welcoming them.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a group of students from John Barsby Junior Secondary School in Nanaimo, with their teacher Mr. Samborski. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome two members from the interior: Mr. John Madsen, industrial relations manager for Hiram Walker in the Winfield-Kelowna area; and Mr. Bill Adams, president of the UAW and representative for the 160 workers at the Winfield distillery plant.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Jonathan Higdon, legislative assistant to Bob Wenman, Member of Parliament from Langley.

Introduction of Bills

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
(VANCOUVER ISLAND RAILWAY LANDS) ACT

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands) Act.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now, and with that I'd like to make just a few explanatory remarks. The Petroleum and Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands) Act is an important piece of legislation designed to allow exploration for oil and gas on Vancouver Island to proceed, while at the same time protecting the interests of the Island property owners. In some cases the ownership of the oil and gas rights cannot be determined in advance with any degree of certainty. The reason for this uncertainty is the vague and complicated nature of the grant of land for the creation of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway in 1884. Although the land changed hands many times over the years, the E&N always reserved the subsurface and mineral rights. In the 1970s it surrendered those rights to the province. However, in some cases the question arises whether the petroleum and natural gas rights also reverted to the province at that time. There is no single clear interpretation and the situation may be different for each parcel of land. Therefore we have brought forward this bill to remove the legal uncertainties so that exploration can proceed in the normal way.

This legislation will protect the interests of all those who may have a possible claim to oil and natural gas rights, while giving security of title to those companies granted drilling rights. The bill confirms title to the province, but provides a system of compensation for landowners where appropriate.

With this legislation in place, I'm confident that we'll see an early start of gas exploration in the Nanaimo area.

Bill 18 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Engineers Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. SMITH: In speaking to introduction of the bill, this is a bill that will amend the engineering act, one of the professional acts that has had a good deal of review with the profession. This will enable the B.C. Association of Professional Engineers to effectively regulate admission, competence and discipline among its membership.

There are presently 12,000 registered professional engineers in British Columbia who are overseen by this association. Their legislation has not been effectively amended during the past 26 years, and yet their activities have changed dramatically, just as the lawyers. In meeting current requirements, the bill will give them more flexibility in structuring their internal committee system and in discharging their responsibilities in the public interest.

There are a number of changes that allow them to keep apace with changes in practice. There's a new provision which clarifies that where a corporation practises engineering, the individual engineers are accountable. There's provision for committees to conduct investigation and disciplinary procedure, and it introduces the concept of a civil remedy for offences under the act. The offences of fraudulent registration and practising without registration are replaced with a statutory tort which empowers the association to take civil action and claim exemplary damages against a person practising engineering without registration.

I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its speedy passage.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

[ Page 7820 ]

SOCIAL HOUSING

HON. MR. KEMPF: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Mr. Speaker, I am greatly distressed, in fact fed up, with the untiring efforts of certain elements to manipulate the media, in presenting sensationalized distortions of social housing in this province. Without doubt, in my mind, their motives are not pure but politically motivated. We continue to hear of the downtown east side problem, but I want to go on record in this House as stating most emphatically that if any evicted individual in need of housing assistance will contact the B.C. Housing Management Commission in Vancouver, we will ensure that those needs are met.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the members of this House that to date only 13 people have approached the Housing Management Commission for assistance; none has been turned away. Of that number, six have refused available accommodation, four have been housed, and three are in the process of being dealt with right today.

Statements that have been communicated through the media have been greatly exaggerated. I am certain it has not been accidental; purely purposely done, Mr. Speaker. I do invite those who know of such people in distress — and have been on the radio as late as this morning talking about it — to take their housing needs to the B.C. Housing Management Commission; and my commitment is that they will be looked after.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has recognized the second member for Victoria in response to the ministerial statement.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't take much time, Mr. Speaker. This government continues to try to draw the heat away from what's happening in Vancouver. They know that the country is watching this scandal and this human misery that's happening in Vancouver, and they are attempting by falsehoods to cover up their incompetence, their lack of caring and a Premier that has indicated that there is no problem. But the people of British Columbia know there is a problem, and they want action.

Six hundred people have so far been evicted, and it is going to get worse, and this government has taken no action. The city of Vancouver is the only level of government — the provincial government refuses — that is trying some resources to try to deal with the problem in this area. British Columbians every day continue to be offended by the actions or the lack of action by this government. They are offended by this Premier and by this government.

Expo, yes; evictions, no. That should be the motto: Expo, yes; evictions, no. This new Minister of Housing has appointed a commission, the trash and thrash commission, to try to cover up his inadequacies and his inability to take any action for the people of this province. The record is there, and the people want action. They believe those British Columbians — the elderly, the seniors and the handicapped — require legislation for protection; otherwise this government continues on its course. It does not care about ordinary British Columbians.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee of Selection. I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. MOWAT: I move that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted.

MR. HOWARD: On the motion to adopt the report, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to express some discontent at the structure of the committees, the ratio of membership on those committees, as between the government side and the opposition side. The ratio is two to one: on every committee, for every one member that comes from the opposition, there are two from the government, completely out of whack with the ratio of membership in this House.

Obviously, the purpose is, even if the committees were to meet, and most of them haven't met since this Premier became the Premier of the province… Even if they were permitted to meet, it is a guarantee that the government wants to control every aspect of political life, including the committees. The Premier can look with a smirk on his face about it, but that's exactly what it reflects, Mr. Speaker: the determination of this Premier to run roughshod over everybody's rights regardless of who they are.

The ratio is wrong. Two to one is an inappropriate structure for these committees. We fought this in the committee itself. We want to express that now as well. What should occur, if there is any element of decency at all on the other side of the House in considering these matters, is to have the ratio reflect the membership of parties in this House, or government and opposition in this House, to the whole of the membership of the House.

I would therefore move, seconded by my colleague the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), that the motion be amended by deleting the word "adopted" and the following substituted therefor: "...recommitted to the said special committee with instructions that each said select standing committee of this House be restructured so membership thereon from the government side and the opposition side bears the same ratio to the whole of the said membership of each committee as is the case in the House."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 24

Motion approved.

[ Page 7821 ]

Oral Questions

REGAL PLACE HOUSING PROJECT

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. The provincial government has poured $600,000 of public money into a housing project at Regal Place on Hastings Street in Vancouver. The private owner of that project has evicted 18 needy residents so that he can cash in on Expo. Will the minister explain why the government is sinking all that public money into a project which is throwing the needy onto the streets, and why this government has now become a partner in the Expo evictions?

[2:30]

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'm glad that member asked me that question today. I'd like to answer it in detail. The rental conversion act allows for the issuance of a general mortgage and does not provide government with the capability of preventing the borrower from making the units available for rental purposes on a daily basis. We agree that this leasehold and rental conversion act may have been better-drafted when it was established by government. However, there was little the present government could do about that, as the act was implemented by the NDP on June 20, 1974, when they were in power. Next question.

MR. BLENCOE: How long has this government been in office? How long have they had a chance to change this? Six hundred thousand dollars; 1982. Where is the competency in government? You could have changed this legislation.

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to ensure that the requirement of providing this money for housing is met? If not, is he prepared to recommend that that mortgage be cancelled?

HON. MR. KEMPF: There are hundreds and hundreds of vacant housing units in the greater Vancouver area. The problem is not supply; the problem is affordability. Yes, the government is doing something, through the SAFER program, the GAIN program. Now, right at this very moment, a new rent supplement program is in the final stages of negotiation with the federal government. Yes, this government is very concerned and is doing something, Mr. Member.

PREMIER'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

MR. STUPICH: I have a question for the Premier. During the Premier's absence, the Minister of Finance took as notice questions pertaining to the appointment of Jerry Lampert in the office at a salary of more than seven times what the average worker on unemployment insurance would receive. Can the Premier confirm that Mr. Lampert's primary experience with the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, the Social Credit Party of B.C. and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is as a campaign manager?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes. That is not what Mr. Lampert's job is. It's to be principal secretary of the Premier's office, the same position that has been held by two other occupants, and it is a political position within the Premier's office, counter to the professional position of Deputy Minister, and has always been so.

MR. STUPICH: Not always, but it has been for some time.

I'm advised that Mr. Lampert's salary is $77,000 a year. Will the taxpayers also be paying for a government car for Mr. Lampert, and travel expenses?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member's research is incorrect as to the salary amount. I suggest you go back to the researchers in your office, who continually provide material for the member for Vancouver East, who is always wrong. But I do suggest the position takes with it the same expenses as that of a deputy minister, and the position was created so.... as well as vehicle.

MR. STUPICH: So the answer is yes to all the questions. On the research, is it not true that Public Accounts was correct in stating that the salary for the previous holder of that office was $77,000, or is Public Accounts wrong?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The position is paid as a deputy minister 6.

MR. STUPICH: Is it not true that that position went out of fashion some six months ago and ceased to exist?

ALLEGED UNION INTIMIDATION

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour — I trust a question illustrative of a little better research than the former questions.

There have been allegations that union members of East Indian descent were coerced by their union leaders into supporting the nomination of Glen Clark over Margaret Birrell during the Vancouver East NDP nominating meeting in December 1985. One Renee Rodin of Vancouver stated in a letter to the editor in a recent issue of Out of Line: "Who vindicates the Indo-Canadian workers who were intimidated by their unions into voting for Clark?" Has the Minister of Labour received any information regarding the alleged union intimidation during the nomination meeting, and if so, have you initiated an investigation into this matter?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I don't know anything about what the member is asking. I haven't received any complaints to my office about it, so I would be glad for the member to provide me whatever information and detail he's got. As I understand it from the member's question, it's something that happened within the framework of the New Democratic Party, and I don't see that I've any jurisdiction to interfere in that particular area. But if the member wants to give me the information, there may be a case for the human rights council or something like that in this matter.

BCRIC SHARES

MR. WILLIAMS: My question is for the Premier. Can the Premier advise the House what the shares of B.C. Resources Investment Corp. are trading for today?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a matter of public record, hon. member.

[ Page 7822 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: It was $1.49, but they're $1.35 today; they've moved down so fast. I thought I could ask the question on $1.49 day. They're now $1.35 — the experiment in people's capitalism.

NEW PAPER PLANT FOR CANADA

MR. WILLIAMS: A further question to the Premier. A week ago the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) indicated that he would be more diligent in the future, since he had not concerned himself with the major expansion of the Weyerhaeuser company in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan to the tune of $250 million for a new paper plant. Could the Premier advise me or the House if his Minister of Industry has concerned himself about the Saugbrugs corporation, which is planning a major new super-calendered paper plant in Canada?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the member is afraid to ask a question directly to the Minister of Industry, I'll be pleased to ask it for him to bring the answer back, if that is a problem that he has.

ADVERTISING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The liquor regulations were changed for transit shelters to carry liquor advertising — no restriction to wine. Why was that done and at whose behest? Where did the suggestion come from? Did it come from Jim Pattison and Seaboard Advertising, who immediately got the contract?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask a question. Never mind your allegations.

MR. MACDONALD: I asked a question: where did it come from?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Again, Mr. Speaker, the member's information is partially correct. He's half right. I hope he's.... The regulations were changed to allow for the advertising of a British Columbia product at the gates of Expo. That's British Columbia wine. We'll do everything we possibly can during Expo for the millions of people who are coming here to see this fair, hon. member, to ensure that we sell British Columbia products to the world and that we employ British Columbia people.

VANCOUVER MUNICIPAL FINANCES

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In light of the recent press reports that the hard-pressed taxpayers of Vancouver city would be subject to increased property taxes as a result of a proposed $13 million deficit of the Vancouver School Board and a proposed $11.5 million deficit of the Vancouver city council, which does not include the $10.4 million transferred from interest earned from the property endowment fund, I ask the minister what steps he is considering to help the homeowners, particularly in Vancouver–Little Mountain, faced with these property tax increases caused by the deficits, which could range from $150 to $500 per household.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question, of course this ministry has no jurisdiction in the setting of municipal tax rates. However, through the revenue-sharing program our government does give direct assistance to the cost of operating municipalities. Within revenue-sharing there is that component known as the unconditional grants, and the unconditional component of the program this year has been increased from $90 million to $95 million for the province. The portion of that going to the city of Vancouver is in excess of $16 million, which is increased by approximately $500,000 or $600,000 over last year. Mr. Speaker, we do not attach any strings as to how that is spent, but we can only hope that they will take the lead of this government in holding down taxes, and use that money to do so: follow the lead of other municipalities throughout the province.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Due to the fact that the city of Vancouver is continuing to dig very deeply into the property endowment fund, is there anything that the minister could do to stop the erosion of this fund so there will be something left for the youth of tomorrow in the city of Vancouver?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of anything that this minister or government could do in that regard. However, I will be very pleased to look into the matter and report back to the member.

EXPO PASSES

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Tourism. Holders of Expo passes are apparently required to write their signature on the application form, onto which is later superimposed a liability waiver. I assume this is sort of the opposite of the disappearing ink act.

I would like to ask the minister to explain the reasons for this unorthodox procedure and whether such action may constitute a change in the conditions of contract without authorization or knowledge of the purchaser.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To the member, we are aware that this has happened, and I am told by counsel for Expo that this will not constitute any breach of contract and that the conditions will also be clearly posted at every entrance to the world's fair. So it is not foreseen that there will be any problem, Mr. Speaker.

CYPRESS PARK

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I have a question about Cypress Park, which is a class A park. You have a Cypress Trails Co. In there with a contract, and they're allowed to charge skiers who use the groomed ski trails, but only that. Yet you've been chasing anybody off that park, which is a class A park, threatening to prosecute them through this private company. I would like the minister to come back and give the House an explanation of what the rights of this private company are in that park and how limited those rights are and why they try to chase out of the whole park everybody with skis.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member didn't ask me this question two months ago when it

[ Page 7823 ]

was a news item in the Vancouver Province and Sun newspapers.

However, I want to tell that member, as he is not aware, that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of satisfied Vancouverites who use Cypress Bowl — have done so all winter. But there is a very small minority that are not happy with the present situation. If you'd done your homework, you would have found out from those people that this ministry is sitting down with them and trying to find a way by which their wishes can be met as well. That's what we're here for: to meet the needs of all British Columbians — and we will continue to do so.

[2:45]

HON. MR. SMITH: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Here in the gallery today are a number of representatives of the provincial fire chiefs' association: Mr. Ted Lorenz, Mr. Bill Dawson, Mr. Gerry Waddell, Mr. Fred Leeke and Mr. Al Lequesne. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 54: minister's office, $205,714.

MR. MacWILLIAM: We've watched this minister sit here in blissful ignorance of many of the problems that have been going on around him, problems throughout the province of British Columbia, and continuing to ignore the plight of those 195,000 individuals in the province who continue to be unemployed. Thinking back to the earlier part of the session and the Minister of Finance's budget speech, a lot of that rhetoric was boasting about the success of the job creation program of this government. In fact, they were boasting about it so much that the Minister of Finance mentioned they would be cutting about $11 million from the income assistance program, the reason given being that that reflected the success of the job creation program in the province of British Columbia. I want to remind the Minister of Labour that there are still 195,000 unemployed people out there. There are still, in this province, 223,000 people — men, women and children — who are on income assistance. Those are families whose breadwinner has exhausted the unemployment insurance program and can no longer collect because they haven't worked for so darned long that they no longer qualify under the regulations. Those individuals have had to go on welfare: 223,000 men, women and children on income assistance in this province.

Job creation. That is the biggest misleading statement that I've heard in this House at this point. It's an absolute lie. You guys haven't created jobs. There are no jobs for the interior regions of this province. There have been jobs created in the Vancouver area, I grant you that; but overall, the interior regions of this province have had no job creation whatsoever — zero, zilch, nil. All the employment creation has occurred within the metropolitan Vancouver area. Mr. Chairman, it isn't me who makes that allegation. Look to the records of the Employment and Immigration Canada, February 1986, report.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. I'll ask the committee to please come to order. It's understandable that from time to time we may have conflicting opinions about an item; that's why in committee we can rise and speak to the estimates before us and state our opinion, but we do it one at a time. If the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Waterland) wishes to enter the debate, he'll have every opportunity to do so.

The member for Okanagan North continues.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, that is most kind of you.

Let me cite a statement made in the February 1986 report of Employment and Immigration Canada. The minister seems to take issue with the statement. The statement said that it's important to note that all the employment growth in British Columbia — I'm paraphrasing — has occurred in the metropolitan Vancouver area. In the outlying communities there was zero job growth. This government has turned its back on the people of the interior of this province. The interior regions of this province have become regions of sacrifice. There has been no job creation out there. You've got men and women in the interior areas of this province who haven't worked for months, and even years. You've done nothing about it, Mr. Minister. You've ignored their problems. You've ignored their plight. And you sit there with your arrogance, and pretend that everything is rosy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! One moment, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I withdraw the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Arrogance" — thank you.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Unemployment in the west Kootenays is at 21 percent. The Minister of Labour should recognize that fact, because he represents a portion of that area. Twenty-one percent unemployment in the west Kootenays. In the Okanagan and in the southern interior areas unemployment sits at 17.5 percent. What was it before the restraint program? This government's restraint program was brought in in 1982. Unemployment in the interior areas of this province was at less than 8 percent. We've gone from 7.7 percent in 1981 to over 17.5 percent in 1986. If you call that job creation, Mr. Minister, then there's something seriously wrong. In Kamloops and in the central interior they're sitting at 14.5 percent. Job creation hasn't occurred in the interior regions of this province. In Kamloops 3,000 more people are unemployed in March 1986 than in June 1981. In the west Kootenays 7,000 more people were unemployed in March 1986 than in June 1981. In the east Kootenays, Mr. Minister, there were 8,000 fewer people working in June 1981 compared to March 1986. Mr. Chairman, those figures put the lie to the statement of job creation; that has been a misleading

[ Page 7824 ]

statement that this government has tried to sell out there in the real world.

Provincially unemployment has increased over 130 percent since this government's restraint program was introduced in February 1982; 195,000 British Columbians remain unemployed; in 1981 the number was 92,000. A 93 percent increase in welfare since 1982. Business bankruptcies — read the figures, Mr. Minister — 124 percent increase throughout the province.

I want to read some figures specific to the region where I come from, the Okanagan. In the construction occupations in the greater Vernon area, in the north Okanagan, unemployment in that occupational level alone is at 19 percent. In Revelstoke — the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) will verify, because he has never argued these figures when I've presented them before — unemployment in the construction sector is at 32 percent, Mr. Minister, and in Salmon Arm, 17 percent. Ninety-three percent of the carpenters in local 1346 of the carpenters' union throughout the Okanagan are unemployed. And you guys call yourselves the friend of the construction industry! What a joke! You have done nothing for the interior, you have done nothing for the Kootenays, you have done nothing for the province of British Columbia.

I want to see your program for job creation. Show it to me and I'll sit down and shut up. Show it to me. Because you haven't got one — that's the problem. You never had one and you never will have.

In 1983, when I first ran for election, this government ran on a program of "leave it up to the private sector." The private sector would be the engine for job creation throughout the province. Leave it up to them. They can do the job. All we have to do is sit back, get out of the way, give them the right incentives and we'll be all right. That was 1983. It's now 1986, and we still have almost 200,000 people unemployed in this province. Your program hasn't worked.

Besides that, the whole idea that you tried to sell back then was completely misleading, because you guys over there are the biggest interventionists in the economy that I've ever seen. Your northeast coal project has been an unmitigated disaster. All you did in northeast coal was put over 9,000 people in the southeast out of work, because you were competing with them. You guys have been the biggest interventionists in the economy. You keep putting all the responsibility on the private sector — on the small business sector — and yet they've been down on their knees in this province. They haven't been able to create jobs because the rest of the economy is faltering.

What about regional job creation? I would seriously like to hear some long-range programs from this minister in terms of what he's going to do to address the very high unemployment in his area, in my area, in the area of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), in virtually every area in this province outside of the lower mainland. What are you going to do? I want to tell you that these grand-style projects such as northeast coal and the other major projects that you've had — many of them in the Vancouver area — may be good for those areas, but they act as gigantic tax siphons taking money from people in the interior areas, and displacing that money into other projects doesn't create many jobs for people in my area. If people in my area want to go to work, they have to move. Many of them are moving, Mr. Chairman. They're moving out of British Columbia and to places like Ontario and Manitoba and other provinces where they do have jobs. People right now are already voting with their feet in this province, because they can no longer tolerate the lack of direction that has been the hallmark of this government in the last decade that it's been in power.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What are your plans for regional economic development — region by region, community by community? I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this government has no plans, it has no strategy. It's been a failure at job creation. It has broken the promise that it made to the people in 1983 — the promise that British Columbia would lead Canada out of the recession. What an absolute joke! Ever since the Premier made that promise we've been pulling up the rear. This government has been a failure, this minister has been a failure, and I want to tell you, people out there no longer believe your story, because you haven't delivered. You haven't delivered in job creation.

There are too many people still out there who are having to subsist on a level of income assistance and welfare that is half the poverty level. That's just not good enough. We need some action, we need some direction and we need some hope in the future. Neither your ministry nor this government has delivered.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, that was quite a performance from the member for Okanagan North, who came to the Legislature a couple of years ago holding out the promise of a bright future. He talked about sitting here during the debate this morning listening to the Minister of Labour talk about the policies of the government of British Columbia — but you weren't here, Mr. Member, this morning.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I was listening.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: That's different than being here, hon. member. Just for the record, you weren't in here.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I was listening.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: That's different.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Labour has the floor. Other members will have their opportunity to stand in the debate under the estimates.

[3:00]

MS. BROWN: Are you trying to break our record?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: No, trying to catch up. I could never break it.

Hon. member, this morning we talked about tax reductions over a three-year period in the amount of a million dollars. We talked about the partnership program, we talked about the economic development strategy program of the government of British Columbia. In the meantime, when you talk about your own constituency.... Each member, whether they're on the opposite side or government, has an opportunity during the debate of each ministry's spending estimates to put forward priorities and projects for their constituency that would put people to work in their ridings. If

[ Page 7825 ]

you would spend your time in the House putting forward those objectives on behalf of your constituency in the way that Don Campbell, the former MLA for Okanagan North, did, perhaps the people of Okanagan North would be better served and there would be less unemployment in your particular constituency.

Yes, it's unfortunate that there are so many people out of work, both in your constituency and across British Columbia and across the country. But all I can say is that all of the signs and indicators that we have show that the projects and the policies of the government of British Columbia are having an effect...

AN HON. MEMBER: They sure are.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: ...a positive effect on decreasing the rate of unemployment in this province.

This province of British Columbia had the best record in job creation of any other government across our country over the course of the past year. That's no credit to the opposition party in this Legislature, who have spent the last three years hiding their heads in the sand, criticizing the government of British Columbia for their policy initiatives and every effort that the government tried in order to reduce the size and the cost of government, and to take the monkey off the back of the taxpayers of this province. Propose, don't continue to oppose.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, decorum in the House is parliamentary. If members would allow the member who has been recognized by the Chair to make his comments without interruption, members would not be obligated to raise their voices above the din. I would direct the hon. Minister of Labour that comments should be addressed through the Chair, if you would, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: As the criticism was just levelled, I always end up on a positive note. I never leave things hanging, and I want to tell that minister that his concern about me bringing up positive proposals for job creation for my area was addressed last December 3 when I presented a detailed policy statement for economic recovery in the North Okanagan to your cabinet committee, which consisted of six ministers, in the Vernon area. Those ministers refused to let me present that policy paper on behalf of my own constituents. They refused to let me. Regardless of that fact, I persisted. I persisted, Mr. Minister, because I felt that job creation proposals — positive, solid proposals — were worth fighting for.

I gave that paper to the minister in charge, who is not in the House at the moment, and every committee member has that paper. The paper should have been given to you. Obviously you haven't had time to read it, but that program was a positive proposal for getting the community of the North Okanagan to work, to involve the citizens of that community at every level and to move forward with a job creation program structured for the North Okanagan. Rather than listen to any more silly rhetoric in the House, I already proposed that. Now if the minister wants to criticize me on that, then I'm afraid you're whistling up the wrong tree.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I remember the former MLA for Okanagan North talking about all the projects and priorities for his constituency, Lord rest his soul. He would talk to members of cabinet and to the economic development committee about the projects and priorities for his constituency, and he wouldn't call this House silly rhetoric, because he would get up and participate in the same debate, putting forward those same priorities and projects and programs for his constituency in this Legislature time and time and time again.

But the guy wasn't in his grave when you had taken credit for some of the projects that are taking place in that riding. I felt sad during that period of time, because the guy devoted a great deal of time and effort on behalf of his constituency. So I resent your comments with respect to what you have said about silly debate in the Legislature and about sitting here, as though it were a waste of time. If you feel that way about it, perhaps there's another arena where you can participate.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, I resent the minister's statement, and I also resent the fact that he's trying to utilize the memory of a member who is no longer with us as a last defence for his position. I think that that is a very distasteful type of defence, and I fully respect the memory of that member, as well as I respected him in life. However be that the point, the point that I want to make is that debate in this House is only rational, reasonable and productive when there are people — members and ministers — on the other side who have the integrity and the open honesty to listen. I have not seen any evidence of that minister's willingness to listen to positive and constructive comments.

I have mentioned to the member — through you, Mr. Chairman — that I have put forward a fairly detailed proposal on economic recovery in the North Okanagan. If the member doesn't wish to recognize that as a positive contribution, be that as it may; however, the contribution is on record. I stand on record as defending the needs and the priorities of the people of the North Okanagan, regardless of what that member says.

MR. GABELMANN: The winner of that debate no doubt will emerge following the next election when we welcome back the member for Okanagan North and welcome back to the sawmill the Minister of Labour.

Sometimes it is necessary to put some of these rhetorical arguments into a more manageable size. As I listened to the member for North Okanagan and the minister's response, I thought about Campbell River. Let's just see what has happened there in the last few years in terms of government strategies for job creation.

Two things have happened in Campbell River, one community-based and one an initiative of the government. The initiative of the government had two parts. First was the establishment of an industrial park which the community is forced to pay taxes to maintain although it is largely empty and continues to remain empty for the most part. The next initiative of the government was the so-called Partners in Enterprise program which the district of Campbell River signed. Not a single identifiable job has emerged in Campbell River as a result of that program. Not one. Additional jobs are being created in Campbell River by federal government participation with Crown Forest, in terms of modernization of its plant, and additional jobs are being created in

[ Page 7826 ]

Campbell River as a result of the successful discovery of another ore body at the Westmin minesite.

The number of new jobs created in those two enterprises do not come anywhere near to matching the number of jobs that have been lost as a result of direct government activity in the last three years, including the closing of offices, the centralization of ministry offices, the cutting back of the public service and, more than that, the destruction that has been wreaked on the forest industry by the policies of the government. We've lost more jobs than we've gained on that balance, but not a single job has been created as a result of the partnership program. Not one.

But you know, there is a group in the community — and this is the other side — comprised half of chamber of commerce representatives, half local labour council representatives, the mayor and myself. We have....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I was reading something here; I was laughing at it. Sorry.

MR. GABELMANN: I thought you were reacting to me. Because I am making a serious point, one that a lot of people might want to emulate. We in this committee of active trade unionists, active chamber of commerce people, the mayor and myself have managed, with the help of a lot of other people and of the federal government — not the provincial government — now by last count to create 14 jobs, by developing local initiatives and by helping to establish what's called the SEEDS corporation up there, which provides additional money for ventures who are unable to get the sufficient amount of capital from the regular institutions. That's not very many jobs; it's only 14 so far, and it may only add up to a few dozen over the course of a few years. Hopefully it will do more. But you know, that community-based initiative with some indirect federal government support — indirect in the sense that it's the next agency that's been spun out of this group — has managed to make a start. I think it's going to continue to be a good start. It's really interesting to sit there and listen to the chamber of commerce people and the trade union people working out ideas as to how they can do more. But you know, the provincial government has done absolutely nothing to help.

When that committee, among many others, went to this government for the last two years, as it has, to try to get a $400,000 or $500,000 grant for a museum.... It is a $3 million construction project, with all the money committed, with the exception of the provincial contribution. All the rest of the money was committed: $300,000 was raised in the community through individual donations, and the rest of the money raised. The federal money was not able to be kicked in — $1.5 million of it — because their policy was that the province had to contribute.

When this community group comes to the government and says, "For the sake of $400,000, we can have a $3 million construction project, plus we can add another couple of dozen permanent jobs to the community and an additional tourist attraction for this island," the government says no and has continued to say no. That's the kind of thing in microcosm that we're talking about. The member for North Okanagan expressed it in a different way. I wanted just to get it into a narrow focus.

The $400,000 would have been recouped by the province in income taxes and other sales taxes alone from the construction project. They would have got it back from the activity created. They could have reduced welfare payments, the whole thing. You know, calculate the whole thing out and you're going to get far more than a $400,000 benefit from a $400,000 investment, plus you've got the additional jobs created. How do we get through? Those of us who sit on the opposition benches get criticized by the minister for not making proposals. We make proposals until our knuckles are sore from knocking on doors. We can't get anywhere.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: This is not an agricultural project. I wasn't even going to discuss that whole question at this point, but it seems to me that if we're going to treat this issue seriously, we need to cite some examples like that. Where is the government's strategy? Where is the government's program? Where is the government's activity? Zilch. The federal government, 3,000 miles away, pays more attention. This is an area of the island where unemployment rivals that of Newfoundland. It's really appalling.

Having said that, I want to move on to a couple of other things. Last year, according to the federal government, the B.C.-Yukon area underspent by $16 million the joint federal-provincial programs under job development, job entry, skill investment and skill shortages. In job development the underspending was allocation — and this includes the Yukon for 1985-86....

[3:15]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't know what the minister is whispering to me, but let me just say this, and then if my information is incorrect, I'll be delighted to hear it. But according to the federal government, in the last year — and it does include the Yukon, but that's a small part — $32.5 million was allocated for job development, but only $26.1 million was spent; $15.9 million for job entry, but only $10.6 million spent; $5.4 million allocated for skill investment and only $2.3 million spent; $1.5 million allocated for skill shortages and only $600,000 spent. That's from a total of $16 million.

I guess the point that I was trying to make this morning, and in a different way the member for North Okanagan was making this afternoon, is that the allocations and the programs are inadequate, but as limited as they are, they're not even spent. When we had the discussion this morning the minister agreed that the summer student employment programs were not spent — only 90 percent of the money was spent. Apparently the same kind of thing happened in these joint programs: money not being spent. I think it totals.... I said $16 million, and I was rounding off; it's actually $15.7 million according to figures that were tabled in the House of Commons.

Why? If I'm right, how is it that that kind of thing could happen? Do we just not have the mechanics to be able to put into place programs for which money has been allocated? I don't understand, and I'm not now making the point about what you should do, and how much more of it you should do; I'm making the point that what you already have agreed to do you're not even doing. Why? What's happening? What's the problem? What's the hangup?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I thank the member for his questions. I'd also like to congratulate the member on the

[ Page 7827 ]

initiative that he took in his own constituency with respect to utilizing the facilities and services of the community to provide employment opportunities. It is a carry-through of the philosophy that we talked about this morning: governments and all agencies of government — Canada, municipal government — working in partnership with each other and recognizing that it's not just the responsibility of the government of British Columbia or the government of Canada. We all have to get involved in the process in creating employment opportunities for our people.

The member talked about the $16 million of unspent money and said that it was a joint program of the government of British Columbia and government of Canada. That is not true. The program is a program of the government of Canada, administered solely by the government of Canada; it's not a jointly administered program, other than the summer employment program you mentioned that I explained this morning, where we have a budget, let's say, of $10 million, and employers make application for students to participate in the program. If you as an employer make application for ten, you may only take five or eight. In the meantime we are stuck with the initial request, so what we are trying to do there is have some follow-up with the employer so we can get better utilization and total expenditure of that particular fund. But the program that you talk about in terms of the $16 million is a program of the government of Canada. In fact, some of the programs that they have mentioned in that $16 million are not even running. I'm sorry that I can't be of further assistance to the member in that area.

MR. GABELMANN: Have you talked to the federal government about the inadequacy of it, and have you tried to persuade them to beef up the delivery system? Have you talked to them also in terms of the current negotiations with CJS, as a way of integrating them, so that we can have locally administered programs of this kind so that we can take maximum advantage of federal money?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Yes, hon. member, I did write to the Hon. Flora MacDonald to express my concerns to her on behalf of the government of British Columbia. What we're attempting to do in negotiations that are underway with the government of Canada under this umbrella agreement that we were talking about this morning is to try to work out a way where the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada can have, at least for the beginning, four one-stop shops for employment opportunity programs throughout British Columbia that will see the establishment of joint offices — government of Canada and province of British Columbia — in terms of dealing with all of those employment programs. To answer the member's question, I did write to the Hon. Flora MacDonald and did express my concerns to her, and that's the extent of what we are able to do.

As you know full well, the government of Canada has a mandate of its own, and while we would like to influence them in every way we can to participate in programs, in the final analysis the decision is theirs to go whichever way they want to in terms of spending their own money.

MR. GABELMANN: Good luck in the attempt to establish one-stop shopping in this area. It's dreadfully confusing to everybody involved. Worse than that, it leads to these continued underexpenditures of money that should be made available.

I just want to go back to the nice words the minister used about my involvement. I didn't initiate this community activity in Campbell River, but I was part of it. In those nice words he said that, yes, it's good to have partnership from the community and the local government and the province and Ottawa. Mr. Chairman, the partnership really works very well. We have full partnership involvement with the business community in Campbell River, the trade union community, the district of Campbell River itself — the local government — the MLA and the federal government. There is no partnership whatsoever in any way with the provincial government, period. The only player not playing the game is the province. What kind of partnership is that? What we have in this province, in fact, is an ad campaign called partnership. That's all we have.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's working.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the program may be working, but people aren't.

I want to move on to some other topics, the first one of which is minimum wage. We went through this last year. I just want to go back to when the minister was first named as Minister of Labour. He will remember, and others will remember, that it was clear that the minister at that time believed that the minimum wage — and this was some time ago now — in British Columbia at that time was too low. He made it very clear it should be increased and said so publicly. It was quoted in the daily press and elsewhere that his view was that that wage should be increased. What happened on the way to the cabinet room? Do you have so little clout in that cabinet that you could not get through your program to bring up the minimum wage? Do you have so little clout that you could not effect that change, probably the major task facing the minister when he took his job? There were others. There was the unholy mess in the Workers' Compensation Board — and there were others — but from a moral point of view no bigger task faced the minister, when he first took that job, than the task of bringing the minimum wage up.

Three dollars and sixty-five cents an hour; $6,500 a year if you managed to get a full-time job — the lowest minimum wage in this country. When I made that statement last year I had to say: "except for the country itself." I no longer have to say "except." British Columbia, which has historically had the highest standard of living, the highest wages, the highest incomes and among the highest levels of minimum wage in the country, is now the lowest. We have become the Alabama, the Newfoundland. I wonder how proud the minister is of that fact.

Even the Vancouver Sun is prepared to go to the extent of describing the minimum wage as "slave wages." I was amused by that headline in their editorial on the minimum wage. Just a few days prior to this editorial appearing, a member of the press asked me if I would be prepared to describe the minimum wage level in British Columbia as slave wages and I said no, I didn't think it was quite slave wages. I didn't believe in exaggerating to make a point so I said no, they're not slave wages. The Vancouver Sun, a few days later, was prepared to go further than I was, in terms of its characterization of the minimum wage.

Mr. Chairman, if you're on minimum wage, your total income.... If you're a women in Vancouver with one child and you manage to get a full-time job at minimum wage, you're looking at $593 a month. The other income that that

[ Page 7828 ]

woman would get is $31.27 from family allowance — a total of $624.27 a month. Mr. Chairman, the minister goes through more than that in expenses every month.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. GABELMANN: Want to bet?

Mr. Chairman, the minimal poverty line for that mother and her five-year old, in this particular case, is $749.06 a month. On minimum wage the income, including family allowance, is $624, a shortfall, in rough numbers, of $125. I understand that people have even been turning down jobs at Expo because they can't afford to work for $3.65 an hour in Vancouver. I know people from the north part of Vancouver Island who didn't apply for jobs at Expo, because even at $4 an hour — or $4.50 in some of them — they couldn't afford to take those jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. GABELMANN: I read this document this morning. The ministry's own information coming out of the women's programs makes the point quite graphically about the need to increase those incomes. It's implied. They're careful; they have to be. Government policy is not to do it, so they have to be. When they say, "it may not be practical to have the unskilled mother join the labour force," what more do you need said? That is a very clever and careful way, on the part of the writer of this particular paper, to say to the government that the government's policies are inadequate.

I wouldn't advocate a massive hike all at once — I think that would be too disruptive. But I think the government has to say to the public in this province that at this time in our history the minimum wage should be in the $5 range at least. Let's pick $5. It's $3.65 now; that's $1.35 to go. The government should say that we're going to have three increases: 50 cents, 50 cents and 35 cents, phased in six months apart and beginning immediately with a 50-cent increase; another 50 cents six months after that; and another 35 cents six months after that. By that time we will probably need to review it again. That's not a particularly radical suggestion. That would just begin to get us into line with other provinces who have lower standards of living and lower costs of living than we do. The minister could salvage this whole estimates debate by standing up now and saying: "Yes, I have a commitment to raise the minimum wage, and I will do it. I will go to cabinet, and I will bug them until they agree." Will the minister agree that he will try to do that?

[3:30]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for North Island for his question. We've had a lot of discussion about the minimum wage in British Columbia over the course of the past year, as has been the case for many years before. I met with a lot of business people, and employers and employees alike, and talked to them about the impact that an increase in the minimum wage would have on employment opportunities for their people.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The member is talking about regulatory increase in the minimum wage. In discussions I have had with the community.... Indeed, the Macdonald report on the economy bailed out those discussions where it said that every increase that you impose in the minimum wage would put X number of people out of work.

All the discussions I have had with a lot of people with respect to the minimum wage gave me a better understanding of how the minimum wage is applied. It is used as an entry level into the workplace, wherever you are working. As an individual obtains skills in his particular area of work or expertise or whatever, the employer generally responds by increasing his wage above the minimum. What the member has said is quite right. It is a minimum wage. There is nothing stopping anybody from paying above that amount. That's their choice, and that's worked out between the employer and the employee.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I have to say that the government's policy at this time is not to increase the minimum wage in British Columbia. Also, research we have done shows that the employer community generally responds, as individuals develop skills, with larger increases and more benefits for them, in many cases going from $3.65 an hour up to $7, $8, $9 and $10 an hour.

MR. GABELMANN: Welcome back. Mr. Chairman. If raising the minimum wage above $3.65 is going to cost us jobs — and that's what the minister said — wouldn't the reverse be true: if you lowered the minimum wage, we'd get more jobs? What was the magic that enabled you to arrive at $3.65? Would $3.60 provide more jobs, or would $3.70 cost jobs? How many jobs lost per nickel up and how many jobs gained per nickel down?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The argument is ludicrous. The minimum wage is designed to make sure that no employer pays an employee below a respectable income. Your argument has only one conclusion. It is the Fraser Institute conclusion, which is to abolish the minimum wage. If you argue that jobs are lost as it goes up, you must then have lost some jobs between zero and $3.65. And if you haven't lost any jobs between zero and $3.65, how do you know you'll lose any between zero and $4.15? You don't know.

The employers who pay $3.65 or less because they hire kids are the McDonalds of the world. It's not just McDonald's. I cite them because they spend the most on advertising, and I've got their name in my head. But it is the McDonald's corporations of the world who pay $3.65. Do you know who is subsidizing that $3.25 that they pay? Not me, but those people who buy hamburgers and who, by paying an extra nickel, could ensure that a decent wage could be earned. It probably wouldn't take a nickel on a hamburger to be able to pay a decent wage in those jobs. Why should those young people subsidize hamburger-eaters? What's the logic of that? Are you saying that if you raise the minimum wage McDonald's will close up shop and Burger King will go away? You don't believe that. They might have to charge a nickel or a dime more on the hamburger, but that nickel or dime means that people might earn a decent level of income and some people who need to support kids might be able to get a job. Why do you see only young kids in McDonald's and not people who are supporting families? Because people who are supporting families can't afford to work in there. So

[ Page 7829 ]

they stay on welfare instead. The reason we have such low welfare rates, Mr. Chairman, is that the government doesn't dare raise welfare rates any more because the disparity with the minimum wage would be even greater than it is now.

I'm not going to persuade the minister, I'm sure, but let me just say very clearly that $3.65 as the minimum wage in this province is absolutely scandalous.

I promised a constituent of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that I would raise this issue, and because it's a good letter I'm going to read it.

"Dear Mr. Gabelmann:

"I'd like to ask for your help in drafting a new clause to protect nannies in British Columbia. At present the Employment Standards Act makes no provision for the unique work and training of nannies. Unless they live in they are denied the protection given to a domestic, and 'sitter' hardly recognizes their extensive specialized training for the work of caring for young children."

Then she goes on to talk about details of her work and her training and her skills in caring for children. She says:

"I hope you will lend your support to quickly introducing an amendment to the act to recognize the specialized training and duties of the nanny and to encourage other young women to take up this vital line of work."

Mr. Chairman, in the scheme of things that's a small point, but an important one. There seems to me no reason whatsoever that this woman working full-time in an important job caring for children, simply because she leaves the home at the end of the day and lives somewhere else, is not covered by the Employment Standards Act, which provides I think $29.70 a day for minimum wage.

I raise this because I'd like the minister to consider, if not now then sometime later, some specific action in that regard, but also to raise the whole point of the exclusions in the Employment Standards Act. A worker is a worker is a worker, and it shouldn't matter where they work, what kind of industry it is. It shouldn't make any difference whatsoever. They should be covered by minimum wage. And in that respect the guaranteed minimum wage per day for a domestic worker .... Incidentally, that is rarely ever met. Because of the kind of relationship that often exists between the domestic and the employer, the domestic is often afraid to find out what her rights are. So we've got some really serious problems there. But in any event, if that domestic works 10 hours, why should she work the last two hours for free? Why can't we just have a simple set of standards in this province that say: "A job is a job is a job, and a worker is a worker wherever she works." We can set up some exclusions to deal with the piecework question if you want to do that, in terms of the agricultural industry, and obviously some of that's in place, but in my mind there is no excuse whatsoever for establishing these special categories. People who work in these special categories still have to eat and buy groceries and exist and support families and do all of those things that everybody else has to do.

So I raise that, and I'd be quite happy to share that letter with the minister on a later occasion. If he wants to see the name of the person, I'm sure she would have no problem with that. But that's a good example of a case where the law just doesn't apply.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, it's a good suggestion brought forward by the member for North Island, and I'll be pleased to take the letter that he has, along with his comments, under advisement, and see where it is that we can make new provisions to assist those people, if we can, in the Employment Standards Act.

MR. GABELMANN: On another subject, we have in British Columbia, as the minister knows, a piece of legislation called the Wage (Public Construction) Act. It has a section 6, which allows the director of this act to establish schedules of fair wages. Do you intend to bring them in?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: No.

MR. GABELMANN: Why?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Well, Mr. Chairman, the government policy is at the present time that we not do that. As the member is well aware, the parties are involved in collective bargaining at this particular time, and I don't want to leave any.... I'd be lying if I told the member that we were looking to do that. We're not at this particular time.

MR. GABELMANN: Now this is not just a labour issue; this is an issue that goes far beyond interests of people involved in the trade union movement. I've no need to read all this stuff, but the demand for the government to implement a fair wage schedule under section 6 of that act is widespread. To pick a couple of examples, the roadbuilders — the big road building contractors — as the minister knows, would like the government to bring in a fair wage schedule. Of course the unions involved in that industry would like them to, as well as in the whole rest of the construction industry. The unions and the employers in the CLRA have taken a position in favour.

But you know, I've received a copy of a letter that was addressed to the minister, dated March 21, 1985, soon after your appointment. It came from the Christian Labour Association of Canada — CLAC, as we usually refer to it. I thought, well, we'll see what they have to say. I got to page 4 of their letter and was actually surprised to see that they asked for implementation of a schedule to section 6 of what I would call the fair wages act. We've got the employers, we've got the major unions, and we've even got the Christian Labour Association of Canada asking for a fair wage schedule.

It might be useful just to make a couple of points about this. The government has, by matter of policy, determined that they are going to open access, or allow access, to public construction jobs in this province to the non-union sector, clearly. That's what the fight was at Expo. That happened through Coquihalla. It was a deliberate policy on the part of the government to go to the low bid even though the bidding was inequitable, because the unionized contractors had a certain wage structure and the non-union had a different wage structure. That has the initial public appearance of saving the taxpayers some money, on what looks like good logic on the basis of cheaper contracts coming in because the bid can be lower.

[3:45]

But you know, when you do that you don't take into account the cost to society of having well-established companies go out of business: major costs in terms of tax policy to both federal and provincial governments; major costs to

[ Page 7830 ]

society when workers who have worked for years for those companies have to go on to unemployment insurance and then later onto welfare, while new people who are non-union come up through a different route. You've got all kinds of costs involved in that.

You've got costs, because in the unionized sector the job training is done by the companies and by the unions. In the non-union sector there is no training. In fact, those non-union companies either put untrained people on the job and have poor quality — which often happens — or, because the unemployment situation is so bad, they take people who have been trained using unionized contractors' funds and put them on the non-union jobs to compete against the guy who paid for the training.

The health and welfare benefits, non-existent for the most part in the non-union firms, are a cost to society in the long term. Pension plans: a cost to society, when you take a policy of bringing non-union into public construction. Long-term disability programs: rather than using the negotiated plan, people end up having to use taxpayer-supported facilities, or they go on welfare, or they go on whatever else. There are immense costs. On top of that, when you have some non-union companies coming in from other provinces, you have additional costs because the income tax that the workers pay is paid in the other provinces, and the profits that the company might have are retained in the other provinces.

Those are costs that the government doesn't talk about, and the public isn't well aware of. There are more, but those are the kinds of costs that are involved, and the costs of shoddy work don't get counted for some years either. We've seen lots of evidence of that in building projects and in highway construction too, when bridges fall down on the Coquihalla.

Mr. Chairman, I'll get off this quickly. I made the point this morning that what we need in this province is a strong, healthy contracting industry and a strong, healthy workforce who work for those contractors. You cannot have that when you develop policy that encourages this low-bid, non-union, inequitably based competition. One solution to the problem is to do what the NDP government in 1972-75: bring in a law that says all government-funded projects can only be done union. I don't support that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yeah, but you got thrown out for that.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't get thrown out for that.

One of the solutions is to do that. The NDP government did that. I believe that the proper solution, one that employers and employees alike prefer and I personally prefer, is the fair-wage policy. Of 50 states, 30-odd have a fair-wage policy. The Davis-Bacon Act in the United States provides a form of the fair-wage policy as well. We have a fair-wage policy in Canada. We have fair-wage legislation in British Columbia. Why have the legislation on the books if you don't believe in implementing the policy?

It has immeasurable economic benefit to society and to the government, when you have a stable, continuing construction industry. You can only achieve that if the bidding out there is based on equitable factors, and that needs to include the wages. I'm not suggesting that the fair wage needs to be set at the negotiated rate. It can be set at some other rate. The formula can be developed. There are all kinds of mechanisms to do that. But it is essential that a fair-wage schedule be attached to the legislation that the minister already administers.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member for North Island put forward an argument for fair wage, and we had a presentation recently from the construction industry and its unions, the teamsters, operating engineers and tunnel and rock workers, with respect to fair wages.

Our position as a government is that all British Columbians are taxpayers, and so should have equal access to jobs and projects put out to tender on behalf of the people of British Columbia. And so I guess what I am saying is that we're not to discriminate between union and non-union members or union and non-union companies. I am only a trustee of the taxpayers' dollars. What the member is suggesting is that we set a schedule of wages that should be paid to a group of individuals who have a general recognition today that they have out-priced themselves in the marketplace and want the government to come in and resolve the problem for them in their particular interests. That would continue the philosophy, hon. member, of buying solutions instead of solving our problems.

I admire those who are involved in the construction industry. I have been involved in it myself as an employee for quite a period of time. People in the construction industry, employers and employees alike, left their homes in Vancouver and other centres across British Columbia and have pioneered the development of our province, in hydroelectric development, railway development, hospital plants and other facilities. They've pioneered those frontier areas and have made it their home in many parts of British Columbia. In fact, when I hear about Socred megaprojects, whether it is the Peace River dam or the Mica Creek dam or northeast coal or southeast coal or any of those projects, I don't look at them as Social Credit megaprojects like the members opposite would talk about; I look at them as a tribute to the pride and the perseverance of many individual British Columbians, their companies and their employees who left their homes to make it a better place for all of us to work and live.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, they have a general recognition that they have out-priced themselves in the marketplace, and I hope that they will approach the next set of collective bargaining with the general realization that they have. It is my belief that once that set of negotiations has taken its course, they will come out of that in a far more competitive position than they are today, and we will be able to continue the tradition begun 50 years ago or more in British Columbia in developing our province, because they do have a lot of highly skilled people, they do develop good training programs, and yes, they have pension programs and so on for their employers. I know that it is in the interest of the members of the union and the companies that they not give that up and that they sit down, recognize the economy of today and negotiate collective agreements that will recognize the competitive factors that they're facing in 1986.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister thinks it's appropriate for a Minister of Labour to take a position favouring one side or the other in a set of contract negotiations.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, nobody can accuse this Minister of Labour of ever taking sides — one side or the other — in a dispute. This Minister of Labour maintains the position of trying to serve the parties, using the

[ Page 7831 ]

personnel, the services and the programs of the Ministry of Labour. How the parties choose to use those programs is entirely their responsibility. Nevertheless, we will continue to assist where called upon to assist.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Labour is correct that he doesn't want the minister or the ministry — I wasn't talking about the ministry; I was talking about the minister.... If he doesn't think it's appropriate for him to take sides on one side or the other in a set of contract negotiations, why then has he taken sides in the dispute that's at the bargaining table this week by taking the CLRA position against the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council — just now in the House?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. The members of the bargaining unit, if I understand the member for North Island correctly, are equal partners in the system. The members of the bargaining unit — whose members, he says, are today out of work — have a general recognition that they are in difficult times. The member himself, in arguing for fair wages for one particular group in our society, would make that very argument for them. I would hope that the member for North Island would not draw me into that debate or into negotiating collective agreements on the part of one side or the other.

MR. GABELMANN: It doesn't take me to draw the minister in, Mr. Chairman; he voluntarily walked into it himself before I even raised the question. The minister said — it's obviously too early to have the benefit of the Blues, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember exactly — that he thought the people in the construction industry who were bargaining at the present time should recognize the realities out there and realize that they've overpriced themselves in the market out there. That's the CLRA argument; that's the CLRA demand for concessions. The BCYT position is no concessions. I make no comment one way or the other. My comment about fair wages is a joint employer-employee position. All my time as opposition Labour critic I have been very careful not to take a position for or against particular proposals or particular sides. I'm being criticized internally, in the labour movement and in my party, for not standing up for a particular union or group of workers, but I don't think it's appropriate for me as an opposition critic. It surely is not appropriate for the Minister of Labour to stand up in this House, while negotiations are actually underway — they started on Tuesday, they were going on yesterday and I assume they're still going on today — and argue in favour of the employer's position. I asked the minister: does he ever take sides? He says no — he shakes his head.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the roadbuilders and the construction industry jointly made a presentation to government for a fair minimum wage in the construction industry. I'm not going to comment on it, other than to say that when I say "the industry," I mean the employer-employee community.

They're going through a difficult period of time, a difficult period of adjustment, and I hope that they will come out of the collective bargaining process in a healthier situation than they've gone into it.

[4:00]

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not going to pursue it now. I want to have a look at the Blues first, but I think it's important that your blind allegiance to the employers in this province not be allowed to show itself in public if you're going to do a job as an impartial and fair Minister of Labour. You should in fact be an advocate for labour, for workers in this province. We've gone beyond that, I suppose, and we expect the minister to be neutral. We don't expect the minister to be a shill for the CLR argument.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That's what you said. You talked about an unreasonable wage structure in the construction industry. Overpriced, you said.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not talking now about fair wages. The fair wage concept is an entirely different one from the issue we're now talking about. Maybe the minister should learn a little bit about what he's talking about before he talks. When we talk about fair wages, we're talking about a particular application under the law of British Columbia. We're talking about a situation where union contractors can compete evenly with non-union contractors. That's an issue between the unionized contractors and the non-union contractors. It's not a bargaining table issue.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I won't repeat what the minister said, but in effect he's saying it is a bargaining table issue.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I didn't say anything.

MR. GABELMANN: Don't pull a Mulroney on us. When you say, Mr. Chairman, "It sure as hell is," and I repeat that, leaving out the word "hell," and then he says, "I didn't say anything...." When I was brought up as a Catholic, I was taught never to lie.

AN. HON. MEMBER: What are you suggesting?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No one's lying, hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: I wish other Catholics were the same.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to the estimates.

MR. GABELMANN: I was going to drop it. I'm going to keep on it for another minute.

You talked about the construction workers having priced themselves out of the market. Those are my words, but that's the import of what you said.

MR. PARKS: Do you deny that? Do you deny that? I'm asking if you deny it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One at a time, please, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. GABELMANN: Unlike members of the government, I'm not taking sides in this particular set of negotiations.

[ Page 7832 ]

MR. PARKS: Do you deny it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam will not interrupt. Please proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a simple question. Too simple perhaps, given the ….

MR. GABELMANN: The issue at the bargaining table — not entirely but in part — includes the question of compensation: hourly wages, the cost of compensation from the employer's point of view. It's one of the issues at the table, and I think it's inappropriate for the minister — I've said it before and I close the subject — to make it clear which side of that table he sits on. Absolutely inappropriate.

I want to ask just a couple of other questions. Last year in the estimates I asked the minister if he was in favour of a policy that would bring back the days of W.A.C. Bennett where we would have an overtime ban in this province. I mentioned last year that the former Premier had introduced such a ban in the 1960s; not a ban so restrictive that it would not allow for emergency work or work that had to be worked and could only be worked on an overtime basis, but banning the kind of regularly scheduled overtime that goes on constantly. I run into too many people who are fighting with their employers to get out of working scheduled overtime because, among many reasons, they want to go home to their family. They also don't want to pay the high income taxes involved with the kind of money that comes in as a result of that scheduled overtime. Employers like the scheduled overtime because they then don't have to have additional people on the payroll, and the non-wage costs of having additional people. It's cheaper for them to pay overtime. Yet that's denying people in this province jobs.

MR. PARKS: Does that mean you're against it?

MR. GABELMANN: I am against scheduled overtime, yes — period.

MR. PARKS: I thought you weren't going to take a position on these bargaining issues.

MR. GABELMANN: That's not a bargaining issue.

MR. PARKS: It certainly is.

MR. GABELMANN: This guy used to be employed in labour relations matters. I can't believe it.

MR. PARKS: You don't consider that a bargaining issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam will come to order.

MR. GABELMANN: A major area where that's a problem is in the pulp industry, and that's just reached a tentative agreement. It's a problem elsewhere too.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Where did you find this guy?

The minister has had a year since I raised the issue, and longer than that to think about the whole question of an overtime ban. Emergency is fine, but we're talking about non-emergency overtime. That's one question I want to ask him.

Another question, on an entirely different topic: what do you think about a landed immigrant in this province being denied the right to work for the government?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member talked about scheduled overtime. He did raise the question last year in debate in this assembly. Since that time I've had some discussion with trade unions and industry with respect to that issue.

When I was a member of the Operating Engineers, working on the Big Bend highway, the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, brought in an overtime ban. Construction workers work seasonal hours. They leave their families and their homes to go, as I said earlier on, into the frontier areas of British Columbia. The industry is different in that respect. In many cases camp facilities are set up for those construction workers. When you're working a 37½ hour week, living in camp, with lots of free time, it doesn't lead to a good situation at the camp. So in that particular industry overtime is a way of life.

The member talked about the pulp industry and so on. In many cases there are professional people working in pulp mills — they're called professional skilled tradesmen: electricians, mechanics and machinists and people like that — who are called out from time to time to develop the plants. Those individuals work long hours. Sometimes they're called in on an emergency basis, and they may have to work a weekend, in total, to be able to get the pulp mill back into production by a set period of time. Likewise, the pulp industry may shut down the pulp mill for a month's period of time to do upgrading or construction work in the pulp mill, and the people employed in the industry, men and women alike, would be called in to rebuild and redevelop that plant. From that development, again, they would leave their homes in Vancouver or in other areas of the province, go into those communities and work long hours over a short period of time in order to get the plant back into production.

So it's not just as simple as the member said, when he talked about an outright ban on overtime. It looks good, but in many cases it's not practical. Nevertheless, I'm open to the suggestions of the employer and employee community with respect to that particular issue. I haven't had any trade unions coming forward and making a presentation to me with respect to implementing an overtime ban in British Columbia. Nevertheless, consideration would be given to it if the parties of interest came forward and made that request of me. I have no intention, Mr. Chairman, of interjecting myself into the bargaining process and into any set of negotiations that take place between any groups of people in British Columbia. If unions don't want overtime in their industry, all they have to do is sit down with the employer and negotiate those things in their bargaining.

MR. GABELMANN: Perhaps that's why W.A.C. Bennett lasted 20 years, and this government will last 10. The government showed some vision, at least, in those days.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not talking about a camp construction job, where people have to move away from home, and suggesting that they should be limited to 37½ hours and sit around on the Saturday and Sunday; I'm not suggesting that at all. Nor am I suggesting that in pulp mill operation restarts there isn't going to be some necessarily worked overtime.

[ Page 7833 ]

Obviously. I was careful to use the word "scheduled" overtime, where employees know in advance what overtime they're going to be working, because it's scheduled, because the companies — and the companies will admit it — don't want to hire more people. That's what we're talking about here.

Mr. Chairman, I was going to turn over to the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), but I've just got a few small additional points I want to make first.

The Paccar decision is, I guess, waiting in the Court of Appeal. Judgment is reserved, if I'm up to date on that. If the Labour Relations Board position on Paccar is allowed to stand, the whole bridging concept that's been in place for all of these years of industrial relations in British Columbia seems to be doomed. I wonder what the minister's views are, as a matter of public policy, in respect of bridging. It seems really quite appropriate that if parties have had their collective agreement expire, and they're continuing to negotiate and haven't yet concluded an agreement, even though in some cases discussions might be going on, or a strike or a lockout might have been called, or limited job action may have been started, or whatever has happened in the course.... The stability provided by having the terms and conditions of the old collective agreement continue in force until the new agreement is signed, which may then provide some retroactive changes — but nevertheless the old agreement stays in force — was the very basis in fact of labour relations in this province.

Now the Paccar decision has not had much publicity — a little bit, but not much. When you can think about the implications of that particular decision in respect to collective bargaining, if that LRB decision is allowed to stand, it will change the nature of collective bargaining in this province entirely. The good companies no doubt will continue to operate as they have in the past, but all kinds of operations, where they would like to get rid of the union or they would like to break the union, will use this particular decision in a way that will be destructive to labour relations in the whole community — in the whole of our society.

What I'm asking the minister is...not to make any judgment about what he thinks the appeal court is going to decide; I know enough not to ask that. What I'm asking is: if this decision does stand, what will the minister do to rectify the potential damage that this will no doubt cause?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't want to frustrate debate at all, but could the member advise if we have a case of sub judice here, or is judgment reserved?

MR. GABELMANN: No. It's reserved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. And perhaps to the implications as opposed to the specific case itself.

[4:15]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'm not going to discuss the case whatsoever, but the member should know that I've always been open to suggestions from the parties of interest with respect to those particular issues, and thus far I haven't had any concerns expressed to me by either party with respect to bridging. Nor, Mr. Chairman, have I made it a policy to intervene in the bargaining process in any way.

So what I'm saying is that the parties usually work out those things themselves in terms of the bargaining process. Their collective agreements identify and recognize those areas, and where they have identified those areas, I don't see any difficulty. What the member is talking about is where it may be shady in terms of what's in the collective agreement or not. I'm open to suggestions from the parties, but I haven't had any information from the parties or any concerns expressed to me with respect to the administration of that particular area.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister whether he agrees with the International Labour Organization Convention 87, which was ratified in 1948, entitled "Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize."

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of the correspondence from the International Labour Organization, and the member should also be aware that they had some concerns with respect to the compensation stabilization program and to teachers bargaining in British Columbia. I'd like to just point out to the member that the compensation stabilization program is under the legislative authority of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and the area respecting teachers bargaining in British Columbia comes under the legislative authority and jurisdiction of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).

MR. GABELMANN: The minister has sharpened his skates, I see. Free collective bargaining comes under the Ministry of Labour, right? The whole principle involved.... If an ILO convention was to be signed and Ottawa came to the provinces to say, "Will you, British Columbia, sign this convention?" they would go to the Minister of Labour. The ILO has made clear in unequivocal terms that British Columbia is in violation of an international law that British Columbia has signed: Convention 98, signed in 1948. I don't need to read all of the committee's recommendations into the record, but they make it clear that the CSP is "contrary to the principle of voluntary collective bargaining."

Another section 1s not in conformity with the principles of voluntary collective bargaining. If the minister is a good minister, he would recognize that his responsibility is to uphold the labour law not only of this province but the labour law that British Columbia has signed internationally through the ILO, which is a United Nations organization. We have clearly broken the law, and what I don't understand is why the minister isn't thumping the table to get this government to obey the law.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want the member for North Island to leave the impression that the government of British Columbia has broken the law. It is not a law; it is a resolution from an international convention of labour organizations. That's not a law. The province of British Columbia didn't sign that. The government of Canada signed it.

We haven't signed that convention or treaty or anything else. This province has not broken the law, and this member would have to say that where this Minister of Labour has legislative authority under his jurisdiction, he can't say that we've broken the law in that particular area. The compensation stabilization program is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, and as I said earlier on, the Minister of

[ Page 7834 ]

Education has legislative authority for teachers in British Columbia. That's not under the jurisdiction or control of the Minister of Labour and is not part of our statutes at this particular time.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Labour is going to do a job as being Minister of Labour, he should know his history. In 1930 or thereabouts, the Prime Minister of the country....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I hope he impresses you, because he sure doesn't impress me, Mr. Chairman.

In 1930 R.B. Bennett as Prime Minister of this country did sign an international agreement affecting in some respects provincial jurisdiction in labour. As a result of an appeal by the Ontario government, the supreme court overturned that, and ever since then, international conventions signed by Canada that have a provincial component have before they are signed required that all provinces agree and all provinces sign.

Under coalition in the 1940s, British Columbia, as every other province in this country, agreed with the request from Ottawa that we sign the ILO convention in this matter of provincial jurisdiction, free collective bargaining, and we did. Every province agreed.

It may not be law in the technical sense, because we haven't yet reached that day when international law achieves the level of respect that it deserves, but it is a moral law, and one that I think this province has a responsibility to obey.

Can I ask the minister about the report that he has now had for 18 months, which is the apprenticeship report that was submitted to the former minister and then since February of last year is the responsibility of this minister. That report deals with the future of apprenticeship, a report to the Minister of Labour from the Provincial Apprenticeship Board.

I just want to ask one question about it. On page 6 there is a recommendation that government should take the initiative in developing a mechanism to facilitate cooperative apprenticeship training programs among compatible groups of smaller employers. Has any action been taken on that particular recommendation?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: To the member from North Island, yes indeed the Provincial Apprenticeship Board has set up a task force that has gone back into the community to discuss a number of options with the employer community, and I am waiting for them to return with their investigation. We are in a position to be able to respond to whatever it is they come back with at that particular time.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister is satisfied with the current level of ability to predict future job needs with the resultant training then of apprenticeships. I haven't phrased that very well, but is the minister satisfied that enough information is available now to make informed and effective decisions about what kind of trades and skills will be needed in the future and therefore, as a result, what we should be training now in terms of not just apprenticeship programs but the whole range of training?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the member for North Island asked a question, and I'd be less than honest if I said that the Ministry of Labour was equipped to look into the future in terms of where technology and all of the other trades and so on are going. I don't think he has the ability to look that far into the future either. That's just a general answer to the question that you asked. Technology is changing at a very fast rate, and to keep up with the changes and to even begin to lead them is difficult indeed.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, but if you can't predict, how do you know how many electricians should be in apprenticeship programs this year? How do you know how many teachers should be in training this year? How many nurses should we be training next year for 1990? If you say you can't predict the future — certainly nobody can predict the future, but do you even have a capacity to have an informed guess so that we can attempt to develop training programs and apprenticeship programs that bear some reflection on what might be the reality in the years to come?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Labour works very closely with the government of Canada in those areas. But all we can do is our best. I'd be wrong if I said to the member, or gave him the impression, that we knew the number of teachers that will be available for a certainty down the road 10, 15, 20 or 30 years, or the number of mechanics or if they'll even be needed; millwrights, electricians, carpenters and so on. All we can do is take our best shot at it. The Ministry of Labour and the government of Canada work very closely in those areas, as do other areas of the provincial government — ministry of advanced education and universities along with the Ministry of Education. Lots of discussion takes place in those areas, and yes, a lot of planning goes into it. The member should know that we've probably spent millions and millions of dollars trying to forecast the future, but it's difficult to do. I don't know how many children my children are going to have.

MR. GABELMANN: So I gather from that that the minister is satisfied. I won't pursue it any further. I suspect that this will become a big issue in the years to come, because I'm not certain that we should be satisfied with the level of that forecasting at the present time.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions about the human rights branch of the ministry. Let me say first of all that since the Andrea Fields decision — unfortunate as that was — the human rights branch has certainly cleaned up its act considerably. I think it would be unfair of me to be critical of the rather impressive about-turn following that particular travesty of justice, which was later rectified in court and later in another hearing. The council has improved. As difficult as it is to work with that lousy legislation, they've certainly improved their own act. I'm delighted too, I must say to be fair, that they've taken on — small as it is — a responsibility for education on human rights questions. They're not doing nearly what they should do, they're not doing anything near to what the old Human Rights Commission was doing, but clearly they listened to the debates in the House or they recognized for one reason or another that the legislation was inadequate in that respect, and they've gone beyond the legislation and they are doing some things — starting at least — that I think are worthwhile. I want to have that said, because I think it's important to recognize particularly when

[ Page 7835 ]

people change. For some of us it's hard to do. That change was made quite dramatically.

But there is still a major failing when you have industrial relations officers required to act as human rights officers. It seems to me that those clearly distinct and different tasks should be performed by people who are trained in the different tasks, so that human rights officers can investigate human rights cases, and IROs can deal with industrial relations. That is a very important element in the successful development of a sound human rights policy in this province.

I want to ask the minister if he can tell us what the numbers of people approaching the human rights branch have been. How many contacts have been made, how many cases have been investigated, how many have been resolved and how many remain outstanding?

[4:30]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I don't have all of those figures with me at the present time, but I can say that the member talked last year, and indeed there was a lot of discussion in the House, about the lack in legislation of filing a human rights annual report. I did ask the British Columbia Human Rights Council to prepare for members of the Legislature and for the public of British Columbia a report that could be tabled in the House each year. I mentioned yesterday to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that I would be tabling in the assembly over the course of the next week or so the first annual report of the British Columbia Council of Human Rights.

I'd like to echo the member's comments with respect to how the Council of Human Rights has worked. They've done an exceptionally good job; they'll be doing more in the area of education over the course of the next year or so and beyond. Clearly, as the government pointed out in 1983, human rights can't be legislated. It's something that we've got to develop in ourselves and our hearts and in our minds, and we've got to put our full effort and support into dealing with those areas of human rights that are abused from time to time.

When I think of the abuse that the government took for implementing the Council of Human Rights and the level of support that it now has received in the community, and the number of inquiries that we have received from other areas of our country with respect to how the B.C. Council of Human Rights is working, it is indeed a very interesting turn of events. Around the province back in 1983, you can look and see all of the pickets and protests and demonstrations that were taking place in British Columbia in the name of the government of British Columbia eliminating human rights and peoples' rights and freedoms and so on and so forth.

All of that emotion is behind us now, and the council has settled down. It has done a really good job and will continue to do a really good job as it develops its own way and system of doing so. Indeed that's consistent with what the minister of the day said when the act was changed. I will present to the assembly over the course of the next several days the first Council of Human Rights annual report under the new structure.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Earlier in today's session, the minister alleged that members of the opposition are unduly critical without enough positive and constructive debate coming in terms of solutions to the problems that that ministry as well as that government faces. I guess the minister felt a little concerned about the dusting that he got, but I think his ministry as well as the government deserves to recognize the very serious nature....

AN HON. MEMBER: Weren't you the campaign manager for the Socreds in Okanagan North?

MR. MacWILLIAM: The more he worked, the lower their vote became.

The minister has to recognize, as well as this government does, the very serious nature of the continuing high level of unemployment that faces British Columbia. But you know, the minister brought up a good point and a point which I responded to earlier and which I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to in more detail at this moment.

That point is that above and beyond the criticism, there always has to be positive and constructive comments made in terms of how to deal with the problem that this entire House has to deal with, and that is the future of this province. You know, I agree with the minister. I have no argument with that whatsoever, and that's why I've taken this opportunity to demonstrate to the member that we do have positive and constructive comments to make.

I had indicated to that minister that I had submitted a proposal on economic reconstruction earlier this year, a proposal that was submitted to the cabinet committee. But I want to take that one step further and remind the minister that above and beyond that there was also a proposal on small business taxation and economic growth in British Columbia submitted by myself on behalf of the official opposition.

That was done way back in October 1984, even before I was elected. Without going into great detail, the report does talk about the importance of small business in British Columbia; it talks about the benefits of small business in British Columbia regarding job creation; it talks about structural problems faced by the small business community; it discusses tax burdens, administrative burdens; and it goes into quite a bit of detail in terms of the future potential of small business and means of job creation.

Just to give you a brief outline of it — and I don't intend to take much time. I just want to read part of the introduction into the record.

"Virtually all studies indicate that small businesses have been the largest source of new employment, an innovative and dynamic component of the Canadian economy. Yet despite the benefits they provide, small businesses are in many respects at a disadvantage to larger firms and find the problem of job creation to be a significant one. This brief will demonstrate those many situations that arise for small businesses regarding the issue of job creation. We'll also argue that encouragement of small business is a relatively low-cost, balanced and economically rational method for the province of British Columbia to create new employment opportunities for provincial residents."

Mr. Minister, that's a proposal that was submitted in the spirit of cooperation. I would recommend that the minister have a look at it. Many of the ideas in there, I think, are positive and constructive ideas that this government may well heed in addressing the serious, chronic unemployment problem in B.C.

Above and beyond that, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned to the minister earlier, a paper was submitted by me, as the

[ Page 7836 ]

representative of the North Okanagan. It was entitled: "Economic Profile of the North Okanagan: A Strategy for Reconstruction." That was submitted December 3, 1985, to the cabinet committee. Once again, this brief, I think, is a demonstration of positive examples for regional job creation that need to be addressed in every community of British Columbia. It profiles the demographics in the area. It talks about job profiles, present unemployment, and discusses the important sectors of the regional economy and selected economic indicators. It talks about the recent increases in unemployment and the high incidence of bankruptcies in the community, as well as the number of people on income assistance.

Again, I want to read into the record just a short portion of the summary of this statement, Mr. Chairman. It says:

"There is no easy solution to job creation. We in the North Okanagan are, to some extent, innocent victims of outside forces. International, national and provincial economic conditions all influence our fate. However, there's no reason for us to throw up our hands in despair. We cannot wait passively for external factors to improve. Other countries, other provinces, and even other areas in B.C. have done better than we have. There's no reason we can't do the same. Given the right circumstances, the North Okanagan can prosper again."

It goes on to say:

"That is why I, as member for that area, have recently invited numerous local organizations to collaborate, pool resources, talents and ideas, and establish priorities and a sound plan for local economic development. Ideally, this group, which represents a broad cross-section of the community, will come up with a locally generated program of recovery which is sensitive to this area's needs, strengths and wishes."

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that that community action team has been established, and it incorporates members of local councils, local business associations, labour, native people, social planning councils, members of the various chambers of commerce, local professional groups, representatives from the teachers' association as well as the school board, and even members from the ministerial association.

It's a demonstration, Mr. Chairman, of what I think is an important concept that this government has failed to recognize: that is, that economic recovery must be generated through the efforts, the talents and the energies of the people within the communities themselves. The past programs — top-down, bureaucratically loaded programs; centralist programs thought up in the smoky back rooms of this Legislative Assembly.... In the past those programs haven't worked, because they haven't addressed the real concerns within the regions, within the communities, within the interior areas of this province that have continued to be neglected by this government.

What I'm saying, Mr. Minister, is: take a look at what we're trying to do in the North Okanagan by involving the communities, by involving all members of the community, a broad cross-section, a broad consensus of representation, together with those community groups, and developing a sound program for economic recovery, a sound program for job creation. It's the only way it can be done.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister that I feel that that is a positive proposal. It's a proposal that I've been working on for almost six months now. I don't expect any overnight miracles, but we're active, we're serious, and we mean to do something about the problem of high unemployment in the North Okanagan and we mean to put the North Okanagan on the map in terms of its future economic development. I think it's a positive demonstration of what can be done when you work with the community rather than against it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the lights on the Chairman's table seem to be malfunctioning. Possibly when members are in debate they can look at the Speaker's table, and the Chair will endeavour to warn you....There's no comment with respect to the member for Okanagan North exceeding his time. But if you would bear with the Chair, we will try to warn you when there are two minutes still to go.

MR. HOWARD: If the light on the table there indicating the time is malfunctioning, it's in keeping with the attitude and the function of the government, because it's a malfunctioning government from the word go.

I want to talk with the minister about the economy and about the people who are out of work, about those who are working and the fear they live in that they may be next into the ranks of the unemployed, and what this is doing to the whole social fabric of our society. While there are numbers that one can refer to and percentage figures.... As far as the northwest is concerned, and all across the north — the Prince George region as well — regretfully those numbers and percentages have increased in the last month. More people were unemployed all across the north in March than was the case in the preceding month.

But I don't want to talk about percentages and absolute numbers, because we're talking about human beings, Mr. Minister, we're talking about people. We're talking about families and young kids in school. We're talking about their livelihood. We've got people living in the north who haven't been able to do a day's work for the last two or three years, no matter how hard they try and how extensively they search. I know of families that have started to sell off their possessions, their assets and their homes, because they haven't got the income to keep themselves going. That's destroying family life, when you have to try to get rid of home furnishings in order to put some bread on the table. I know of families — and they live all across the north, as other members well know — that have been reduced to a feeling of shamefulness. They feel ashamed of themselves because they're not able to make a go of it.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: If the minister of social housing, who just came in, would pay some attention to that, perhaps things would be better. I'm talking about human beings.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Tell the truth for a change.

MR. HOWARD: I'm talking about human beings. Jack Kempf doesn't give a damn about them, that's obvious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing will have his chance to speak, and if the member for Skeena would address other hon. members by their office it would be appreciated.

[4:45]

[ Page 7837 ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I was embarked upon talking about people whom I represent and with whom I live, my neighbours, when the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing decided to bull his way in and interrupt the debate.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, will you bring those rattle-brains to order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing will have his opportunity to stand in debate. In the meantime would every member extend courtesy to the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Those interruptions from cabinet ministers on the other side of the House — let the record show this — show how little they care about the people who are in difficulties in this province. They laugh, giggle and chortle about it. Look at them. If they'd pay some attention to working families in this province, we'd be an awful lot better off, instead of chortling and giggling about it. I'm talking about people in my riding who haven't been able to find a day's work in the last two years; people who are selling their possessions — and they're not hot-tubs either, Jack Kempf — in order to put bread on the table. And we get these shameful interruptions from a gink over here who sold out for $3,000 just a little while ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We're on the Minister of Labour's estimates.

MR. HOWARD: That's exactly where I am. I've talked with families, with men.... One in particular comes to mind. He is almost a grandfather — that is his age. He has got a family and his children are in the process.... One of them has become married; and he is about to become a grandfather. This is a working-class family. He is a good, solid, honest, working guy who broke into tears talking with me about it, because he was living on welfare. That was all that was available to him, because of your activities and this government's miserable record with respect to employment creation in this province. You've placed families in such an stressful emotional position that families are breaking up, that individuals feel unwanted after two or three years of being unemployed, feel that they have no value, that nobody wants them, that nobody wants to employ them.

They become demoralized and depressed. Does anybody on the government side know what that does to family life and to children who live in that kind of environment? Is it any wonder we have miserable social conditions? That exists all across the northwest. This is a government that in my view.... And this Minister of Labour as well, even though he wasn't in the government at the time, betrayed people in this province, broke faith with them.

The minister remembers the election of 1979. Let's just go back a couple of years on that. Other members in the House remember when the great promise held out by Social Credit was a simple one that said: "Elect us and prosperity will be yours forever. Elect us and jobs will be there. Elect us and the economy will keep rolling." The people said, "Okay, we'll elect you," and where were the jobs? Remember the 1983 election: the same kind of promise. The minister made it in his own riding. He told people to elect them and prosperity would be right there. They violated that trust. People entered a pact with you. They took you at your word, and you broke your word. No wonder people don't trust you any longer in this province.

I remember when the minister sat down in the corner over here, telling this Legislature and telling the people of this province what a tremendous thing the elimination of the Crow rate would be. Thousands and thousands of jobs would be created in this province as a result of that. He told people in the Kootenays that thousands and thousands of jobs would be coming to the Kootenays if we could eliminate the Crow rate. That was his speech in this Legislature. Did he believe it? Where are the jobs? Where is the job creation?

Mr. Chairman, this minister has a bounden responsibility about the economy in this province, and what is he doing about it? Where are these jobs for people? Where are these new industries? What is he doing with respect to that? What is he doing about things in the northwest? What is he doing about searching for and finding industries to locate there? Is anything happening at all? Do people have any hope whatever that this government may even recognize that there is a problem? I haven't seen anything. I haven't read any evidence that the minister is engaged in any kind of process to inquire, to look into, to discover industries, to see them located where they are needed.

People in the north and the northwest would like to know that as well. We have fewer loggers working now than have worked in the past. We've got fewer sawmill workers now than have worked in the past. We've got fewer construction workers working now than have worked in the past. In nearly every endeavour there are fewer people working than was the case before. It is directly the responsibility of this ministry and this government to do something about it.

We've put forward alternatives a number of times in this House. We've put forward suggestions and specific plans. The member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) outlined a moment ago something that he had done in great detail about the Okanagan area of this province. We've done it in the northwest as well. What has happened with respect to the objectives of the minister to deal with the creation of employment and the finding of new industries? If he can tell me something that he is doing, I would love to hear it.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the member talked again in general terms about things that are happening in his constituency, and he talked as though he had a monopoly on poverty and was the only one that knew anything about anybody who had difficult times throughout their lives or in their particular community or whatever.

He suggested that the people on the government side didn't care about people. Well, let me say, hon. member, that the members on this side of the House care just as much about their constituents and will match their level of concern with any other member of this assembly.

Yes, hon. member, there are too many people unemployed in British Columbia, in Canada and throughout the world. Larger trucks are operating in mines. Where there was a 25-tonne truck a few years ago, there's a 200-tonne truck today; where there was a 25-yard shovel, there's a 100-yard bucket on it today. Automation and technological change have replaced the jobs of workers in the mines and mills of our country. We don't have a crystal ball, but yes, we have

[ Page 7838 ]

attempted — and are continuing to attempt — to resolve those economic problems that face all of us. We don't have the luxury of pointing a finger at one group or the other as though they were the cause of the problem. Quite frankly, we're all in it together. Unless we all recognize that we're in it together, then there isn't a future for any one of us. We're subject to the rules and regulations of the international marketplace.

Yes, British Columbia industry and its employees will compete with anybody in terms of price, reliability, supply and service. I know that employees in B.C. are equal to the challenge and up to the task. Our goals and objectives as a government have been to reduce the cost of taxation and regulation on those industries and employees in a way that those groups of people will go out and seek new markets for their products in the international marketplace, and expand employment opportunities for our people. In every region of B.C. that I go to, I see new programs being developed. The venture inland program in the East Kootenays was developed in cooperation with industry and business in the community and municipalities, in cooperation with the government of B.C. The critical industries commissioner, the reduction in taxation — all of those programs have been put in place for the very things you talk about.

Yes, it is difficult. I've got people in my constituency too who've been out of work, who've been displaced by automation and technological change. The member for North Island talked about that today in terms of, what are we going to do to re-educate and retrain all of those people? What are we doing in terms of pensionable income for those people who are displaced because industries in their particular community have been shut down? I want to tell the member that we've done a lot of work in that area with the government of Canada in matters dealing with pensions and retirement, and areas like that.

I want to say, too, that the suggestion of the development of an umbrella program where we have identified those critical areas dealing with single parents, displaced people, retrained people.... All of those areas are covered under an umbrella agreement that we're talking about currently with the government of Canada. The member for North Island talked about Ontario having signed that agreement. It is true; they have signed the agreement. But what we want to do in B.C. Is make sure that all of the components are covered in that agreement. When we have an agreement that we think will respond to the legitimate needs and aspirations of those people in B.C., then we will sign the best agreement that we can with the government of Canada to try to accommodate all of those areas.

Quite clearly, it's not up to just one or the other. We're all in it together. We're in an international marketplace and our ability to compete and deal in the international marketplace is critical. I don't have a crystal ball, hon. member, but I can say that members on this side of the House are every bit as concerned about those problems and concerns in their particular constituencies as anybody else in this assembly. You don't have a monopoly on it, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Well, what a sniveling lecture! It's got nothing to do with whether anybody speaks up more for their constituents than somebody else. It's got to do with people out of work in this province. The question I asked the minister was: what have you done about it, to look for and inquire into about industries locating in the province? He skipped right by that one.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: You had the opportunity; hold on. Then this minister waves his arms out here and says: "We're all in this together." I wish he had said that the day this Legislature opened. What happened the day this Legislature opened? The Leader of the Opposition, concerned about regional job creation, stood up in this House and moved that we set up a committee on regional job creation. "We're all in this together," we said. That's why we wanted a committee to do it: so that the committee, on a non-political basis, could look at job creation in this province.

[5:00]

What did that minister do? Here's his name right in Hansard — the vote on March 11 against the amendment. That minister right there, the Minister of Labour, voted against that amendment, voted against us all being in this together. We're trying to use the mechanisms of this Legislature that the people elected, representing all sides in the House, to establish a committee of the Legislature to examine the very thing we're talking about: regional job creation. And he cast his vote against it, this minister, because he didn't want to stand up at that moment and say we're all in this together.

MR. COCKE: Just following orders.

MR. HOWARD: Following orders; that's easy for him to do. But that's what we're talking about. So I ask the minister again to look around the northwest area and at some of the things that are involved there. There's agriculture, there's aluminum, there's tourism, there's forest products; there are four picked right out of the air. What has the minister done with respect to looking for industry in the northwest, say, around any one or all of those resources?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I don't know if the Minister of Industry's estimates have gone through the House yet. I understand that they haven't. Perhaps the member for Skeena would be prepared to address those particular areas with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, here we go again, you know? He refuses to answer the question in the first place. Then he says we're all in this together. I point out to him that he had a chance to be in it together and he ignored that one and voted against establishing a committee on regional job creation — which he did on March 11. Then he stands up and says: "I can't deal with the question of job creation. Wait until the Ministry of Industry's estimates come along." I ask the Minister of Labour again: what has he done to inquire into and report upon new industries in this province? Has he done anything?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond to the member. I have to respond to the member the same way as I did before, and that is to say that the matter that he is talking

[ Page 7839 ]

about comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

MR. HOWARD: Let me ask the minister again. Maybe he is not listening. Has he inquired into the establishment of any new industry in British Columbia? Has the Minister of Labour conducted any inquiry into the establishment of any new industry in British Columbia, or is he still maintaining that that's a subject matter for which he has no responsibility, that that's under the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I would like to think, Mr. Chairman, that in our own constituencies we all carry out the responsibility of trying to provide leadership and looking for industry to come into our particular ridings. The Industry and Small Business minister, from a government perspective, coordinates those policies on behalf of this government. But from a constituency perspective I have to say that, yes, I've worked hard to look at industry coming into the east Kootenays, and would commend the same to you.

MR. HOWARD: Maybe this is why he was picked in this particular cabinet: he continues to ignore the question. I didn't ask him what he was doing in his riding. I'm asking him what, as the minister of the Crown, as the Minister of Labour.... Maybe I should ask him first, is he the Minister of Labour? I think that's clear; he is the Minister of Labour, and I ask him in his capacity as the Minister of Labour what he has done to inquire into the establishment of new industries in the province. Has he done anything?

Has the minister made any inquiry into the establishment of new industry around the processing and manufacturing of aluminum, for argument's sake, in the northwest? Has he conducted any inquiry into that possibility?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Skeena continues on the Ministry of Labour vote. Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. The member for Skeena has been recognized.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I think the minister is engaging in what used to loosely be called dumb insolence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Or ignorance maybe. Let me try once more. Has the minister read...? Let me quote something to him. Does the minister agree? The minister has said that he has nothing to do with this question of new industry; that's the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Does the minister agree that "it is the power, the duty and the function of the ministry" — and I'm quoting now — "to inquire and report as to the establishment of new industries in the province"? There are some more words after that about profitability, but that's another matter. Is it the power and duty of the minister to inquire into and report as to the establishment of new industries in the province?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for your patience in this matter. I do say that the Ministry of Labour, and the minister as part of the Economic Development committee of cabinet, reports to cabinet, and the legislative authority for reporting to the Legislature is through the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, who serves as chairman of the committee.

MR. HOWARD: A moment ago the minister was saying that the government didn't break the law. Just because cabinet sets up a committee structure and says we're going to do things a certain way, that doesn't wipe out the legislative requirement on the part of the minister to do certain things. He knows that the Ministry of Labour Act, which he's responsible for administering, says specifically that the powers, duties and functions of the ministry are to inquire and report as to the establishment of new industries in the province where it appears they can profitably be carried on. So the minister is violating his oath of office and refusing to carry out the dictates of the law of this Legislature, telling him that he has certain responsibilities. He's evaded them. That's not a good way to start off.

Is it any wonder that this province is in difficulty economically, when this Minister of Labour, in the full face of the law requiring him to do certain things, breaks that law, violates it, ignores it? And he shuffles the responsibility off to some cabinet committee created by the Premier; shuffles off his responsibility to somebody else in the cabinet who isn't here. That's a violation of law. Is it any wonder we're in trouble? Is it any wonder we've got hundreds of thousands of people out of work? Is in any wonder we've got people, like those in my own riding, who break into tears because they haven't got enough money to put food on the table, and they feel ashamed that they have to go to the welfare office and get welfare? There's no wonder, when we've got an incompetent snit like this as the minister...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Withdraw!

MR. HOWARD: ...who doesn't even know his own law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will withdraw that last statement in reference to another hon. member, immediately.

MR. HOWARD: If you find the word "snit"' unparliamentary, I certainly will...

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has withdrawn.

MR. HOWARD: ...but I will not withdraw the word "incompetent." Deliberately incompetent. Deliberately violating his oath of office in this law. Deliberately. Consciously.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will come to order. It would be appreciated if members would address the Chair. It would be appreciated if members would use temperate language in committee and in the House.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

[ Page 7840 ]

MR. HOWARD: Some of us always use temperate language, but when you run into the frustrating situation that we have here, with a Minister of Labour refusing, deliberately, to carry out the mandate assigned to him, then is it any wonder that this province is in trouble? It's a waste of time, really, talking with this group any longer, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask a couple of questions about the situation in Burnaby, specifically, at this time. What did the minister do, if anything, when Domglas decided to fold up its tents and move away, and throw 350 British Columbians out of work? I know that the workers appealed to the ministry at that time, and I know that the closure became a fait accompli, and I know that those 350 workers are now part of the unemployment statistics of this province.

I want to know what the minister did, if anything, when the number of employed people in the Burnaby area dropped by 4,341. There's an increase of unemployed working people — that's unemployed employables; I'm not talking about income assistance recipients or the disabled or people who can't work or who don't want to work. I'm referring to people who used to be in the labour force and who want to remain in the labour force, but who have lost their jobs during this minister's tenure.

The school board workers: a 10 percent decrease between December 1984 and 1985. What did the minister do to protect or preserve those jobs? Here again I'm speaking about people who were working, people who wanted to work, and people who were thrown out of work during this minister's tenure. The same thing happens with the people working for the municipality. We've had an increase in part-time workers, and a massive decrease in full-time workers.

What is the minister doing to protect the working people in Burnaby who are trying to hang onto their jobs, who do not want to go on unemployment insurance, who do not want to go on welfare or on income assistance, but who want to continue to be fully employed so that they can be independent, pay their taxes and be a productive part of the community of Burnaby.

The transit workers. Mr. Chairman, after the lockout was completed and people were supposed to be returning to work, 40 to 50 of them were later discontinued — rendered redundant, as the government would say. What did the minister do to protect the jobs of those workers? What is the minister doing to reinstate those workers, to help them to have not part-time work but full-time employment?

And so it goes, Mr. Chairman. I have the great good fortune to represent a riding which is made up primarily of working people — people who are trade unionists, people who are not trade unionists, people who want to work, who want to make a contribution to our society. Within the last year and a half the operating engineers who have their head office in Burnaby have lost 2,500 of their workers. Some of their members haven't worked for four years. What has the minister done, through you, Mr. Chairman? What is he doing to assist these people to regain employment. A number of them are losing their homes. A number of them are losing their families. And to add to that, a number of them have young adult children who themselves are part of the provincial statistics of the nearly 25 percent of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 who have been unable to secure full-time employment during this minister's tenure.

[5:15]

What has he done? What is he doing for the plumbers, for the sheet metal workers, for the brewery workers in my riding who are being laid off and losing their jobs, for the bricklayers, for the CBRT — the railway workers — for the electrical workers, for the machinists, for the painters, for the Canadian Union of Public Employees? What is he doing for them? Day after day, Mr. Chairman, through you, there are phone calls coming into the constituency office as more and more of these people are losing their jobs — again, not unemployables, not people who like being out of work, not people who don't want to work, but people who want to work — who want to work full time in their trades and in their professions and who are losing their jobs during the tenure of this minister. What is he doing for the working people of Burnaby?

I'm asking this question not just on my own behalf, but also on behalf of the silent Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch), who also represents Burnaby, but who never gets on his feet in this House to speak up on Burnaby's behalf. So on behalf of both of us: what is he doing for the working people of Burnaby who are losing their jobs during his tenure and the tenure of his government?

AN HON. MEMBER: You talk and he works.

MS. BROWN: Well, I cannot believe that this little minister, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's avoid.... Hon. members, again....

MS. BROWN: I withdraw the word "minister."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you're warm. No, the personal reference must be withdrawn, please.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I withdraw the personal reference, sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's withdrawn, thank you. Please continue.

MS. BROWN: I can't believe, Mr. Chairman, that this member, who has never been at a loss for words at any time, certainly since I have known him, is not prepared to stand on his feet and answer a basic question: what are you doing for the working people of Burnaby?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, you know it's awfully difficult when you spend the day in debate on your estimates and you have to come back in and repeat the same thing over and over and over again every time a new member comes into the House. It is extremely difficult, and....

I can only say, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the operating engineers and the sheet metal workers and other groups in the community, that the Premier of British Columbia has been working hard in trying to find new long-term contracts for energy supply from British Columbia to the California market. The Premier has been working hard trying to accomplish those goals and objectives, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition has clearly put his future energy project on the line. He talks about windmills and other construction projects like that that he feels would be able to put people to work during this difficult time in our economy.

[ Page 7841 ]

Quite clearly, Mr. Chairman, to the member, if the government of British Columbia is going to be successful in obtaining long-term contracts for hydroelectric energy, there is one project in British Columbia that would provide economic opportunity and stability for many people in British Columbia, and that is a future energy project that is on the line.

We talked this morning about the municipal partnership program, the critical industries commissioner, and all of the things we're doing in government in terms of the tax reductions that have taken place over the course of the past two years, and the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to try to make British Columbia industry and business competitive in the international marketplace. The government of British Columbia, through a coordinated effort on the part of all ministries of government, have put forward their plans for economic recovery and development. This morning the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) talked about the number of jobs that have been created in British Columbia, future employment opportunities in British Columbia, and how the future looks in terms of employment for our people. He also put on the record all the evidence that is needed to show that over the course of the past year British Columbia has created the most solid record of any government in our country in terms of job creation.

As I said earlier on, there are too many people unemployed. We recognize that. Every member of this assembly recognizes it. Every province in our country and their assemblies recognize it, and they are attempting to deal with those areas within their provincial jurisdictions where they have the authority to deal with it. But it's not just the responsibility of the government of British Columbia. All of us have a role to play in securing economic development and employment opportunities for our people. Unless we participate in a very meaningful way, we won't have a future. I'm optimistic, Mr. Chairman, because as I go around the province, I sense at the plant level, on the job, at mines and millsites across our country, the willingness on the part of individuals to work together, to work in a spirit of cooperation, and to recognize the difficult times that their employer is in in this tough international marketplace.

Changes are being made, Mr. Chairman, and by the end of 1986 British Columbia will be the most competitive place in all of our country to do business. We'll have the best labour climate in the country to do business. We will be able to compete with anybody in our country or anybody in the continent in terms of reliability, price, service and supply. I trust the British Columbia working people and their industry will be able to meet the challenges that lie ahead in the 1980s and the 1990s, and into the year 2000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before recognizing the next speaker, I must advise the committee that our standing orders state that debate in Committee of Supply must be strictly relevant. Reading the vote descriptions, I must advise the committee that the argument and debate put forward by both the minister and members of the opposition have been really dealing with other estimates that are not before us at this point, and we should be relevant to the estimates before us. I'm sure all members can read the vote descriptions contained on page 154 — and read the legislation — and make their remarks relevant to the estimate before us.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I want to make my remarks strictly relevant to the votes and the descriptions of the votes. The description of this vote talks about employment in the province of British Columbia. It talks about women's programs. It also talks about labour market programs. When we talk about the development of new industry in the province of British Columbia, efforts made to develop new industry and labour market strategies to attract those industries, in order to develop the skills that are necessary to provide high-quality skilled labour to those industries, we're talking about labour market strategies — the thing that in the estimates this minister has first responsibility for and a clear responsibility for.

My colleague the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked the minister what he had been doing to fulfil the responsibilities assigned to this minister under the act that creates his ministry and gives him his position in the first place. We're talking, Mr. Chairman, about the assignment that is made to this minister in his legislation, the reason for which he's paid his salary. We're here today to decide whether this minister deserves his salary or not. He does not deserve his salary if he is not fulfilling the terms of his job as they're laid out in his job description, and that he has a responsibility to report on to this Legislative Assembly.

Now the minister says he has no crystal ball. He says that he can't see into the future. I am not going to call him a liar; that's not parliamentary. He says he can't see into the future, and yet he stood up here a few seconds ago and said by the end of 1986 British Columbia is going to be the most competitive economy on earth. I'd like to ask the minister to explain that for us. This man without any capability of seeing into the future is telling us that by the end of 1986 we're going to have the most competitive economy on the globe. Explain yourself! What is it? How are you going to do it? What are your plans? Tell the people of this Legislature and the people of this province, to whom you have the responsibility to report, to whom you have to justify your salary, why you are making that statement.

He, with no foresight at all, with no crystal ball, who can't see into the future, gets up and makes some blind statement that we're going to be the most competitive economy anywhere on the globe. And then he whines and cries, and he says it's difficult, that we've all been through a tough international situation. We all have the responsibility, he said, to do the best we can. But you are being paid for your responsibility by those people out there, throughout the province of British Columbia. They're paying you to exercise your responsibility, and they are demanding of you in this Legislative Assembly to account for what you've done over the last little while.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'll have a little bit to say about loggers; I'll follow that up in a few minutes.

This minister says we all have a responsibility to create new employment and to attract jobs to British Columbia. But as I said, this man has a responsibility to do this job. He has got a responsibility prescribed in the legislation that creates his office in the first place. He's got a responsibility under the votes that we are here to vote on today and to discuss today, to

[ Page 7842 ]

account for what he does in the Legislature. We have not heard an accounting so far.

He complains about the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the member for North Okanagan (Mr. MacWilliam) and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) standing up in the Legislature and asking what this minister has done in order to create employment in their constituencies. That's their responsibility as members, and I am congratulating them for fulfilling their responsibilities to this Legislature and to their constituents, for earning their salaries. It's this member's salary that's being debated in this Legislature today.

MR. LAUK: He's a sloth.

MR. SKELLY: Well, Mr. Chairman....

MR. LAUK: A sloth is a cute little animal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's also a personal reference, and perhaps we can avoid personal references such as that.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, we're here to find out what this member has done in order to attract industry to the province of British Columbia; in order, when jobs are lost as a result of changes in process, changes in world markets.... And we all know the impact that world markets and changes in technology are having on the economy of British Columbia, but the person who has the responsibility in this Legislature to deal with those labour market issues has refused to account to the Legislature for his activities in that regard. In fact he's denied that he has the responsibility.

He says that it's the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who has that responsibility. Well, we know he spends a lot of time with the Minister of Industry and Small Business. Surely, as a member of the economic development committee, he should be able to account to us for the discussions between his ministry and the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development — exactly what labour market strategies are being developed in this province to give our people who are unemployed some idea as to what the future is going to hold for them. We want to hear what those discussions have been.

[5:30]

You're a member of that economic development committee of cabinet. That's not a committee of this Legislature, because we know those committees never meet. What we want is your responsibility to this Legislature to report to this Legislature and to tell us precisely what your discussions with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development have been about concerning the development of a labour market strategy for this province.

He doesn't have that responsibility; it's your responsibility. It's spelled out right here in the legislation. And we'd like to hear exactly what this minister has done, exactly what discussions he's been involved in with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. We want to hear some responsible accounting for those discussions back here in this Legislature.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

People in my constituency have worked hard in the forest industry over the years. There's an obligation on the part of the government, this very same government that's been talking to those workers about productivity.... They have increased their productivity in the logging sector, they've increased their productivity in the sawmilling and the forestry manufacturing sectors, and do you know what their reward has been? Their reward has been layoffs, terminations, and they've lost everything.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Where do you stand on log exports?

MR. SKELLY: I have absolutely no hesitation, Mr. Chairman, in telling people where I stand on log exports. But what I am talking about are the people in the forest industry in Port Alberni who, as a result of increases in productivity that have resulted in the highest level of exports of manufactured goods in forestry products in history from British Columbia.... Their reward for that increase in productivity has been that they were laid off, terminated, fired. All of their working lives were invested in developing the skills that they require to produce one of the best forest industries in the world. For all of their investment in skill development, in education and in increasing productivity, their reward was that they were fired.

In other countries around the world, and here in British Columbia, people who are working in the forest industry recognize that you have to keep abreast of the changes in technology. You can't allow your industry to fall behind. You have to keep up with technological change and be at its forefront. They recognize that as a result of those technological changes, jobs are going to be lost. The only thing that they expect of their government is that the government in consultation with the unions and the industries, the people involved, will have some labour market strategy that will account for those changes and will make sure that those changes don't take place on the backs of the workers involved.

What is a labour market strategy? It is something that is designed to attract industries, to divert those people into new employment, to provide those people with the kind of education and skills they require in order to get involved in the new technologies and new industries that are coming. This government — this minister — does not seem to have even the basic elements of a labour market strategy.

All that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds asked — that this minister refused to answer — was what you have done in the case of Domglas in Burnaby-Edmonds. What have you done to meet with the company, to discuss the changes that are taking place with the workers, possibly to develop some new education programs or new skills programs, or to attract new industries or to encourage that industry to stay in British Columbia? That's all that was asked.

That's all that the member for Skeena asked; that's all that member for Okanagan North was asking: what kind of labour market strategy do you have to deal with technological change, to deal with the changes in world markets, to attract new industries and new employment to the province of British Columbia, to live up to that section of the legislation that's given to this minister as part of his terms of reference? That was the question asked by the member for Skeena, and this minister refused to answer.

This minister refused to live up to the responsibility that he has to the members of this Legislature who are going to be expected, sometime between now and when this vote is passed, to give this minister his salary for the next year. The

[ Page 7843 ]

only way we can give this minister his salary is if he is doing his job, and by the answers that we've received this afternoon, the minister isn't doing his job.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, before getting into another subject altogether, I'd be happy to have the minister answer the Leader of the Opposition. I'm sure he would like to do that and clear the air.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The Leader of the Opposition is not new to this assembly. Over the course of the debate in the assembly since my estimates began, we've talked about what the Ministry of Labour is doing in terms of developing a labour market strategy in cooperation with the government of Canada. We did that this morning, hon. member. What the member for Skeena talked about and asked specifically about was: what kind of new industry did I go out and find to locate in his constituency? Industry is the responsibility of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Yes. My responsibility is in developing labour market programs. We talked about that this morning, hon. member, and I'm disappointed that you weren't here. In the first speech that he made this morning, the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) did not address that issue at all. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) did address the issue — and addressed it quite well — in terms of labour market programs and what the Ministry of Labour is doing in developing labour market programs in cooperation with the government of Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Not at all, hon. member.

The Ministry of Labour is involved at the present time in discussions with the government of Canada, developing labour market programs that can accommodate the industrial needs of individuals and British Columbians alike in terms of industry, technology and the whole spectrum, whether it's single parents, re-skilled workers, retraining workers, initial training and so on. That is part of a discussion that's now taking place between the Ministry of Labour and the government of Canada.

This morning the member for North Island talked about the Ontario government having signed that agreement, and he talked about a three-year agreement being signed. I explained to the member for North Island that while it is a three-year agreement, it doesn't have financial security over a three-year period. What we would like is to get a program in place for British Columbia, with as much flexibility as possible, to be able to respond to industry's needs and requests in terms of an overall economic development strategy for the province over a three-year period. I explained that already this morning, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the minister tells us that he's in negotiations with the federal government. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds, the member for Okanagan North, the member for Skeena, the member for Alberni are asking: while this minister is seeking some financial security over the term of an agreement that he plans to sign with the federal government, which seems to have no end of negotiation associated with it, there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of individuals here in British Columbia in constituencies like mine, in constituencies like Burnaby-Edmonds, who are looking for some financial security of their own. They're looking for some assurance of their own. They don't want to stay on welfare. They don't want to stay on welfare at the rates that they're being paid by this government. And they're looking for some financial assurance.

These people have worked hard over a lifetime. They've contributed a great deal in terms of energy, in terms of skill, in terms of ability and commitment. When times were tough for companies, they put up their labour in order to support those companies. When the companies asked them to work long hours, they worked long hours. Now, as a result of changes in markets, changes in conditions, they're being told that their investment was absolutely worthless and they're being sacked, terminated, laid off.

All they're expecting from this minister.... Surely when you go into negotiations with the federal government over a labour market strategy you have some idea in mind as to what British Columbia has planned for a labour market strategy for this province. Surely you have some idea in mind as to what British Columbia's strategy is going to be: how you're going to deal with those thousands of workers who have been laid off in the forest industry; how you're going to deal with thousands of workers who have been laid off in the mining and primary forestry sectors; how you're going to deal with thousands of workers who have been laid off in construction.

Mr. Chairman, we expect that the minister, before going into negotiations with the federal government, will have some idea of what kind of labour market strategy is appropriate to British Columbia. Surely going into negotiations the minister should have an idea of what the strategy should be in this province. He's not relying strictly on the federal government to develop that strategy. We just want an idea from this minister. What exactly does he have in mind to accommodate the changes that are taking place in those industries so that workers in British Columbia who have lost their jobs as a result of those changes are going to know what the future brings for them. They're not demanding a minister with a crystal ball, because there is information available to the provincial government as to the changes taking place, as to new industries that are being developed. We've heard from consultants in the forest industry as well. They've been able to point to the new products that are being developed, to new lines of research that are being conducted, new areas and new markets that are opening up around the world. That's not a crystal ball, that's making judgments based on the best information available.

This government has the resources to collect that information. My stars, Mr. Chairman! They're spending $15 million on government information services this year. We're going to be asked to vote for $15 million for government advertising programs, like partners in poverty and partners in disease, and all of those kinds of programs. What we want is some indication that some money has been spent, that some resources have been allocated, that some work has been done by this minister before he goes into negotiations with the federal government as to what labour market strategies would be appropriate to British Columbia. And how can you possibly develop a labour market strategy that does not include some efforts on the part of this minister, as well as other ministers, to attract industries of certain kinds? How can a

[ Page 7844 ]

labour market strategy be developed in isolation from those kinds of efforts?

What we're asking of this minister is, what has he done along those lines in order to fulfil the requirements placed upon him by his own ministerial legislation? When he's asked that question in a responsible way by the member for Skeena, by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, by the member for Okanagan North, by the member for North Island: no answers.

[5:45]

What we would like to know is what this minister has in mind in going into negotiations with the federal government as to what industries might be attracted to British Columbia, what industries he's looking at, before providing any retraining for people in the province who have found themselves out of work. In what areas is he directing the retraining effort? For what industries is he retraining people? In what areas of the province are these industries going to be located? Who has he consulted, other than the federal government, in the way of trade unions, in the way of industry? These people are partners in the process of developing that labour market strategy. If you're not consulting with them regularly, then whatever strategy is developed is going to be hampered by the fact that those people haven't been consulted.

What we would like from this minister, Mr. Chairman, is some indication of what understanding of a labour market strategy he is taking into negotiations with the federal government, based on what industry is being attracted to the province. We are simply not getting that answer from the minister, and we are only led to believe that he doesn't have those answers and that he hasn't developed a labour market strategy of his own that would be appropriate to British Columbia whether we had federal involvement in that strategy or not.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like to make just a few comments in answer to some of the "questions" that I hear coming from the other side.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I would like to answer some of the questions posed by the member for Burnaby Edmonds and the member for North Island.

I have to respond to some of the remarks made, particularly by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds when she talks about tradespeople being out of work. I just want to make a quick response to that. As I look around in our principle city of greater Vancouver, of which her riding is a part — and these last two weeks before the opening of our world's fair, naturally I am spending a lot of time there — I can't help but notice how magnificent Vancouver is looking these days. The principle city of British Columbia is coming of age.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll get to Kamloops in a minute, Mr. Member for Okanagan North. I intend to touch on that one too; I'm going to hit several different ridings.

But specifically to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, I can't help but thinking.... These tradesmen that she mentioned, these tradespeople — and she mentioned plumbers and carpenters and electricians: what would many of them have been doing had we decided not to proceed with the world's exposition called Expo 86? I wonder what would have happened to many of those tradesmen if there hadn't been a $400 million construction budget for Expo 86. The decision was made by this government as a whole, which includes the Minister of Labour, who they seem to be criticizing. He was part of the decisions. Add to that figure of $400 million in construction.... This quote is from the Vancouver Sun, Mr. Chairman, so I am sure they will not take issue with it, because they rely on it so much for their research: $900 million additional was spent in construction in Vancouver because of Expo 86.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Nine hundred million dollars spent in greater Vancouver apart from Expo 86, but because of Expo 86. That's $1.3 billion in construction, to answer the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) on what we are doing for the tradespeople of this province. I think $1.3 billion is a fairly good answer.

I, too, agree that the unemployment is too high in the building trades, but where would it have been without this one project alone? Where would it have been? As I look around greater Vancouver, sometimes a horrible thought crosses my mind as I reflect back to 1979. As the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said: "Think back to 1979." That's what he said a little earlier, so I thought back the other day to about 1979 when some decisions were being made. I thought — and a horrible thought, I must admit — about what Vancouver would look like today, downtown British Columbia. In fact, what would this whole province look like today had they been government since 1979? What would it look like?

I'm going to tell you what this province would look like today. I'm going to give you just a little bit of a scenario of what this province would look like if you lot over there had been government since 1979. Let's start with a beautiful trade and convention centre. I want to mention the trade and convention centre. It will be finest convention centre in this part of the world, possibly in the entire world. And a cruise ship facility second to none is on what used to be an ugly old pier on Burrard Inlet. But they were against it; it wouldn't have been built. If they'd been government, we wouldn't have it.

Look at the jobs. We're talking labour in the Labour minister's estimates, and I'm trying to answer these members. Look at the jobs that would have been lost if that convention centre hadn't been built. Just take a look. You tell me, Ms. Member for Burnaby-Edmonds, how many tradespeople wouldn't have worked if you hadn't built that one building alone. That's just one.

Let's go to another one — the stadium. Do you remember the stadium? Who was against the stadium? Mikey was against it — Mikey, who now loves it. They were against it. You wouldn't have a stadium, Mr. Leader of the Opposition; you wouldn't have it. Look at the jobs that go with that stadium alone, just the jobs that were created to build the most magnificent stadium in Canada. Even Toronto is jealous.

That's two projects. Let's go to another one. Let's talk about the ALRT, the finest rapid transit system in the country. You wouldn't have that. Look at the jobs. That project, nearly

[ Page 7845 ]

a billion dollars: how many tradespeople worked on that, Mr. Leader of the Opposition? Tell me.

MR. SKELLY: And how many are working there now?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: And how many dollars did they take home to put on the table, which your member for Skeena cried about? How many members of Vancouver East, of Burnaby, of New Westminster, of greater Vancouver, worked on that ALRT?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many from the Okanagan?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll get there. I'm working my way east, Mr. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam). I'm going to come to it.

Let's come back to the world's fair itself, Expo 86, the jobs that are created, the labour pool that we're talking about with Expo 86; and you talk about this government not creating jobs. You wouldn't have a world exposition, would you? And what would False Creek look like today, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, if you people had been government since 1979? I'll tell you what False Creek would look like.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whatever.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yeah, whatever. You said it. Let's just take a look at the labour that was created by those projects which Vancouver would not have today. British Columbia wouldn't have them. Just in case you've forgotten, we'll go through them. The convention centre with the cruise ship facility, the stadium, the transit system, Expo 86, the development that's going to take place after Expo by British Columbia Place corporation, the largest urban development in North America.

Now let's work east a little bit. We've gone east to the end of the ALRT, Mr. Chairman. Let's go a little south from there and talk about the new Annacis Island crossing that's going to bring traffic. You wouldn't have that because you people were against that too. How many jobs? I don't know the answer. How many people are working on the Annacis Island crossing? What's the payroll generated by the Annacis Island crossing alone?

MR. COCKE: What's Segarty paying you for protecting him?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: What's the payroll generated by the ALRT? I don't know the payroll, Mr. Chairman. I wish I had those numbers at my fingertips so that I could explain to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) how many dollars were taken to put the food on the table that he talks about.

Let's move a little farther east, Mr. Chairman. One of the members over there referred to the operating engineers. I think it was the member for Skeena but I'm not sure.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, one of you guys. I want to tell you how many operating engineers — or somebody tell me how many operating engineers — are working because we decided to build the Coquihalla Highway. How many operating engineers? I don't know, but I can tell you that in my riding alone, Mr. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), now that we're up to Kamloops, thousands of people are working because of that Coquihalla Highway and the fact that we decided to build it — thousands of people, including operating engineers.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the unemployment level? What percent?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: But it would have been a lot higher, Mr. Member, if you had been government since 1979. It would have been a lot higher.

Let me go on a little further. How much higher would it have been if we had decided to leave the Lottery Corporation in NDP Manitoba? We didn't. We brought it to British Columbia and put it in Kamloops.

You said over there: "Tell me about unemployment numbers." I know what they'd be if you were government, Mr. Member. I could tell you what they'd be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the crystal ball?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You don't need a crystal ball to know what would have happened since 1979 if you had been government. We wouldn't have any of those projects — not one of them. So total up the number of jobs, Mr. Chairman. This is what they're talking about — jobs. Start totalling the jobs from the Coquihalla Highway, phase l, 2 and 3. You know where phase 3 is, Mr. Member, and how many people from your riding will work on it. How many people from your riding will work on the Coquihalla Highway?

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, you go up there and tell them you don't like the Coquihalla Highway. You go up.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You total them up, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. You want to know where jobs.... You want to know what this government is doing about jobs, and I'm telling you what they're doing about jobs. You get your calculator out and start totalling up the number of jobs that we've created over the last few years, none of which would have been there if you'd been government. Not one of those jobs would have been there.

Last month alone in this province 23,000 jobs were created. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? Twenty-three thousand jobs created in this province alone last month. We led the country in the creation of jobs.

You talk about tradespeople. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and I just announced this Monday in Kamloops, Mr. Member, the creation of a new printing plant — brought in because we had the foresight to bring the lottery headquarters to British Columbia. That's another 75 jobs, with a new printing plant — private sector, a company from Winnipeg. They tell me that those 75 jobs are only the beginning, that within three to five years there will be 200 people working in that printing plant, simply because we had the foresight to bring the Lottery Corporation headquarters to British Columbia. You talk about creating jobs and keeping money in this province.

[ Page 7846 ]

You don't even know what you're talking about when you talk about jobs and the numbers that have been created.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you've allowed me a certain amount of latitude in answering questions, but the latitude was allowed over there. I think I have answered every question posed by every member over there, because all they were talking about was: what have we done for jobs?

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I get the same as he does — and worth every nickel of it, too, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

I can tell you that every question posed over there regarding jobs has been answered just in the list of projects that I gave you. And you talk about what government is doing to create jobs! Every one of those has been a project initiated by this government, or they are jobs triggered by projects done by this government. The hotel construction in downtown Vancouver alone has created 2,400 new hotel rooms — triggered because we decided to go ahead with a world exposition. That's $900 million in construction, apart from any government project. And the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown)....

[6:00]

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the clock.

AN HON. MEMBER: Closure!

MR. COCKE: That's right — closing his mouth. You're finished. Sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's attention has been drawn to the clock.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: As a point of information to members, it is the intent of the House to sit next week in this manner, always subject to direction of the House, of course: regular sitting hours Monday and Tuesday; Wednesday would have two sittings, at ten and two respectively; and the House would not sit next Thursday and Friday, the 24th and 25th.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.