[ Page 7865 ]

CONTENTS

Commercial Arbitration Act (Bill 22). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 7865

Oral Questions

Hotel evictions. Mr. Blencoe –– 7865

Hopwood report. Mr. Williams –– 7866

Log exports. Mr. Parks –– 7866

Northeast coal. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 7867

Permit to use cyanide issued to Grand Forks mine. Hon. Mr. Pelton replies –– 7867

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

On vote 54: minister's office –– 7867

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Cocke Mr. Michael Ms. Brown Mr. Reid

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

On vote 59: minister's office –– 7881

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Blencoe Mr. Rose

MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PASSARELL: Visiting us today, Mr. Speaker, is a friend of mine from West Germany, Ruth Lonkai. She's sitting behind you, for probably a good reason. I wanted my friend Paul Loong in here today, because he mentioned in an article a while ago that I was married. Today I can say that Paul is pretty close, because Ruth and I will be getting married in the next few weeks.

Introduction of Bills.

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Commercial Arbitration Act.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would advise the House that this bill modernizes and streamlines all local commercial arbitration: that is, it does not deal with the international arbitration, on which we already had a bill, nor does it deal with matrimonial matters or labour matters; it deals with the other body of commercial arbitrations in British Columbia, which have been under our old Arbitration Act, which was put in its present form roughly in 1893 and is quite out of touch with contemporary needs. This new act will provide a modern, simpler and more certain process to encourage people to resolve their disputes through arbitration. In doing that, it should relieve the courts of some of their backlog in commercial cases. The streamlining will be important; it will provide a simpler, faster, less expensive and less formal process for arbitration, and it will also limit judicial review to those cases in which there is an important point of law or jurisdictional matter. So costly and time-consuming procedures will be abolished.

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

Bill 22, 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.

Oral Questions

HOTEL EVICTIONS

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The city of Vancouver has budgeted $40,000 to assist with the cost of relocating Expo evictees. In view of the provincial responsibility for this project, the city is seeking to recover those costs from the provincial government. A question to the minister: has the government decided to pay those costs?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, to the member, of what he speaks this is the first I've heard, so I really can't answer that question at this time. But as far as the province's commitment to finding alternative accommodation for those who are "being evicted" is concerned, we're already, I believe, doing a fantastic job, in that the B.C. Housing Management Commission has put a single person from staff on that question. As I said in this House last week, anyone requiring such accommodation need only go to the B.C. Housing Management Commission, and I've given my undertaking that that accommodation will be found.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. Not only do we have a responsibility to follow the question guidelines, we also have a responsibility on answer guidelines. Answers should not generally exceed the scope of the question.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it's a sad day when the minister and the government seem to want to reject the fact that people are being evicted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: The numbers are there. Supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. The Fraser hotel, owned by B.C. Hydro, has evicted its tenants and is currently sitting empty. What consideration has the minister given on behalf of the government to ordering Hydro to reopen the facility to accommodate persons in need of housing as a result of Expo evictions?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of the situation. I'll take that question on notice and bring an answer back.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm wondering when the minister will become aware of what's happening in Vancouver and take some action.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a supplementary question to the minister. How many people have to be evicted before this government will take action?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: That's the question. How many people have to be evicted?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Supplemental questions are not in order for questions taken on notice, and questions must be questions. The member continues.

[2:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question about the Fraser hotel was taken on notice, Mr. Speaker. This is a new question.

To what proportion does this crisis have to reach, how many people have to be evicted, and how much international scandal must we attract before attention and action is taken by this government?

[ Page 7866 ]

HON. MR. KEMPF: I guess the member isn't aware, after the discussion that's taken place in this House and elsewhere, of what is being done by this government, and I said it in a statement in the House last week. The B.C. Housing Management Commission is looking after those people who are evicted and don't have accommodation. You need only approach them. As well — and the member should be aware, but if he's not I'll tell him again — there has been a task force set up, which includes people from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the B.C. Housing Management Commission, the city of Vancouver, the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation and DERA, for the specific reason of finding accommodation for those who don't have any.

So there are two avenues, Mr. Member, that those people can go. Again, I undertake to this House that if anyone is looking for that kind of accommodation, he or she need only go to the B.C. Housing Management Commission, and I'll give my undertaking that that accommodation will be found.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister aware of the international and world attention and international media attention on these Expo evictions, and therefore the damage it is causing Expo, and the costs to the taxpayer in terms of the image? Is the minister aware of that?

I am wondering if the minister can tell us what is the current vacancy rate for those units managed by the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I guess the member didn't hear. Again, I'll repeat: for anyone requiring accommodation in Vancouver, they need only go to the B.C. Housing Management Commission and request that kind of accommodation. Again, I give my undertaking that accommodation will be found.

HOPWOOD REPORT

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Forests. He has received a report from a professional forester, Mr. Allen Hopwood, on matters related to excessive amounts received by contractors and private companies with respect to what his ministry has allowed in terms of actual costs for such projects. Can the minister confirm he has received that report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that I have received a copy of the report. I cannot recall whether it was delivered by the author; I don't think so.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise the House, Mr. Speaker, if there is a significant difference between the allowances allowed contractors and private corporations in this province, with respect to their real costs for projects that his ministry approved?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the member has obviously read the report as well. It was commissioned by a number of truck loggers and, I presume, market loggers as well. The concern which was expressed by both of those groups — and it's been a concern which has apparently been in existence for a number of years, involving the amount which is paid by the licence-holder to the contractor.... I gather that these amounts.... There is a differential. The member raised that matter in the House within the last three weeks — that in fact there is a differential and that there was some concern as to whether or not the contractors were receiving what they felt was their just due.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise the House what the overall differential is?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This particular report came to me, as I recall, in confidence. It has not been made public, to my knowledge, by either the author or the association that commissioned the report. If they wish to make it public, that's fine. When it was passed to me, it was given to me on a confidential basis, and I have no intention whatsoever of breaching that confidence.

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm that this represents, whatever the differential is, a loss to the Crown in terms of revenue because of the benefit of pocketing the difference?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't intend to give particulars of the report. Suffice to say that the authors of the report, as well as those for whom the report was commissioned, were somewhat concerned about the amount of money they were receiving and that amount which is within the stumpage and appraisal system. We can argue numbers; there's obviously a spread, and it works both ways. But I am not going to make that document public when it was passed to me on a confidential basis.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Finance. What this report indicates is that millions and millions of dollars were not received by the Crown, funds that were properly due from public timber in British Columbia. The minister can very well speak about this being a confidential report. This is lost money to the people of British Columbia that could have met social needs in a time of great need. The question is: has the Minister of Finance concerned himself with these issues, and has he reviewed this report?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I have not reviewed this report at this time.

LOG EXPORTS

MR. PARKS: I have a question to the Minister of Forests. It has become, as we're now well aware, very clear that the lack of log exportation has taken its toll on jobs. I'm wondering if, in your capacity as the government minister responsible for perhaps reviewing and establishing policy in that regard, you are in receipt of any indication from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that, contrary to their party's written policy with respect to being against log exportation and contrary to their caucus's position of being against log exportation, they are now in favour of log exportation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, one thing that I have always understood is that when a question comes from a member on the government side I would like to have had some forewarning, but I can see that I'm not entitled to that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Shame, right.

[ Page 7867 ]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I know about this is what I've read in the paper — as far as the opposition is concerned. I know that this question was put to the Leader of the Opposition, who said: "No, I cannot subscribe totally to the resolution of the IWA, because it would mean displacing jobs." I read that in the press, and I presume the Leader of the Opposition was accurately quoted.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Forests, I wasn't referring to a comment of the Leader of the Opposition but of the forestry critic for that party. Last Sunday on Channel 6 there was a program aired on which, if my recollection is correct, the forestry critic stated that his party was in favour of some log exportation. I wonder if that policy had been made known to him.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not see the program to which the member refers. Nothing has been communicated to me by the members of the opposition, but of course, if they have anything to support the concept — any other ideas — I'd like to receive them.

MR LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order — I think it may be a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker — the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, as usual, has his facts completely wrong. If he had watched that particular program — which went very, very well — he would know exactly what was said. He obviously didn't see the program and doesn't know what the heck he's talking about — as usual.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. That's a point of order, hon. members, that might be raised on numerous occasions in this House — and each time the substance of the actual point of order has some question as to its merit. That is the purpose of debate.

NORTHEAST COAL

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to answer a question put to me earlier in question period. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) earlier this month — I'm sorry I don't have the precise date — asked with respect to the rail line to Tumbler Ridge.... I think I quote him correctly when I say the question was: the $501-million rail line to Tumbler Ridge in the northeast coalfields was to have been paid for by a surcharge of $3 a tonne from Quintette and $2.50 from Teck, the two operating corporations up there. Can the minister advise if those amounts have been discounted?

In response, I can advise him and the House that the rail surcharges referred to in his question have not been discounted or reduced. The rail surcharges continue to be billed to the operating corporations in the northeast...

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Continue to be billed, Mr. Member. Read Hansard if you are having trouble.

And there are no arrears of payments.

PERMIT TO USE CYANIDE ISSUED
TO GRAND FORKS MINE

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague the Minister of Finance, I rise to respond to a question — placed by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) with respect to the issue of a permit for the use of cyanide to extract gold from mine tailings in Grand Forks and the alleged cancellation of a public hearing. The Environmental Appeal Board has not yet held an appeal hearing on this matter. A hearing was held, however, by the director of the waste management branch on an appeal of the issuance of a permit by the regional waste manager, and the director made a decision at that time that the permit should be amended to provide for more stringent controls on the operation. It is this permit that was to be appealed, and he decided it should be appealed by the watershed coalition appellants to the Environmental Appeal Board.

Just to make sure that everyone is completely aware of what went on in this instance, I would like to read into the record a letter that was written by the chairman of the Environmental Appeal Board to the watershed coalition, explaining the initial reasons for the proposals to deal with the appeal by a written submission and the later decision to deal with the appeal by the public hearing.

"I refer to my letter of April 2, 1986, in which I stated that there would be no hearing on this appeal. It now appears that both parties have alleged a lack of openness by the other. I am not accepting that these allegations are well founded. However, in the circumstances it appears to be necessary for the board to have the opportunity to observe the witness. Accordingly I have requested the secretary of the board to arrange for a hearing in Grand Forks as soon as it can be arranged. The hearing will start at 9 a.m. The parties will be expected to confine their evidence strictly to whether the permit, as amended by the director, will prevent pollution as defined in the Waste Management Act.

"The director of the waste management branch is granted full party status to take such part in the hearings as he may deem advisable. All evidence will be given on oath.

H.D.C. Hunter, Panel chairman"

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

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

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, as we finished up on Friday the minister was attempting to make the argument that the province did not have jurisdiction in respect of workers' compensation regulations in the fishing industry. He said the advice he had received was that despite the fact that premiums are collected and awards paid out by the Workers' Compensation Board, the board does not have the jurisdiction in respect of the regulations themselves.

[ Page 7868 ]

I just want to pursue that for a moment or two, because the province does have jurisdiction in other federally governed areas in British Columbia. The one I want to cite, of course, is British Columbia Ferries. A few weeks ago the minister tried to make the argument that British Columbia has jurisdiction over regulations on the ferry fleet because it is a Crown corporation, and that we don't have jurisdiction over the fishing fleet because it is not a Crown corporation.

The minister should know that the constitution of Canada, in determining what is provincial and what is federal, does not make any reference to the ownership of a particular industry or corporation. The fact is that the federal government has jurisdiction over saltwater activities, but in several instances they have ceded jurisdiction to the province. In respect of regulations on the ferry fleet, that responsibility has been allowed to be taken by the province.

The same principle applies in respect of the fishing fleet. The ownership of the particular vessel is not in any way a factor in determining jurisdiction between federal and provincial authorities in this country. That's one argument in favour of the province taking the right to draft and impose regulations in the fishing industry; another — and this point has been made by the member for New Westminster — is that in large measure we are talking not about matters that are governed by the federal transport department in respect of marine regulations, but about actual safety issues on board ship which have nothing to do with federal Ministry of Transport regulations.

Mr. Chairman, in case the minister isn't aware — I'm certain he is aware, but so that everyone else is aware — this is a long-time process. I have in one hand the first draft of the Workers' Compensation Board industrial health and safety regulations for fishing vessels, dated December 1975. All kinds of people in the industry raised specific objections to those regulations as inappropriate; as a result, a second draft was presented. The second draft is, I should say, about half the thickness of the first draft, one that takes into account concerns by people who work directly in the industry. No one is suggesting that this second draft is necessarily appropriate either, but some work should take place — and take place soon — on capturing our rightful jurisdiction in this area so that we do not continue to lose the number of lives that we lose every year in British Columbia, some of that loss no doubt attributable to the fact that there are no regulations in place in respect of workers' compensation.

Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to some other issues, I'd welcome the minister's response on that question.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the member for North Island again brings up the matter of regulations in the fishing industry. I have had a number of meetings — and some good discussion — with representatives of the unions representing the employees in the fishing industry, and the objectives on both sides are the same: that is, to reduce the number of unnecessary deaths in the industry, and the accidents brought on by a variety of different circumstances.

The matter dealing with the British Columbia Ferry Corporation is one that the member points out as an example whereby the province does have the authority to deal with regulating the fishing industry. The British Columbia Ferry Corporation is a Crown corporation, and I would expect it to comply with the industrial health and safety standards of a sister Crown corporation, namely the Workers' Compensation Board. In all of the discussions with representatives of the fishing industry, without question the federal Department of Transport and Labour Canada have the jurisdiction to regulate the fishing industry. The Workers' Compensation Board does not get involved in regulating. It is true that they established a set of regulations for the industry, going back to 1975, but if you don't have the legal authority to impose regulations, hon. member, then you could not proceed in that area.

I did ask the fishermen's union to sit down with their members of Parliament from British Columbia and ask them to encourage the government of Canada to change the laws of the country or to give up ownership of regulating the industry. If they could persuade the government of Canada to do that — and I would assist them — by all means we would assist them in developing good safety standards and regulations for their industry. In the meantime, I suggested to them that they come up with a program whereby the Workers' Compensation Board would be able to assist them in providing strong educational programs for their members, strong guidelines that they could use in dealing with safety standards in their particular industry. If they came forward with a set of recommendations that required funding for their membership, or other areas we could assist them with in the meantime, we would be pleased to assist them in any way we could.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, if there is no legal authority for implementing regulations in the fishing industry, what legal authority does the minister have for implementing regulations on the ferry fleet?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the goodwill of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation and a policy of the government of British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay, now we're getting somewhere, Mr. Chairman. The reason we have regulations in the ferry industry is twofold. Firstly, it is the policy of the government that there should be regulation, which was the second reason that the minister gave and, secondly, the goodwill of the Ferry Corporation.

So let's deal now with the fishing industry. Why is it the policy of the government that there should be regulations on the ferry fleet but not the policy of the government for regulations where people are losing their lives in too many numbers every year in the fishing industry? Why would the government make that policy distinction?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The British Columbia Ferry Corporation is owned by the people of British Columbia and is subject to the directive of the government to comply with regulations and safety standards of a British Columbia Crown corporation, the Workers' Compensation Board. I could go out and talk to the private owners of fishing fleets in British Columbia and nicely ask them to comply with the regulations set out by the government of British Columbia, but they most likely would not comply. They would just do like they did in 1975: tell you where to go.

MR. GABELMANN: So as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, what the minister is basically saying is that because it is the policy of the government, and therefore as a result the policy of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, they will comply with Workers' Compensation Board regulations in the ferry fleet. Presumably it is because it is that policy that the minister is

[ Page 7869 ]

telling us about that they won't launch a court challenge against having regulations in that particular area. Because when you put it together, the first comment the minister made was in respect of the goodwill of the employer.

So what we are getting from the government is that the government does not want to have a policy in favour of regulation in the fishing industry because they don't have "the goodwill of the employer." Now he shakes his head.

All I can do here is attempt to listen to what the minister says. He says there are no regulations in the fishing industry, in effect, because — if you reverse what he said — there is neither the goodwill nor the government policy in place.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, if the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Waterland) would listen to the debate, he would know that the minister....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Just shut up and go away, will you, please?

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Also, could we have order, please. The other members will come to order. Would the member address the Chair? If the Minister of Agriculture and Food wishes to participate in debate, he has every opportunity to do so.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, let's just go through this again slowly, because I think for some members it is important that I do go through it slowly.

The minister said that it is possible to have Workers' Compensation Board regulations on the ferry fleet because it is government policy that the B.C. Ferry Corporation should adhere to Workers' Compensation Board regulations, and, secondly, because of the goodwill of the directors of the corporation. I interpret "goodwill of the corporation and board of directors" to mean that they won't challenge the legality of the question.

Now if that is not what the minister means — and I see he is being told that that is not what he meant — I'd like to know what he did mean. Clearly the minister cannot have it both ways. Either it is legal to have workers' compensation regulations imposed in areas of federal jurisdiction or it is not. The ferry fleet is under federal jurisdiction. Every time you ride the ferry, you hear the federal Department of Transport regulations referred to. The federal government administers and is responsible for the jurisdiction, in respect of marine law, of the ferry fleet.

So too are they in respect of the fishing fleet. The province has, one way or another, taken the responsibility to apply regulations on the ferry fleet. One way or the other they have told the directors to do it, or they've said "please do it," or the directors have said "we want to do it; do you object?" Whatever has happened, it is being done. Why can't the government, as a matter of policy, say the same thing to the fishing industry, and if the fishing industry wants to take it to court to say that it is ultra vires provincial jurisdiction, then we lose that and then we have to deal with the issue in another way. But in the meantime, let's get on with the job of trying to save some lives on the coast of British Columbia.

[2:45]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how I can say it more clearly. The government of British Columbia has directed the Crown corporation, B.C. Ferries Corporation, to comply with the health and safety standards of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Yes, the federal government has authority in that area as well, but we have asked them to comply with the health and safety standards of the Workers' Compensation Board because it is owned by the people of British Columbia. The federal government has clearly exercised their authority. The owners in the fishing industry know full well that the government of Canada has regulation authority in that area and thus don't have to listen to the standards set by the government of British Columbia's Crown corporation, the Workers' Compensation Board. If the fishermen's union can persuade the government of Canada to give up jurisdiction in that area and change its laws and its acts, then the provincial government's Workers' Compensation Board will look at dealing with regulations in the fishing industry.

All of the legal information and advice that I have today is that the matter clearly comes under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. That is the advice I've gotten to date. Anything that the member can do to encourage the government of Canada to change its laws and give up its jurisdiction in that area would be appreciated by all concerned. Indeed, I'm surprised that the member would not have asked his federal MPs, who are members of the same party, to bring the matter up in the House of Commons in question period. But my research tells me that that hasn't been the case.

MR. GABELMANN: The B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union were never asked to go to Ottawa to try to get jurisdiction for safety regulations on the ferry fleet, but the minister expects the UFAWU to go to Ottawa to try to get jurisdiction in the fishing fleet? That's what he said. He suggested that the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union should go to Ottawa to try to get jurisdiction — "change its laws," he said. Well, Mr. Chairman, the same laws apply in the ferry fleet as apply in the fishing fleet. If it's illegal to have regulations — or extralegal, or whatever word the minister might want to use — on the fishing fleet, then, too, it is illegal or extralegal on the ferry fleet. You can't have it both ways. Just because it's a matter of policy that the board of directors of the ferry fleet has been directed to comply doesn't affect the laws of Canada. The government of British Columbia can't issue a directive or have a policy that's against the law. The minister wants us to believe it's against the law of Canada for the fishing fleet to be protected. Then it must be against the law of Canada for the ferry fleet to be protected. It's an absurd situation, Mr. Chairman.

You know what the truth is here? It's that the government is prepared to do what the owners of the fishing fleet want. They could care less; they don't give a damn about the workers and their own lives. That's what's going on in this issue. The big owners of the fishing fleet have said: "We don't want regulations. Will you protect us from Workers' Compensation regulations? We think the cost of doing business in this province shouldn't include regulations. It may

[ Page 7870 ]

include a few more deaths, but we're prepared to live with that." And the government says: "Yes, we, too, are prepared to live with a few more deaths every year, because we're going to do what the employers want in this particular instance." That's the short story in respect of the failure of this government to take the jurisdiction that it has already taken in the question of the ferry fleet.

You can get all the legal advice you want, but you'll get differing legal opinions. I've had differing legal opinions. You can take one or the other. But when it's a question of people's lives, which it is, you should say, "Damn the lawyers," and get on with trying to protect those lives. Take the jurisdiction and impose those regulations in this industry. When I say "impose," I don't mean doing it without consultation. Consult with the people, in every aspect of the business, and develop a set of regulations that are appropriate to that peculiar and particular industry. But get them in place. You might save a few women and a few children from the fate of widowhood. I can't think of anything that the Minister of Labour might like to do more than save the odd life here on the coast of this province.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I sit here absolutely amazed. I recognize that this is a minister of relatively short tenure who maybe doesn't quite understand the responsibility of a minister. But he indicates that MPs from British Columbia or trade unions from British Columbia should be going on their hands and knees to the government of Canada to give up jurisdiction so that he can maintain the jurisdiction on behalf of the fishermen of this province. Well, for crying out loud. We've got a Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, a Minister of Labour and a Premier. Is he telling us that they're all absolutely useless, that they're not going to do their jobs?

In 1976 when Allan Williams, the then Minister of Labour, surrendered the jurisdiction in this particular area — and don't tell me any different — he said that if the federal government and the Department of Transport did not in fact live up to the standards, he would seize the jurisdiction. Now this minister is saying: "Oh, no, let the trade unions go out." The fact of the matter is that people are needlessly dying out there.

Imagine the case of the people who were welded into that coffin called a pilot house on a fishing boat just a couple of years ago. You know, we don't need this kind of behaviour from this government. We recognize that it's as incompetent as blazes, but can it be so incompetent that it's dehumanized to the extent that they will not do the duty of a government for the people of this province? Because that's what I'm hearing. It's just absolutely ridiculous. What rubbish!

If the Department of Transport has that jurisdiction, show me where there has been one inspection. They check the very large vessels for seaworthiness, and that's all — no worry about safety. You could have gaff hooks all over the place, and all the other things that could very well be unsafe. They do not check for safety.

We accept the jurisdiction in this province to provide compensation. The minister didn't even know that at the beginning. I heard him interviewed on the radio, and he said: "How can we do that? It's not in our jurisdiction." And we were doing it and have been doing it since the 1970s when the NDP were government. And then we did seize the jurisdiction and there were some regulations brought in that were….

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: This is saving lives, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). You wouldn't understand that, would you?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, you just wouldn't understand that. Yes, we took — or seized, whatever you like — the jurisdiction. We unfortunately brought in regulations that were too severe, and both sides understood that. Those regulations needed to be amended. They actually weren't even proclaimed. They were given to both sides to have a look at, and they could very easily have been modified, but the minister, Allan Williams, came along and decided to give up jurisdiction again to the feds, who have done absolutely nothing about safety. Now why the blazes should we let our fishing fleet go out like that? I think it's up to this government. Give the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations a job. What has he done lately? What has he ever done? Give him a job, for heaven's sake. Get him down to Ottawa to start fighting for the rights of our people here.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the member for New Westminster. I'm as concerned about safety as he is, and so is every member on this side of the House, as I know every member on that side of the House is. If there's an opportunity to save a life, we're all going to try to do that, hon. member.

What has clearly been said, though, is that the government of Canada does have responsibility in this area. That's the legal opinion that we've got to date. There is a court case currently being heard before the Supreme Court with respect to federal-provincial jurisdiction, an argument before the courts. Once that is heard we may be in a better position to do something about it. In the meantime what I've done is ask the representatives of the fishermen's union to come up with some proposals for the development of a safety program in their industry. If they do that, then the Workers' Compensation Board could fund that safety program for them, or assist them in funding it somewhat. That's what we can do in the meantime.

You're right, we have a job to do in getting that jurisdiction from the government of Canada, because all of the information that we have is that they objected in the strongest terms to what the government was doing back in the mid-1970s, and those arguments are continuing to date. That doesn't help the fishermen, but it is continuing to date. If there's a legal way that we can do it, it will be done. But I'm not going to go out there to raise false hopes and expectations with the fishermen that the government of British Columbia is going to impose regulations in an industry where we don't have the authority to do so. It will be done in an orderly way, in a legal way, and in a way that will without question have the respect of all the parties in the development of those regulations once we have the authority to do so.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder when the last time was that the Minister of Labour talked to either the federal Minister of Transport or the federal Minister of Labour on this issue.

[ Page 7871 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: We've had discussions with other provinces in the Maritimes, and they're in the same situation we are. We've had correspondence with the federal minister on the matter as well, and we hope we'll be able to get that on the agenda for a minister's conference in the near future.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, can I ask the minister to state clearly what his position will be at that ministerial conference in respect of his jurisdiction? Will he be asking the federal government to cede the jurisdiction to British Columbia?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, we recognize that the responsibility is currently the government of Canada's and, like other arrangements with the government of Canada, they can buy the services from the Workers' Compensation Board and its Crown corporations in terms of imposing safety standards. If they are to give up the regulations, we expect some help from them in assisting in preparing Workers' Compensation Board — with fleets and other matters dealing with safety and inspections.

MR. GABELMANN: If I understood the minister correctly, he's talking about attempting to negotiate with Ottawa the same arrangement that I understand exists on the docks, for example, in British Columbia, where the WCB acts as the regulatory agency and handles the whole compensation question. That's the position that the government of British Columbia will take to Ottawa, or wherever the meeting will take place, to seek that the same arrangement as exists on the federally governed docks of this province will then happen, if they agree, in the fishing industry. Have I understood that correctly?

[3:00]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, we want the government of Canada to either make a decision to do it themselves or provide opportunity for jurisdiction, the Workers' Compensation Board, to do it for them with some compensation from them to carry out those regulations and inspections.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I must echo some of the remarks of the Minister of Labour. It's interesting to sit and listen to the questions of members opposite and then to look at Hansard from Ottawa and see the questions being asked by the NDP members representing a large portion, hundreds of thousands of constituents, of British Columbia, and the quality and types of questions being asked back in Ottawa. I have a lot of difficulty recognizing that it's the same political party. I don't see those questions asked of our Minister of Labour being asked back in Ottawa by their own federal MPs. It's strange, to say the least, to notice the kinds of questions being asked back in Ottawa by those federal NDP MLAs, who are asking questions about the Canadian armed forces policy regarding homosexuals and lesbians but very few about job creation or fishermen's problems on the Pacific coast of Canada. There are questions being asked about the Canadian assets of Marcos, and Nicaragua, and Atlantic fishing, but I don't see anything in here about British Columbia Pacific coast fishing or jobs. It's very strange; you'd wonder if they are members of the same political party. I've looked at the entire question period during the month of March 1986, and I see no reference to those types of issues being made by their members back in that great capital city of Canada, Ottawa.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I wonder sometimes just exactly what we're doing with the people that I consider to be the grassroots, the backbone in British Columbia. I include in that group the workers in the mines, the loggers, the sawmill workers — truly the backbone of this province — but I wonder about the small building contractors. Has he had a look at what a tremendous contribution the small building contractors make to the province of British Columbia? Has that minister had a close look at the unjust, discriminatory method in which these small contractors must bid on jobs in competition with the public sector?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I'm going to be very specific, Mr. Chairman, and I've got some accurate rates here that have been researched very thoroughly and I think serve as an example of trades people in the small contracting industry trying to bid against school boards and municipalities, attempting to do work by the private sector rather than it being done by the public sector. I'd like to quote a few rates to the minister.

First of all, if you are a carpenter or journeyman of any type or classification working for a school board in the province of British Columbia, your employer, being the school board, is required to pay the WCB $0.49 cents per $100 of payroll. If you are a private contractor in direct competition with that school board, your WCB assessment is $5.87 per $100 of payroll — a difference of $5.38 per $100 of payroll. That translates into, if there is a job to be tendered and the superintendent of operations is to give the board of school trustees a quote on the possibilities of contracting it out to the private sector or doing it in-house, the school board having a clear advantage of $5,380 for every $100,000 of labour content. If that particular project had $1 million worth of labour content, the in-house school board competition would have an advantage of $53,800. That, to me, is grossly unfair.

These figures do not suggest that public sector construction workers — journeymen, tradesmen — have fewer accidents or are any more safe than private sector ones. This system is built in such a way that it's a global assessment. In a school district 80 percent of the employees are teachers, another 15 percent are clerical workers, and probably 5 percent might work in what might be classified as a hazardous industry — janitors, repair and maintenance staff, groundskeepers, and things like that. What you have is a weighting factor built into this WCB formula. There are 95 percent working in what could be described as a safe working environment, with very little time lost because of accidents, and 5 percent in what might be described as a high-risk area; whereas the small contractors in the province of British Columbia are the exact reverse — 95 percent or more of their employees work in the field, in the high-risk area.

I'm asking the minister: have you given consideration, or will you give consideration, to having a very close look at this inequity? It's an obvious injustice; it's wrong; it's not fair; it's not equitable. Have you looked or will you have a look at revising the means by which the Workers' Compensation Board assesses private employers and public sector entities such as school boards, municipalities and regional districts?

[ Page 7872 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'd like to thank the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke for all the research he has put into making his presentation. I won't look into it myself, but I will send the matter to the acting chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, who is empowered under the act to make those decisions and make whatever revisions are necessary in the rating program. I would like to thank the member for that, and I will take his comments out of Hansard and send them to the acting chairman of the board. I know that the acting chairman will respond to him on matters dealing with that assessment.

MR. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I will certainly take that advice and take that notice back to the people who have brought the problem to my attention, and I thank you for your response.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to ask a couple of questions and then make some general comments about the WCB. I understand the Workers' Compensation Board annual report has been ready for some time and is in the minister's hands. I wonder why we haven't had an opportunity to have that available to us prior to these estimates.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Yes, I received the annual report last week, but I haven't had an opportunity to read it myself before presenting it to the Legislature.

MR. GABELMANN: Just let me say very briefly, then, that it really would be helpful in these matters if, annual reports being available or near to ready to table, estimates could follow rather than precede the reports. That happens in a whole variety of ministries, and it's really a difficult process. What that can do is shorten the debate, because some of the information that might be useful is quite often contained in these reports. I hope that next year we do this in reverse.

I want to ask a question about the workplace hazardous materials information system, commonly called WHMS. It's not spelled WHIMS, but it is pronounced "whims" by people who are active in the whole question of hazardous materials information. I gather there is a meeting in Ottawa May 6, which is a couple of weeks away. Will the ministry be represented, and what is the position of the provincial government in respect of this particular proposal?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, my deputy will be attending the meeting in Ottawa. The meeting is drawing together all of the deputy ministers or senior officials within the various ministries across the country. It is designed to finalize the report and come back with recommendations to the province on legislative change or otherwise.

MR. GABELMANN: I thank the minister for that. Does the ministry or the government accept or agree to the schedule agreed on by the steering committee in charge of this particular subject?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the steering committee that has been looking at the report so far — and that's at the administrative level — feels that there are some administrative problems with some of the recommendations contained in the report, and that will be the matter of discussion at the meeting. They hope that they will be able to come back to British Columbia in particular with some recommendations for us and that the administrative process and everything else will be cleaned up at that time.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make some general comments about the Workers' Compensation Board. I am not going to repeat what the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has said but maybe just give my perspective on what is happening. What I did was to write down what I thought were the four biggest problems in the Workers' Compensation Board over the last few years and to see how we're doing in resolving what I think generally would be perceived as significant problems.

The first of those that I wrote down was the general problem of management. For some time now we have had very unstable management — to put the kindest words on it that I can — and as a result no consistency and unfortunately a lot of difficulty within the administrative structure in terms of knowing what policy is today and thinking it is going to be different tomorrow. The whole question of a happy and contented workforce is one that can only be addressed by management. When workers are not performing to the best of their ability or are unhappy or tense or all of the other kinds of things, you never say it is the workers' fault; it is management's fault. And at least nine times out of ten it is a management problem, not a workers' problem. In respect of the Workers' Compensation Board, we have had that problem in spades in recent times. So I have watched with interest as the minister begins the process of what I think is a genuine attempt to stabilize the management structure and hopefully the people.

On that question I must say that I have been pleased so far by the way the minister has embarked upon that very necessary program of change at the management level. I encourage him to stick with that and to continue the consultation that appears to be happening in a fairly broad way in respect of that management structure change that is going on.

We can all argue, I suppose, about the various choices, board of directors versus commissioners versus any other set of structures you might want to name, but the important element in all of this is that there is some stability, some trust on the part of the parties involved, and some sense of direction and some sense of purpose on the part of the staff in the operation. If that comes from this process, then all of us will be well served.

One of the other four areas was the whole question of the backlog on appeals. I must say to the minister that I for one applaud the minister's actions in first of all keeping an appeal system — I think the whole question of there being an appeal system was in very real jeopardy — but not only keeping it but expanding it and in regionalizing it. The horror stories that the member for New Westminster talked about are very real, and every one of us who is actively involved in assisting constituents knows of people who not only have lost their homes and their savings but in many cases have lost their families simply as a result of a two-year appeal process which people have had to wait for.

I have done this in other years, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important to say the good with the bad, and so far at least it looks as if that is a positive thing.

[3:15]

The minister made some curious comments in opening debate on Wednesday afternoon that I've read now seven or eight times, trying to see if I could understand them. He was talking about the whole question of boards of review and the

[ Page 7873 ]

expansion of boards of review into the regionalizing of that process, and somehow worked the question of workers' advisers and employers' advisers into the sentence, and then never referred to it. It was still the same sentence as the board of review question.

The best I can understand from what's in here is that the minister intends to expand the workers' compensation advisory services out of Richmond as well and into the rest of the province. If that's what he's saying, that certainly would be most welcome. I can see that there could be some problems with doing that, in terms of the administrative-type problems. Quite often these cases are best dealt with by mail anyway. It may not matter particularly where the offices are located. I'd like get some clarification, because it's not clear in reading the Hansard what the minister meant.

While I'm talking now about moving from the boards of review on to the compensation advisory services, I continue to be surprised by how few people know about the compensation advisory service. It's usually the workers' adviser that's important, inasmuch as most of the calls that most MLAs and, I'm sure, lawyers and everybody else get, in fact, come from workers as opposed to employers. I get the odd one from employers, and that's easy enough to deal with, but 90 percent are from workers. Of all those calls, I would say that virtually nobody — I won't say "nobody" — even knows what the compensation advisory service is, much less that it exists. I think that might be true too about some MLAs, actually, Mr. Chairman, because I notice some MLAs still end up doing all the detail work of trying to sort out compensation cases, when the services of the workers' advisers are there. They have access to far more files than we'll ever have access to, and have far more skills and time and ability — and, I might say, do an excellent job.

MS. SANFORD: They're too pressured; they've got too many cases.

MR. GABELMANN: There's no doubt, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) suggests, that they're too busy. And it's true: there is too much to do, increasingly. But the work they do that I see is absolutely first-rate.

That service not only needs to be expanded in terms of the number of people available, but it also needs to be more publicized. Workers don't pay any attention to what the rules and processes are in respect of filing a compensation claim until they get hurt or injured. At that point they're more concerned about the injury than they are about what the particular rules are. Once they get into the system.... Granted, 90 percent — whatever the number is these days — are solved without any further administrative problems, or without any further review, or whatever. But for the rest — and that's what we're really talking about — there is no clear indication to those people what all of the alternative appeal processes are and what resources are available to assist them.

So a lot of people.... Some manage to stumble into their MLA's office or into a lawyer's office — which I advise everyone to stay away from in respect of these issues, because they're going to spend money for nothing when we can do it far more effectively, and save them the cost. But they do; they go into lawyers' offices, and they come into MLAs' offices. But that's only the tip of the iceberg, again.

It seems to me that every claimant who has a letter sent to him or her from the board, saying, "We have rejected this," or "We've decided this.... It should be very clear what the appeal process is and who they can get advice from. The next step is usually in the letters — not always; but it should be always — but never is there a reference to where they can get further advice from. That might save a lot of grief. It might, in fact, save a lot of stress on the appeal process. People appeal simply because.... What do you do when you are in trouble and you've got the wrong decision? You appeal. Everybody just goes to the appeal process.

It may well be that we can minimize or lessen the demand on that appeal process structure by having a more informed workforce out there, particularly the ones who are directly on the firing lines. I think that's a very high priority, in my mind at least, for the board in respect of the compensation advisory services for the ministry. I do hope that there will be some significant expansion there. I might say again: I'm not particularly concerned about whether they are regional offices or not, because it's probably best dealt with by mail, in any event, rather than by people dropping into an office.

The final thing I want to say relates to the whole question of regulations. We've talked about the fishing industry. So far the decision has been, in respect of the farm industry, that the farm community should live by its own regulations and see if they can do better. I think what we'll see out of that process is that for a while the record will be even better with the voluntary program than it would be with enforced regulations — just for a little while, while the farm community is trying to prove that they can do it themselves. We should keep a very close eye on the statistics, because I'm convinced that those numbers will start to go down once the initial enthusiasm to avoid regulation wanes. At that point I think we're going to have to face the inevitability that safety and health regulations will have to be in place in every workplace in this province. We can't live with the idea that if you fish or farm for a living, you don't need to be protected in the same way as if you log or mine. They're all workers and they should all be protected.

Those are my comments in respect to workers' compensation — a few good moves and a few yet to make.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I appreciate the member's comments and his constructive suggestions on how we can improve services. Let me go back and say that yes, there were difficulties in the administration of the board; I think that's recognized throughout the entire community. At the same time, tough decisions had to be made with respect to runaway costs and so on. But that's all behind us now.

What we have to do is start building a system that will provide services to the community. As I said earlier on, I've asked Caldwell Partners to undertake a process of meeting with the parties of interest to seek their advice on a structure that they feel would best represent their constituents. I look forward to receiving the report from Kevin McBurney over the course of the next weeks or months, or as long as it takes to get some resolution from the parties on a process that they feel would best serve their interests. One thing it has done is get the parties talking to each other and working with each other. It's my firm belief that anything we can do to get the parties of interest working with each other and reaching common goals and objectives will pay dividends in many other areas as the weeks, months and years go by.

In talking about the worker advisory service, the member was correct. A lot of people don't use the services of the worker advisory program in the Ministry of Labour. He's correct, too, when he says that we should publicize it more. Perhaps I'll get my staff to print up some of those nice red,

[ Page 7874 ]

white and blue pamphlets that he criticized me for the other day; I'll distribute them around British Columbia with my photograph, and tell them to get in touch with the worker advisory service in the Ministry of Labour. Seriously, we will find a way to inform them about the worker advisory service. It is an exceptional service, and they do a really good job on behalf of a lot of people in B.C. who don't have access to unions; even the ones who do don't have the expertise to deal with those matters. We will be expanding that service within the Ministry of Labour because they all can work together. They have the knowledge of each other's research in particular cases, and will work quite well.

What we want to do, though, in expanding the regional review board concept.... In the Ministry of Labour we hope to be able to conduct those reviews out in the community. The employer and employee communities will be represented on those review panels. An office will be set up in at least some of the regional centres across the province — in Ministry of Labour offices if we can — with secretarial services that will put injured workers in touch with the worker advisory service and with other services that may be available to those individuals who need help and assistance. If we do that, I believe we will be adding credibility to the service, and reducing the workload on MLAs where possible, who, regardless of party, quite frankly do a good job for their constituents in matters dealing with workers' compensation complaints around the province.

As well, we hope it will take the pressure off some of those offices across B.C. We'll be looking at the regions where there is a backlog of appeals to be dealt with, treating them in a priority way in establishing those regional offices. Initially you will most likely see four: in the northern, Okanagan, Vancouver Island and Kootenay regions, where the smallest number of reviews has to be heard. If we could look at it in that priority, the area with the highest number of reviews to be dealt with is where an office will be located first, and expand it from there throughout the province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The member talked about the farm industry. It's a little bit different than the other industries across the province. I agree with your comments in that particular area, but I will continue to ride on it and work with the parties to look at ways in which we can help both parties achieve their objective, and that is to reduce the number of injuries and deaths in the workplace, regardless of the industry in which people work. I know that's an objective of yours and of mine.

To summarize, the board of review is proceeding quite well. On the section 90(3)s, I've asked the parties of interest to monitor that for me to keep me posted on how it has been administered. If there are further changes to be made in that area, without question we will seek the advice of the parties in dealing with that particular area as well. All in all, there are a lot of good things happening. I've got to say that it's awfully slow. As I said earlier on, the reason it's slow in many cases is that I tend to use the opportunity to get a third party in to meet with the parties of interest to discuss with them the available options, to try to reach consensus in the community with respect to administrative procedures and guidelines; and any opportunity to get the parties working together pays dividends in other areas of the industrial relations community. So I thank the member for his comments and his constructive suggestions. We will be acting on those in the next little while.

The other one you mentioned is that MLAs are not fully familiar with the worker advisory service, and that there might be an opportunity whereby all the members who are interested in this particular area.... I'll ask my staff now to maybe put together a workshop for all MLAs who may interested in this area and ask the workers' and employers' advisory service to put on that workshop for MLAs. It may help them in carrying out their responsibilities to their particular constituents as well.

[3:30]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to echo my colleague's disappointment that we haven't got the annual report to deal with, and that we're in fact having to ask a lot more questions than we would normally because we haven't got the information in front of us.

I want to express even deeper disappointment at how little was said by the minister in his opening remarks about his responsibility for the women's program in the province. As you know, Mr. Chairman, he's supposed to be concerned about the employment situation for more than 50 percent of the people in this province, and he dismissed that in something in the neighbourhood of a paragraph and a half. So I guess I'm going to have to just ask a lot of questions. I haven't got any alternative, since the minister volunteered so little information.

I gather from his opening comments that the minister has been spending some time meeting with groups of women across the province and with various women's organizations, and that in fact there was a conference in Vancouver recently at which there were a number of participants from women's groups across the province. I wonder if the minister can tell me whether the Congress of Black Women were invited to attend.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: This was put together by professional people in the Ministry of Labour. I didn't invite anyone in particular, but it's my understanding that, yes, the Congress of Black Women did attend. I may be corrected on that, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Would the minister be willing to release a copy of that invitation list? I have received comments from various groups that they were not included on the list, and it would make it easier for me to respond if the minister made a full copy of the list available. Is that going to be possible?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: To answer the hon. member's question, the lady who represents that organization — I think her name is Betty Lough — did, I think, attend the conference.

I also received a lot of criticism about the number of people who did attend, hon. member. Over the course of the year we went out around the province — to Prince George, Kamloops, Richmond, Burnaby, throughout British Columbia — and met with quite a few women's organizations across the province, and had good discussions with them in areas that affect them and their particular organizations. As you know, the Ministry of Labour plays a coordinating role with each ministry in government, too, in areas affecting women. We would come back and discuss those matters that were brought up with the minister in question, and hope that we

[ Page 7875 ]

could get some policy changes in some areas. We attempted in this particular case to bring representatives from as many of those organizations as possible, but not to leave out the ones we hadn't yet had an opportunity to meet. That was put together by the staff in the Ministry of Labour, and I'll check to see if a list of all those participants is available.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, can the minister respond as to whether the Vancouver Status of Women Council and the Women's Centre in Cranbrook were also invited?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The Women's Centre in Cranbrook was not present at that meeting. The Vancouver women's group that you mentioned was at the meeting in Burnaby.

MS. BROWN: The minister spoke about his big meeting in Vancouver with all of the women's groups. Can the minister explain, then, why the Vancouver Status of Women, who are located in Vancouver, were not included in that meeting in Vancouver? What were the criteria for deciding who would attend the meeting in Vancouver and who wouldn't?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I tried to meet with organizations that I hadn't met with before, and have a mix of both.

MS. BROWN: What does that mean — that you had or hadn't met with the Vancouver...? I'm sorry, I need some clarification. What does that mean in English?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Like the member, I have difficulty with the English language. We speak neither of Canada's official languages, and so we have a little bit of difficulty in that area. But I will try to clarify it as much as I can. I mentioned earlier on that I did meet with the Vancouver women's organization at a meeting in Burnaby. I don't have the date for it, but I had that meeting with them. Then I received a lot of requests from a variety of women's organizations from across the province for other meetings with them. With the conference on women's programs coming up in June at Fairmont Hot Springs, what I wanted to do was get some ideas on the issues affecting women, particularly in the areas of the conference agenda, that they could give me some advice on as we approached that conference. So there was an invitation issued to a variety of women's organizations across British Columbia that were felt to be representative of the total province. That list was put together and, needless to say, we had a pretty good set of discussions on a number of issues. I found the exercise really worthwhile, and made a commitment to them that we would have a follow-up conference later this year, involving matters dealing with women's participation in the economic development of our province. It was one of many, but not the last one.

MS. BROWN: I just want to confirm that the minister has made a commitment to secure for me a list of the participants, just so that I will be better able to respond to any complaints I get about people being left off the list — but, more positively, so that I can help you in terms of people being left off the list for the October conference.

The women's office issued a blueprint, "A Plan for Progress." I've been reading this very carefully, and I still haven't figured out what this plan is. What the minister has talked about is a lot of concern with issues that are of concern for women, and the government's ongoing commitment. But there really isn't anything to tell us how this is going to be translated into jobs, into economic independence for women, into training, into educational retraining and educational development. What, aside from the fact that it's very attractive, is there? Is there something else that's going to come that's going to tell us what this plan is? What is this?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: As the member knows, the Minister of Labour, through the staff of women's programs and its deputy — established some years ago — operates in a sort of coordinating role, representing women's issues to each ministry of government. What we did in this particular case was establish a major policy program for initiatives that are mentioned in the program. I would hope that the member would help me during the debate on each ministry's estimates in terms of asking the minister how they intend to carry out the mandate that has been asked of them by me and cabinet and, indeed, women's programs with respect to the plan that was initiated by me and the staff in women's programs. I'll be asking the minister for an up-to-date account of the progress that they are making in terms of the development of plans within their particular ministries to carry out the government's mandate as announced in "A Plan for Progress." Needless to say, this is just the beginning of other things to come. But these are the major areas that I picked up around the province that affect women in a variety of areas. You will remember that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), in debate on his estimates, changed some of the rating with respect to payment of Human Resources benefits to people in British Columbia. That was the result of a lot of this consultation that has taken place across the province, plus a variety of other initiatives underway in each ministry of government. I know the staff and the minister in each ministry of government are working hard to achieve the objectives set out in the plan as announced by the government.

MS. BROWN: I want to speak to the minister specifically, then, about the initiatives in the Ministry of Labour. Does that include equal pay for work of equal value, and can I have a report from the minister as to how he is coming along with implementing this very important initiative, which I know women's groups right across the province have been asking for for a number of years?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, when it comes to government services, the Provincial Secretary is responsible for the employees within government. I should say to the member that I have met recently with the Hon. Walter McLean, federal minister responsible in that area, and had a lot of discussions with him on that particular issue. I also met with the new minister in Quebec and the minister responsible in Ontario, and I had good discussion with the three ministers on that particular subject. My staff and I are monitoring those three jurisdictions with respect to equal pay for work of equal value, monitoring their experience in that area. I would like to make a report to the member at a later date on that.

MS. BROWN: Am I to understand that equal pay for work of equal value is now supported by this minister's government — that women can take it as a given that this government is committed to the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value?

[ Page 7876 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: It would be correct to say that the government is committed to equal pay for equal work. But what I said was that we are monitoring the programs set out in Quebec, Ontario and the government of Canada. When I say monitoring I mean that, because in discussions that I have had with both ministers, neither one has a clear idea on where they are going with respect to the development of the program.

It is one that I would like to watch — not forever, but I would like to watch — and I would like to be able to look at its practical application in British Columbia and not get into some of the problems that they have gotten into in those three jurisdictions with respect to the administration of the program.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this government has been committed to equal pay for equal work for the last 35 years. I had black hair when this government first became committed to equal pay for equal work. So here we are: I am now completely grey — you know, silver threads among the gold — and I am still hearing about equal pay for equal work.

There have been a number of royal commissions and studies done. The Abella commission, which tabled its recommendations in the House, specifically addressed itself to some of the provinces. The federal legislation is not satisfactory; all it asks for is reporting. That's not what the women are asking for; they are asking for equal pay for work of equal value. What I am hearing the minister saying is that 35 or 36 years after accepting.... It is no big deal to say that people should be paid equally for the same work. That's not a giant step forward. That's not a major moral victory. That's just fairness, that people who are doing the same work should get the same pay. What we are talking about, and the minister knows full well, is that because of the work ghettos in our society, in which some jobs are done primarily by women and other jobs are done primarily by men, disparities in wages have developed.

Part of his government's red, white and blue booklet talks about minimizing and eliminating inappropriate wage disparities. That is just a euphemism for equal pay for work of equal value. Now I am willing to accept eliminating inappropriate wage disparities, if the minister recognizes what he said when he says that the government is going to eliminate inappropriate wage disparities. What the minister is saying is that rather than saying to women, "If you want to make a decent wage you have to enter the so-called non-traditional workforce," the government is saying that this government is committed to seeing that the value of the work that women do is rewarded in terms of the pay packet that they take home at the end of a work day.

Monitoring what the federal government is doing is not the answer. I think he said monitoring Quebec. We've been around long enough, and we've had all of the same studies that the federal government and Quebec have had. Surely this forward-looking minister can come up with a better response than that.

[3:45]

In translating the statement in this red, white and blue glossy into English, am I to understand that eliminating inappropriate wage disparities means that this government is going to be implementing equal pay for work of equal value?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I met with the ministers responsible in Quebec and Ontario and the government of Canada, and there are problems in the administrative development of any report. As I said earlier, we will monitor those problems, and once we've got a clear handle on where they're going and have the benefit of their knowledge and experience in that area, then we will be able to have a clearer look at the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. I make the commitment to the member that we will monitor that. And we won't experiment with it; we will take what they have done and use its practical application in the workplace, and deal with it from there.

MS. BROWN: In the meantime I would like to suggest to the minister that this monitoring British Columbia is something that the women's office could be doing. Simply looking at Ontario and Quebec is not enough. Charity begins at home. Why not start with the Provincial Secretary's responsibility for the public service and start monitoring the public service to see whether it is possible to learn something from our own experiences right here in terms of pay equity? I certainly accept the minister's commitment, and I hope that before we meet again a year from now the monitoring will have ceased and the implementation will have begun. Maybe even by the time the annual report has been published that will be done.

The other question has to do with affirmative action. I'm hoping I'm going to get a more knowledgeable response from this minister than I received from the minister responsible for post-secondary education. That is another area that I know women's groups have been speaking about, not just to this minister but to previous ministers who had responsibility for this area. There have also been a number of federal and other studies which I know have come across his desk and been analyzed by the women's office. What is happening here in British Columbia in terms of implementing some kind of affirmative action program?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, "affirmative action" is another one of those buzzwords that keeps humming around. Some people look at affirmative action as quotas for women, disabled and handicapped people and visible minorities. I'm going to be honest and sincere with the member. I don't believe that anybody should get a job or a position just because they're disabled or just because they're handicapped or just because they're women or they come from one geographic area of the province as opposed to another or they're Irish or they're Italian or whatever the case might be. If that is the member's concept of affirmative action, I have to say that I don't agree with that concept. I'm not saying it is your position.

I would say something else, though. All of us have become accustomed, I guess, to the ways of doing things down through the years, and we have to be more understanding of the community of British Columbia. The way in which we appoint people to various positions, be they workers' compensation commissioners or people in any other area of responsibility within the provincial government.... When the member talks about affirmative action, yes, there are some things that I would like to see done: interview panels with male and female representatives, where equal opportunity applies to the applicants to be able to succeed in securing the type of employment that they want and to have access to particular skills and trades and areas that were denied them in the past. That is the approach that the government of British Columbia is taking in those areas. We provide

[ Page 7877 ]

equal opportunities to all and special privileges to none. It's an area, too, where the entire community of British Columbia has to become involved, whether the trade union movement or the management community. It's all too easy to look at the people we're associated with and put forward the name of an individual who you feel could do a good job, when there could be a female out there who probably could do a better job, given the same opportunity. Our goals and objectives must be to provide the education and the opportunity to all in our community to seek access to all areas of productive life in our province and to give the people of our province equal access and equal choice in all of those areas.

MS. BROWN: The more the minister speaks, the more convinced I am that he didn't write this glossy brochure. When he talks about eliminating systemic discrimination, what does he think this systemic discrimination is? Systemic discrimination is the direct result of people not being hired because they were women, or because they were disabled, or because they were members of minority groups. We have a situation that's the result of that.

Let me give you an example: the Ministry of Human Resources. Most of the people who work in that ministry are women. Most of the people who use the services of that ministry are women. There are five people at the top: the minister, the deputy minister, and four associate deputies — or is it three? That adds up to six people at the top, and not one female among them. That's the direct result of systemic discrimination.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What's the point of talking about equality to everyone and no privilege — whatever that little catch-phrase is that you use — no privilege to any and equality to all, or whatever. You've been giving privilege to special people since the beginning of time. You cannot convince me that, of the large number of women who since the beginning of time have trained as social workers and worked in the social-work system, not one single one of them is capable and able and qualified to have broken that all-male leadership at the top. There has been systemic discrimination, and there has been privilege.

I'm not accusing the present minister of that, because he inherited it; that was not of his making. When I asked the deputy minister about the next layer in the event that this layer of six white Anglo-Saxon males should die, the next layer that's moving up.... You know what that constitutes? More of the same. It means that a ministry that deals primarily with women and their problems, a ministry that hires primarily women for the next 20, 25 to 100 years, if your system continues, is always going to be headed by decision-makers and leaders who are male.

Now you're not going to change that by standing on the floor of this House and making pious statements about: "I don't believe we should hire somebody because they're female or because they're disabled." Over the years, people have not been hired because they're female and because they're disabled and because they belong to various ethnic and racial minority groups. How do you intend, as was written in your brochure, to eliminate this systemic discrimination?

Brighter people than you and I, Mr. Minister, have decided that the only method to deal with that is through what is called — your catch-phrase as you refer to it — affirmative action; that for some period of time at least, discrimination in a positive way is going to have to happen on behalf of those people who have been the victims of discrimination in a negative way down through the years. It's as simple as that, because unless that happens, we are always going to have deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers — male, white Anglo-Saxons — administering to the needs of people who are primarily female, many of whom are disabled, many of whom are members of ethnic and racial minority groups, many of whom speak English as a second language.

Now don't tell me what my definition of affirmative action is, because clearly you do not understand what affirmative action is all about and what it's trying to do. It's not simply a quota system. It's going out and aggressively ensuring that people who have been blocked get an opportunity to get into positions where they can start making some decisions on their own behalf. Unless you are prepared to do that, then start out by withdrawing these glossy things and eliminating that statement about eliminating systemic discrimination, because that's false advertising. It's as false advertising as the other statement which says you're going to eliminate inappropriate wage disparities, yet you're not going to implement equal pay for work of equal value.

Clearly the minister did not write this brochure. There is even some question as to whether the minister read this brochure, because somebody over there is putting words into his mouth which he is not prepared to back up by action. Now how is he going to eliminate systemic discrimination? Answer me that.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, you know, I got a letter from a particular union in British Columbia here a few weeks ago saying that they wanted a representative appointed to the Labour Relations Board in British Columbia. The letter went on to state that 90 percent of their membership — or approximately that amount — is female. They put forward the name of a male representative to sit on the board. So I wrote them a letter back and said to them that since they represent so many females, it would be probably fitting if they would nominate a female member as a representative on the Labour Relations Board. They can't tell me that they don't have a female among all of that membership that would not qualify to represent them on the Labour Relations Board.

It is areas like that, hon. member, where I have tried in the very best way I can to remove discrimination in a variety of areas. A lot of it is attitude, and we can't correct the attitudes of hundreds of years overnight, where a daughter sitting on a father's knee will sit down and old attitudes would say: "Look, you don't have to go out and get a good education. You look good, and you're going to get married, and somebody is going to look after you forever." Those attitudes were around years ago and, sad to say, they are still around in some quarters.

[4:00]

What we have to attempt to do is to remove that stigma, if we can, from the community and give people free choices and free options, but make sure that they have the educational ability and capacity to be able to deal and be promoted in any area of expertise that they wish to excel in. It is not going to be easy, but I know that British Columbians are committed to it, and I know, too, that British Columbians wouldn't want to see us entrench further discrimination by correcting the wrongs of the past hundred or couple of hundred years.

[ Page 7878 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as an elected representative of this House and a minister, surely the minister does not have to drag out that tired old argument about attitudes. Most British Columbians were quite happy driving their cars without buckling up their seatbelts. They didn't care because they were convinced that the only person who would be injured in an accident would be the next person, not them. It would never happen to them.

The government didn't go out and say: "Well, we can't change attitudes." The government said: "You buckle up your seatbelt because it costs us money when you get injured in an accident, and ICBC has to pay your disability pension and all of the costs involved in taking care of you." Nobody worried about the attitude of those British Columbians who didn't want to wear their seatbelts. It was mandatory. There were no arguments then about a young girl sitting on her father's knee feeling that she can always ride secure in a car because she is pretty, and when she grows up her husband is going to see to it that she doesn't get injured in that car.

Most British Columbians would just as soon drive on any side of the road that is free for them to drive on, especially on a two-lane highway, when the traffic is backing up and you'd like nothing better than to whip into the other lane and get on your way. Nobody worries about your attitude. The law says you drive on that side of the street, and in this province that's where you drive. Nobody trots out some tired old argument about attitudes.

But when it suits the government, suddenly we get to hear about attitudes. You can't steal, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, you can't covet your neighbour's wife, you can't kill somebody. There are a million and one things you can't do despite people's attitude, because the elected members in this House bring in legislation that says: "This is the way it is going to be in this province."

The only thing that laws do is to signal what the government wants done at this time in this place. Whether you call it affirmative action or pay equity or any other euphemism that you want to call it, at least bring in regulations in your own ministry and in the other ministries in your own government to ensure that for a time at least the obstacles that are in the way of women, the disabled, and ethnic and racial minorities as a result of the systemic discrimination that has taken place.... The minister has the power to do this, as his government has the power to do it, as they had the power to legislate that everybody in this province buckle up their seatbelts or else they'd be breaking the law.

I am tired of these little arguments about attitudes. We never hear arguments about attitude unless it has something to do with something that the government really doesn't want to do something about. I've heard it as a person wanting to rent accommodation when I first came to this country, and racism was more overt then than it is now, where I would be told by landlords: "I would love to rent you the accommodation, but I have to change the attitude of the rest of my tenants first, because they don't want you to live here." We brought in human rights legislation, and whether people's attitudes changed or not the accommodation opened up.

Let us deal with the attitudes. The attitude you talk about that young girls learn on their fathers' knees, women are themselves beginning to change those attitudes in other women, through raising their consciousness and saying: "Your father told you you're young and pretty, so don't get an education. Somebody is going to marry you and take care of you. So now you find yourself at 45 years old being traded in on a younger model and you're poor and on welfare." That changed an attitude pretty fast, you believe me.

Poverty is what's changing women's attitudes, not what they learned on their father's knee. Poverty is what's changing their attitude. Unfair family relations laws is what's changing their attitude. Failure to implement maintenance laws is what is changing their attitude. And the other thing that's changing their attitudes is having to work and not be paid a fair wage and not get true value for the work that they do. Not every woman wants to go out and drive a fork-lift truck or a dumper or whatever those big trucks are called that haul gravel. Not every woman wants to drive a gravel truck.

The work that women do is valuable. Women in nursing is valuable. Women in clerical work is valuable. You want to shut this province down? Let every secretary stay home one day. You can fire every legislator in this building and the province would continue, but let your clerical staff stay home one day and see what happens to this government, if you want to know who really keeps the wheels of government moving.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, we can't buy that attitude argument any more. It just doesn't work. For 2,000 years we've been waiting for people to change their attitude, and we're still poor. We're still not being paid for the job we do. We're still not getting fair value for our labour. We're still finding obstacles to our progress. In the Ministry of Human Resources, everybody at the top is male. I want a report from that minister now about which of his other ministries have women at the top. I know that he has a deputy Minister of Labour responsible for women's programs. Give me a report on the other ministries. Let's see how you're doing.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the member knows full well that she can get that information from the ministers as they're going through their spending estimates in the House. I don't want to be facetious, but the Minister of Human Resources was a female until one or two months ago. So a lady occupied the very top position in that portfolio. Granted, the senior staff level are male, but not too long ago the senior position was held by a female.

MS. BROWN: Yes, and the only reason I'm raising these issues, Mr. Chairman, is because this is the ministry which the minister in his own words — and I want to quote — said: "...I am so proud that I have responsibility for. The other side of my ministry, and a very important part.... I spent a lot of time meeting with women's groups across the province in attempting to provide an advocacy role for women in British Columbia." That's the only reason I'm raising it now. It's his responsibility. He hasn't had the job for a long time, and that's why I'm being very gentle with him — because he hasn't had the job for a long time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, staff of other ministries are the responsibility of the particular minister of that ministry.

MS. BROWN: I know, but what that minister told us earlier, Mr. Chairman, when you weren't here, is that his ministry liaises with all the other ministries, and he told us that, just in this particular area, to see what's happening to women in those ministries. All I'm asking him for is a report on what he's finding out as a result of that liaison.

[ Page 7879 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, as a result of that liaison, training programs have been put on for men and women in management, particularly in government services. That's been aimed at changing attitudes on the part of all of our employees, and providing opportunities as well for women to excel in those management areas. We've had a survey done on attitudes in government, with respect to how those attitudes are developed and how we can change those attitudes. We've attempted and to a large degree succeeded in removing a lot of the systemic discrimination in government by ensuring that the specifications for the job are reflected for the job only; and that male and female representatives be on interview panels when individuals come and make application for a job; that there are, where possible, male and female representatives on the job where there's opportunity for both sexes to interview the individual who's making application for the job.

A lot of good things have happened within government over the course of the past while. Some still needs to be done, but progress is being made in many of those areas. I know that in dealing with those issues myself, I've got into lots of good discussion with senior officials in my ministry: labour and areas like the Labour Relations Board and the Workers' Compensation Board. In those areas within my jurisdiction, where I've seen women in the community who I know could do the job best, better than some of the ones who were put forward, I sent it back to the parties, and asked them to have another look at it. But in the final analysis, in many cases, it's their decision. While you can encourage them to do it, they're responsible, in the final analysis, for the individual who they feel would best represent their particular constituents.

MS. BROWN: As long as the minister has an open mind, and is still willing to have his consciousness raised, there is some hope. I would like him to do some more examining of the whole idea and the whole concept of affirmative action — call it whatever you want to. I think that that needs a second look on his part.

When are the domestic workers in this province going to enjoy the full coverage of the fair employment practices act, or whatever that legislation is? I'm still getting complaints from them about areas in which they are not covered, in terms of holiday pay and wages and those kinds of things.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I would appreciate it if the member would bring any of those areas that she has in her file to my attention or to my deputy's attention, and we will see that we get some answers to you. I've asked my deputy to have a look at that whole area of nannies and domestic workers, and so on and so forth. He's doing a lot of work in that area at this particular time.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, that brings into account the other group of women who are often forgotten about: farmworkers. Are you looking at that group of people at all? What's happening to the women farmworkers?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: That is included in the group that I've asked my deputy to have a look at, in terms of coverage under employment standards and other areas. He's studying it at this time.

MS. BROWN: One of the things happening, Mr. Chairman, both with domestic workers and with women who work in the farm labour community, is an increase in the sexual harassment complaints. I'm wondering whether the minister has been receiving any of this, and if he has been looking at it. It's quite possible that women who are sexually harassed and have resources can file complaints before the Human Rights Commission; and if they're not satisfied, it can go through the courts — we've had a celebrated case of that.

[4:15]

The more vulnerable members of our community are these two groups in particular: the domestic workers and the women in the farming community. And I'm getting complaints about the women who work in the garment industry too. They are now beginning to speak up about the sexual harassment. I don't want the minister to stand up and tell me that this is a hazy area, that we're not sure what constitutes sexual harassment. Women know what constitutes sexual harassment. When they say no and the harassment continues, then it's harassment. Mr. Chairman, I know the minister would never say this, but there have been myths about the fact that women say no when they mean yes on some of these occasions. In fact, men interpret a no as yes when they want to; so there are problems in the man's head about whether the women means no when she says no. But women know when they say no that they mean no. Okay?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right, that clears it up. So the hazy part of it is not the woman's problem at all.

What's happening, though, is that a number of these women feel very insecure and vulnerable in terms of filing a complaint before the Human Rights Commission, either because of pressure from their own community or in terms of job security. Has the minister had an increase in the number of complaints from women in the farm labour community, women in the garment industry and domestic workers, and how is he planning on dealing with this?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member raised something that's a matter of concern to all of us, and probably left out another group — immigrant women — who are in a similar situation. The staff in the Ministry of Labour and Women's Programs have been working with the community in that particular area trying to find resolutions to the problem. You're quite right, there's a lot of pressure on one group or another not to file reports and so on. What the Ministry of Labour staff is doing.... I haven't received a detailed report on it other than the normal briefing that I get from them, that it is a matter of great concern throughout the community. Where possible the matter has been dealt with by the human rights council, but it's the area where it's not reported. In some cases people don't know how to report it. Language barriers and other things come into play.

I look for a report from both Women's Programs and Ministry of Labour staff on it and hope we will be in a position to deal with the matter effectively once it comes to that point.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke about the garment industry, farm workers and domestics, I assumed the minister knows they are primarily immigrant women.

[ Page 7880 ]

What is the ministry doing, if anything, about the working conditions in the garment industry?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I have to be honest with the member and say that at this time I haven't done anything with respect to working conditions in the garment industry. I know that some trade unions out there are working pretty hard trying to improve the lot of that particular working group. To be honest, I haven't had an opportunity to deal with that.

MS. BROWN: A couple of articles have been done on the unsafe working conditions, the lack of ventilation, the whole situation in terms of the working conditions of immigrant women primarily who are working in the garment industry, some of whom are not part of any trade union. Some of them are, but a number of them aren't. Apparently the Workers' Compensation Board hasn't been as aggressively involved as they should have been in watching standards and ensuring that working conditions are safe and healthy. I'd like to suggest to the minister that this is an area that needs his attention.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Again, I thank the member for her suggestion there. Nobody has brought that to my attention, to be honest, but I will ask Glenn Hall, acting chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, to undertake a review of that particular area immediately and ask for a report from him on that industry.

MS. BROWN: Good stuff. Thank you very much.

I have a few questions about your budget. How can the ministry afford to reduce the salary component of the women's office? Who are you firing or demoting? I was under the impression that the women's office was understaffed and overworked, and now I see that again the employee benefit area of the budget has been reduced. What have you done? What are you doing?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: There have been no reductions in staff in the Women's Programs office, or the operation of Women's Programs; the employment benefits are being taken care of in another area.

MS. BROWN: Does that mean more contracting out?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: No, it doesn't, other than that the employee benefits are moved to a different portion of the budget.

MS. BROWN: I would also like some information about the grants. I notice that the overall increase for the ministry was only $100,000. That doesn't go very far when you represent more than 50 percent of the people of the province. I'm impressed that you are able, with an increase of only $100,000, to discharge your responsibilities, but could you explain to me how the grants are distributed and who is getting them? And how can $100,000 meet the increased demands on that office?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: As I said earlier on, Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Labour plays a coordinating role through all the ministries of government in matters dealing with women. Other ministries are carrying out functions within their particular ministries. Our mandate is to deal with those areas in their particular budgets — under allocation. Dealing with who gets grants and who doesn't get them, I leave it to the professional people in the Ministry of Labour to make those recommendations. I've had no difficulties so far with the recommendations they've been making in matters dealing with grant applications. In all honesty, I do have a question that I keep asking them about the amount that is given to each organization that makes application. They advise me that the grant is a one-shot deal. In other words, if you got a grant last year, your chances of getting one this year are slim.

They tend to provide grants to women's organizations around the province as a sort of seed money to set up their particular organization or do research in particular areas that will be of assistance to the staff and the ministry in the development of further policy goals and objectives. That's basically the way they carry out the function of their office.

MS. BROWN: I'm just about finished, Mr. Chairman, except to bring to the minister's attention the fact that unemployment among women is on the increase. I recognize that there's going to be another conference — in October, I think — to look at economic development, and that the commitment was made by the Premier to put it on the agenda of the first ministers' conference.

Could the minister do two things for me before I forget. First, I would very much like to have a list of the grants that have been awarded, just to give me a general idea when I'm speaking to groups, so that I can help them on whether they would be eligible to receive grants or not. Second, can the minister tell me, in as concrete a way as possible, what employment initiatives are presently planned in terms of attacking the massive unemployment among women?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I understood that the names of the groups who got grants were available from Public Accounts, but I will ask my staff to prepare the list for me and will probably have a discussion about that in a little while.

The Ministry of Labour, of course, has the non-traditional employment fund for women who want to get into nontraditional jobs. A number of workshops have been set up across the province in cooperation with the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. The surveys that we've done so far show that there are an increasing number of women participating in their own business now. There's a steady increase in that particular area.

MS. BROWN: Are they successful businesses?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: They are very successful businesses, operating across the province. That has been developed largely as a result of the mentorship program and other programs of the Ministry of Labour's Women's Programs. They've done an exceptionally good job in many of those areas. I hope that the conference that will be developed in October will address the area of banking, and other programs with which the government of British Columbia can assist that particular group of constituents in developing their own businesses.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we share concern for the best interests of women in this

[ Page 7881 ]

province, it seems to me that the Minister of Labour should ensure that the opposition's spokesperson is invited to all of these conferences. Right?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Without question, Mr. Chairman. If I don't get into trouble, the idea is worth considering.

AN HON. MEMBER: From whom?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: My wife.

MR. REID: I want to raise a couple of points on vote 54 with reference to some comments made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds on Thursday last, when she talked about the transit workers in Vancouver being locked out last year for three months. I just want to make the record quite clear that they were on strike for three months — they refused to come to work for three months. She made some comment in reference to 40 to 50 employees being fired or determined as redundant. Metro Transit Operating Company has not fired a driver in the last four years except for theft or reasons of liquor or drug charges. Because it has 3,000 employees, there were some who left because of attrition. But, Mr. Minister, I want to commend you for your activities during the three-month shutdown and the way that your ministry handled that particular dilemma.

The problem that Crown corporations have.... And I think your ministry should be addressing them, as they apply to the taxpayers of this province and to the $6.5 million settlement that was made with the operators and that is now being challenged by the residents of the lower mainland, as it equates to $5 or more on their hydro bill as a result of that settlement.

But the other problem that Metro Transit and the transit authority have is similar to the one that we have with the post office. The absentee rate in a company of that size.... It has a 17 percent absentee rate, and in that company that equates to close to 300 employees per day being off on sick pay. But the difficulty it creates for the taxpayer, Mr. Minister, is that the taxpayer pays the full shot for every day that member is off on his sick time, plus we bring in employees at overtime pay. For a company that provides millions of hours of service in the lower mainland, every hour that is provided in overtime does not provide one extra minute of service for the taxpayer.

[4:30]

There is such an abuse in the absentee system in Metro Transit that I would hope that your ministry could help in that regard, because the taxpayers are being ripped off. It is probably interesting to note that the member for the NDP running in Vancouver—Little Mountain happens to be the president of the union, Mr. Colin Kelly. I notice in the paper this morning that Mr. Colin Kelly said that B.C. Transit asked for some cooperation from his employees to provide some operators to work their days off to help the lower mainland during Expo. Mr. Kelly said the operators turned them down.

Well, I am not surprised, because, you see, in my experience with Metro Transit, the transit operators of Metro Transit.... The majority of them are excellent operators and want to do their job. But there is a segment of them, Mr. Minister, who continue to rip off the taxpayers on a daily basis.

This year the proof is coming out. I see the estimates of the minister responsible for transit indicate that $72 million was what was required last year to provide for assistance for transit in both the large communities and small communities. But to and behold, in 1986-87 the figure now goes up to $118,735,000 — surprise, surprise — without any additional service for the people out there on the streets.

So I want to express my concern as a member of this House to the minister responsible for labour about the concerns of the taxpayer as they equate to the problems of civil servants who have no concern for the taxpayer and continue to bleed the system. Mr. Minister, I would hope you would give that some consideration.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member expressed, I guess out of frustration, some matters that he has to deal with as an MLA in answering some questions to his constituents with respect to the operation of the transit system. What the member pointed out were to a large degree management problems associated with the operation of the system. As most members know, when dealing with matters like that — union-management relationships — if the parties come forward to me with some recommendations or suggestions that they may want me or my staff in the ministry to deal with, we would be pleased to do it. But we don't interfere in the bargaining process at all. That is a process that is best left to its own devices, and when necessary we attempt to do that. So I would like to thank the hon. member for his questions.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I consulted with our critic on labour, and I want to thank the member for Surrey for correcting my statement. It was a strike, I have been told, not a lockout. However, the 40 to 50 jobs lost through attrition still remain lost. But I certainly want to change the word from "lockout" to "strike."

Vote 54 approved.

Vote 55: ministry operations, $63,786,153 — approved.

Vote 79: student employment programs, $15,000,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 59: minister's office, $189,745.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, before entering into the debate on the estimates of Municipal Affairs I'd like to just highlight a few of the activities of the ministry over the past year and, in doing so, also indicate that the ministry is entering into its new fiscal year with a global reduction of spending of $8.7 million, an indication that the amount of money spent does not always indicate the performance of any program provided by government.

As we enter into this new year with the reduction, we also have a very dramatic increase in productivity in the ministry, productivity that is well spelled out in the additional responsibilities taken on by the ministry as it would apply to the provincial-municipal partnership program, a program that has been extremely successful since its introduction, with, to this date, 131 municipalities committed to working together with the provincial government, chambers of commerce and many other local groups in stimulating and assisting to stimulate the local economy. We can identify, as a result of this

[ Page 7882 ]

program, approximately 700 new jobs that have been created, with considerably more identified due to negotiations going on. I believe that we also have announced investments of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 million.

In addition to that, the downtown revitalization program is still moving along rapidly and is also very successful in stimulating the local initiative out there. It's a program that is beneficial to all communities, and because of the way it pulls the communities together, the province as a whole is benefiting in seeing this sort of partnership approach as it applies not only to the partnership program but also to the revitalization.

Revenue sharing is also another program that has been of great assistance to the municipalities. As you will recall, it was necessary a couple of years ago to change the formula on revenue sharing as it applied to sewer and water mainly, because of the demand that was placed by the municipalities on the available funds — understanding, of course, that revenue sharing is not some figure that is pulled out of a hat but is rather a figure that is determined by legislation based on the income of the province. I am very pleased to point out to the House that in spite of the change from the 75 to the 25, we are still seeing a great deal of activity taking place out there, and I am sure that this will continue.

This year we are very pleased to announce an increase in the unconditional portion of revenue sharing from $90 million provincewide to $95 million. This is that portion of revenue sharing, of course, that has no strings attached; it's given to the municipalities to assist them to cover the costs of those services, or whatever, in their community that they deem high on their priority list. We are very hopeful that the allocation of funds without any strings attached will give them the opportunity of spending it where the greatest need is and also that it will assist directly in holding down any tax increases that may be contemplated.

Now we look forward to more activity in the area of infrastructure. There has been a great deal of discussion taking place over the past couple of years about the need for infrastructure. I want to point out very, very clearly that this ministry recognizes indeed the need for improved infrastructure throughout Canada. However, we must also point out that there were two reasons why we could not go along with the initial recommendation by a committee headed up by Mayor Mike Harcourt, where they were bound and determined that the federal government be asked to commit a very large amount of money to this program — money which they don't have. It was our judgment, Mr. Chairman, that rather than go to Ottawa looking for more money, we preferred to see them get the deficit down so that the taxpayers of Canada and British Columbia would get more for the tax dollars sent there rather than see such a large percentage of it go to pay interest on old debts.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

The other part of the program or recommendation that we objected to, Madam Chairman, was the portion where they ignored the small municipalities. The recommendations were based on the needs of major municipalities, which we took objection to because we believe that in this province with 141 municipalities we have an obligation to all municipalities, not just the big ones. Therefore we rejected their recommendation on the basis of that also.

What has been forgotten here, Madam Chairman, is that British Columbia does have a program to deal with infrastructure in the province and has had it for some years — that is, we make money available through revenue-sharing based on the income of the province as indicated earlier. As a result of that we have seen many, many projects installed over the past number of years, and recently I asked my ministry staff to review the condition of infrastructure in British Columbia just to give us some reading as to where we stand.

The indication as a result of that review was that indeed British Columbia's sewer and water infrastructure is in pretty fair shape, much better shape than almost anywhere else in Canada. But there is some need for some improvement in the funding of our roads. Therefore I suggest today that we will look at that very, very closely to we make sure that those dollars that are available for the improvement of infrastructure will be placed where they are most needed, where our priority is highest. So there we have it, Madam Chairman. I will be pleased to attempt to answer any questions that my critic or any other member of the opposition wish to put to us today.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, I was expecting a lot more from the minister in terms of the problems local government is having. Obviously he feels very defensive about the infrastructure program, because he now knows that the government of British Columbia is the only province that isn't supporting infrastructure and those jobs that are associated with rebuilding our municipalities — the only province, Madam Chairman. I'll get back to that later on.

Firstly, I am pleased to note that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has finally found some time to deal with municipal affairs. As we all know, of late he has been meddling and interrupting and getting involved in the Expo tenant eviction situation, and indeed has been designated as the person to take the heat and try to find ways not to deal with that particular situation. The minister knows that the Vancouver municipality has consistently asked for that minister to take some responsibility to bring to this House some enabling legislation under Municipal Affairs to protect those in need in Vancouver.

Unfortunately this minister has refused and indeed has made some statements saying that it's a good thing in some respects that these people are being evicted, because they're finding better homes. What incredible statements this minister has made, and how he has embarrassed — along with his other colleagues — this government and the people of British Columbia in terms of the lack of action for protection of tenants in Vancouver East.

Madam Chairman, this minister and all the other ministers and the Premier of this province have indicated that they are incapable of dealing with this human story — this human interest problem — this incredible attack on those in need. This minister and others have tried to cover up as much as possible the incredible cruelty that is happening in Vancouver — the destruction of lives that's happening in Vancouver in more ways than one.

[4:45]

We now have between 600 and 700 people who have been evicted in Vancouver for Expo, and this government refuses to show any compassion or understanding, and particularly this minister, who has been on a mission of search and destroy on social housing programs. He and the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) have concocted this latest commission to

[ Page 7883 ]

try to embarrass all those non-profit groups and those church groups who have been trying to bring housing to those in need. This government and this minister, Madam Chairman, are a bad bunch, and it's time that they took some action for those people in need. It's time that we had legislation to protect those people in greatest need in Vancouver. I could not start these estimates without going on the record and saying that that minister over there has shown a total lack of understanding of what's happened in Vancouver. Over and over again Vancouver council has asked that minister to introduce some enabling legislation to deal with the housing problem in Vancouver.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are dealing with the estimates, and that does not permit discussion with regard to proposed legislation. Would you please stick to the estimates, vote 59.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm sticking to the issue of this government and this minister refusing to deal with the human misery in the downtown east side of Vancouver by introducing municipal enabling legislation that would give Vancouver the ability to protect those tenants. This minister has categorically stated that he's not interested in helping those people; he's not interested in helping Vancouver. Therefore he's not interested in ending the shame that is currently hanging over the province of B.C.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Madam Chairman, the first comment of the member in respect to infrastructure is totally incorrect. This is not the only province that said no to Mayor Mike Harcourt's proposal to go to Ottawa and ignore small municipalities. We are not the only ones. But I will leave him to do his own homework; I won't tell him what other provinces took the same position. That is up to him.

In respect to the other issue that he brings up, very briefly, I have asked a number of people — and I ask him, Madam Chairman — if any government should bring in a law that would commit people to the atrocious conditions some of those people were living in. Certainly I do not support such rules and regulations and laws. I did go down there to find out for myself exactly what was happening. As a result of that visit we agreed to set up a task force to assist these people, and up until the last report — which was received last Friday — absolutely no one is on the street. In fact, the task force reported that they had received requests from 61 people to relocate; they have an additional 25 requests in now, and they're sitting on 104 vacant units to help those people.

Madam Chairman, this is another case where that member and his political followers like to ride the backs of the unfortunate. We have a responsibility here not to get into that silly game of theirs, but to help those people. I give one good example of the help that is being provided, and that is the case of John and May. John and May have been on television for a couple of months or more as severe hardship cases. Mr. Pattison and I, on our visit to downtown Vancouver, visited with John and May in their new apartment — with new furniture — costing $100 per month less. The story goes on and on. It can be repeated all over the place.

I'd suggest to that member that he get off the backs of these unfortunate people. Stop using them as political pawns and go down there and find out exactly what is going on. Indeed the people are being taken care of. There's hope. Certainly I believe that once Expo is over the facilities in downtown Vancouver will not only be greatly improved — that we can all be proud of — but much improved for those people who prefer to live in that part of the city. However, in the process of looking into that, I did find some real discrepancies in the use of public funds in the provision of social housing. I also found some abuses. That's why I think it is necessary for my colleague the minister responsible for housing to take a look at that whole thing, and if there's nothing to worry about, what are you squawking about? If there's absolutely nothing to worry about there, then let the committee follow through in its responsibilities. I'm sure that whatever comes out of it will benefit the people we're concerned about: that is, the people who are truly in need.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would clarify for me something in his response to a call for legislation to protect people who happen to live in hotels and motels, bringing those motels and hotels for long-term residents — say over a month — not only in Vancouver but elsewhere, under the protection of the Residential Tenancy Act. How is it that he feels that a simple amendment to include those forms of shelter condemns them...? He suggested that he wasn't going to be a party to condemning these people to live in unsatisfactory housing. I think the people still have the right to live where they wish. But what they needed more than anything at the time — they were being thrown onto the streets, and it will continue — was protection. If they'd had that, then the gougers and the grabbers wouldn't have been able to put those people in that position.

Now the minister's going to say: "Well, we went down there and we got it all fixed up." I'll tell you when you got it all fixed up: when it started hitting the fan, or when the fan started hitting the television screens; that's when you acted. You didn't act for months after this was first drawn to your attention.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I cannot comment on the tenancy act. That's got nothing to do with this ministry. But I repeat: I do not believe that there should be any government bringing in a law that would condemn people to living in some of the atrocious conditions that those people were in.

I also point out that no one is put out on the street. I have challenged the news media — and I challenge you people — to bring to my office the name and address of someone who is on the street. That is totally incorrect.

My role was to go down there and meet with Mayor Mike Harcourt and Mr. Pattison. We did that. We surveyed the situation. We put together a task force, with the cooperation of all of the groups: the city, DERA, etc. The task force is working, and it's working well. I would suggest that you people stop your political games and allow that task force to do its job. It's doing its job well. We have a responsibility to assist them, not to use it for our political advantage.

So, Madam Chairman, I think that possibly enough was said in this respect. I no longer have anything to do with it down there other than out of personal interest, to keep an eye on how the task force is doing. But the responsibility lies entirely with the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf), who.... I'm sure, after all of the situation is looked at, we will realize that indeed if all of the money provided for the people who are really in need was made available to them, was spent where it should be spent and as it should be spent, then I would think that there's going to be adequate housing for the people who are really in need.

[ Page 7884 ]

But anyway, there is no one on the street. There has been no one dumped on the street. They're all being relocated. I can assure you that I would want to know from anyone, from the news media or the opposition, if they can identify anyone who is, and we'll help them.

MR. BLENCOE: If anybody's playing politics with this, it's this government. They are avoiding the numbers of people who have been removed from their neighbourhood after years of living in a particular area — from their homes, their neighbourhood, their environment. And now we hear all sorts of incredible stories associated with this government's lack of action.

What do we have to do to get this government to recognize that these people have rights? They have a right to maintain their homes in the area that they have lived in for many, many years. What rights do they have under this government? Absolutely none, it would appear. They are going to be kicked out of their homes by this government, by a government that does not care.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, the member has already been advised that he's not on the municipal budget. I have responded in kind to answer some of his questions. I would suggest that he now get back to the budget of Municipal Affairs.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. I would ask the second member for Victoria to please confine his remarks to vote 59.

MR. BLENCOE: I will confine my remarks to a minister who has refused to take action on behalf of tenants. He's the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He has the right and obligation to look at legislation that will protect tenants: the Municipal Act. It is under his jurisdiction. He's certainly said enough on this issue over the last month. He's made some incredible statements about those organizations that provide housing. He's shown his inability to deal with human problems and human interests, with compassion for those people. He has an obligation to speak to this issue. This government is continuing to show its lack of compassion and understanding.

He talks about people in the downtown east side: they're moving them to other areas. The Vancouver people who are trying to deal with this issue are clearly stating every single day that they cannot deal with the numbers who are in need. Yet we have a government that sits back and allows this to continue, allows this black cloud to hang over the province of British Columbia. Of course he wants to squirm off the hook. He's made his gross statements in the media; he's made all sorts of accusations about those who provide housing; and now he wants to squirm and say it's somebody else's responsibility. Well, we won't allow him to squirm. We won't allow him to squirm out of this issue. This is an important issue to the people of British Columbia, and we need action. We need legislation through the Municipal Act.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your comments lack proper parliamentary address. We would please ask you to confine them to vote 59, the minister's estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: I ask the minister: what consideration has he given to enabling legislation under the Municipal Act to protect those in need in the downtown east side, or anywhere else, from being evicted from hotels in the Vancouver area?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Madam Chairman, the housing situation in Vancouver or anywhere else has got nothing to do with these estimates. I would suggest that that member have respect for the Chair and for this House and get on to debating the estimates that are before us now.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: Does the minister recognize that he has the power under his ministry to ensure municipal bylaws can be introduced if he brings in municipal enabling legislation for protection of tenants? Does he not recognize he has responsibility in that area?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Legislation or proposed legislation is not a subject matter for the estimates.

[5:00]

MR. BLENCOE: There is no proposed legislation. That's the basic problem. I am asking the minister: does he not recognize that he has the power to deal with this situation through the Municipal Act? Why has he not taken action to protect 700 tenants who have been evicted, and there are now estimates of more to come? Why doesn't he deal with that issue?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, we are seeing another demonstration of a member who lacks totally the knowledge that he should have by now as to the role of this ministry and also his role as my estimates are called for debate. He is the municipal critic, and I would expect that he would respect not only this House but the people that he represents; that indeed he come prepared to debate these estimates and not keep on that track, which is really not part of this ministry's mandate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: He wants to play his silly little games.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I hear the comment from the Minister of Tourism: "Silly little games." You know, this is not silly little games to those 700 people that are being evicted, and we have a minister over here who has talked and got involved in the evictions. Vancouver city council has made overtures to this minister, has asked him to take some action, has asked for enabling legislation, and all he does is set up with the Minister of Housing some coverup commission to take away from these people's problems, to try and take some attention away from this human-interest situation.

He is the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He has the power under his jurisdiction. Does he fail to admit that the Vancouver city council has asked him for enabling legislation to protect tenants?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member will appreciate that enabling legislation would be subject to this House and is not the purview of the minister.

[ Page 7885 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this will bring to a conclusion this discussion that really has nothing directly to do with my estimates. The city council that he is referring to as wanting legislation to prevent the relocation of people is that same city council who have issued orders to at least one large hotel down there to have major renovations completed by April 15 of this year, necessitating removing people. So really, again the member has failed to do his homework, and I would suggest that we now start to discuss the estimates of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, in my estimation this issue is part of Municipal Affairs, part of local government and part of the response of local government to local issues. There is no more important issue currently facing the people of British Columbia than the situation in Vancouver, and the lack of ability to respond of the ministers responsible, particularly this one. I cannot accept this minister's attempt.... Over the last few weeks he has been involved in this issue, made some statements, and continues to make statements of these people — "There are no problems in Vancouver" — continues to protect a Premier who has gone on record as saying there is no problem either.

We cannot accept this. The people of British Columbia cannot accept this shame and this lack of understanding for the people of Vancouver.

I ask the minister another question. Is the minister prepared to meet once again with Vancouver city council and all those associated with this situation in Vancouver to discuss this continuing and growing problem, which has an impact on local government? Is he prepared to meet and try to find some way to protect those people in Vancouver, or do we have to have hundreds more evicted?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'm prepared, like the rest of my colleagues, to do whatever is possible and proper, and I would suggest that what that member should do now is to commence debate on the estimates of Municipal Affairs. He's been out of order since we started.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is for the Chair to determine.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's quite obvious that this government and this minister are not prepared to end the shame that currently faces this province, and the humiliation that this minister and this government is bringing to the people of British Columbia, and the damage that he is doing by his lack of action, his lack of understanding, the damage that he is doing to Expo, and the international scandal that is being created over this situation.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, it's an international scandal, Mr. Member, no question about that. You, Mr. Minister, have had some responsibility in not protecting these tenants.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What do you know? You've been at the public trough all your life.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, here we go. Here come the personal attacks, Mr. Chairman.

It's quite obvious this government has abandoned these people in Vancouver, and they are prepared to see them suffer and prepared to see them on the street and are prepared to see the evictions continue, when many organizations in Vancouver are asking for support — Vancouver city council, tenant associations, church groups, First United Church. Many organizations are pleading with this government. Why, for heaven's sake, won't you take action through Municipal Affairs to protect those tenants? Introduce enabling legislation....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. In Committee of Supply the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed. This is Erskine May's seventeenth edition, page 739. The hon. second member for Victoria continues on the estimates within the administrative responsibilities of the minister, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will continue with the estimates of Municipal Affairs. But let me say first that we will continue to advocate changes, and we will continue to be advocates for those in need in Vancouver. There should be Expo but there should not be evictions. This government can make all the smokescreens it likes, all the phony commissions it likes, all the phony rhetoric; it can do that, but the issue that British Columbians understand is the shame that's being created in Vancouver. They understand that there is a black cloud hanging over this province.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The names are there in the downtown east side. The lists are there, Mr. Member, of how many people have been evicted. The lists are there, and the people of British Columbia are just overwhelmed that this government won't take action, and this minister continues to avoid and sweep these people away and won't protect them in their homes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, this is the last time. The Chair would ask you to confine your comments to the Minister of Municipal Affairs' administrative functions and the rest, and not stray into the responsibility of other ministries and ministers.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this minister has continued to stray into that area for the last month, and you're going to rule me out of order for not speaking to this issue, not speaking to a minister who won't protect tenants through the legislation and the power of this Legislature?

MRS. JOHNSTON: There's nobody listening to you in the gallery.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll tell you who is listening: the people of this province as they prepare for Expo, and the international media are here. A great shame is being created, and this minister laughs across the chamber. He laughs at what's happening, and he laughs because he knows he's part of a cruel government that is not prepared to protect tenants, not prepared to help those in need. Here they come now, running; they're running into the Legislature now. They're all running.

[ Page 7886 ]

We are trying, Mr. Chairman, to build a reputation in this province, a province that cares about people. Well, you know....

AN. HON. MEMBER: I challenge the hon. member for one name to be put on a list.

MR. BLENCOE: You have one name. You saw the reports. You know the name, Mr. Member.

Mr. Chairman, we are going to get no response from this government to the Vancouver east problems, it's quite obvious. Those people will continue to be evicted, and the people of British Columbia will continue to be offended by this government, because it has clearly indicated over the last few years, and particularly with this minister on this issue, that it doesn't care about British Columbians. It doesn't care about ordinary British Columbians one little bit, and it is prepared to see tenants, the handicapped and the seniors in Vancouver be exploited. So I will move on, but it is with great sadness that we have to move on because this government won't take action on behalf of those tenants in British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about infrastructure rebuilding in the province of British Columbia. I think it is very important to talk about greater financial support for municipalities and to talk in particular about the opportunities for job creation in building a successful, exciting program of municipal rebuilding in the province of British Columbia. This minister has consistently attacked municipal infrastructure rebuilding. He has attacked it on the grounds that it will cost the taxpayers much money. But what he doesn't recognize and what he doesn't address is the fact that if we don't build the infrastructure of municipalities, the downstream costs will be astronomical. In this House over the last few years I have given examples of other municipalities and other countries, particularly the United States, that have got themselves in trouble when they didn't take care of normal maintenance of municipal infrastructure — the astronomical costs downstream if we don't rebuild our sewers and our storm drains and our roads and the basic ingredients that go into communities.

Obviously, it is quite clear that this government doesn't want to admit that other provinces, the majority of provinces that have now joined municipal infrastructure, have endorsed the Federation of Canadian Municipalities program. This province doesn't want to admit that it is not prepared to support local government or municipal infrastructure. The health and well-being of British Columbia depends on basic services like roads, sewers, water supply networks, schools and transit systems — the basic infrastructure. These systems are essential to the vitality of British Columbia's economy. Indeed, a direct relationship exists between the conditions of our urban infrastructure and the economic health of our urban areas, and in turn the economic health of our province. This is what this government is turning down by refusing to participate in the FCM or endorse the FCM proposal for a major rebuilding of our local government infrastructure.

Over the last two years, a variety of circumstances have combined to create problems for municipal infrastructure throughout Canada. Those are such things as, obviously, recessionary budget pressure — we all know about that — inflation and the growing municipal revenue gap, provincial and federal cutbacks, erosion of the municipal property tax base, and exhaustion of old infrastructure.

What we are doing now in the province of British Columbia is bandaiding old infrastructure, at huge costs to the taxpayers. In times of restraint, it has been tempting for municipalities to live off prior generations' expenditures and to postpone or neglect required maintenance and replacement programs. We are now in a situation in British Columbia where we can no longer ignore those replacement programs. Neglecting proper maintenance can lead to serious and costly problems in future years as a result of premature physical failure of various infrastructural components — at our expense and the future expense of our children and their children. This issue has to be dealt with, and this government continues to refuse to support a major municipal rebuilding project in the province of British Columbia.

[5:15]

Mr. Chairman, given the critical relationship between the condition of urban infrastructure and our cities' economic health, neglect of infrastructure jeopardizes the provincial economy. That is a critical fact, because if that local government infrastructure and those basic services are not in good shape, then the very base upon which British Columbia is established, the very roots of our province — those local communities and their infrastructures — if that is jeopardized, then our whole provincial economy is jeopardized, Mr. Chairman.

Recognizing these problems, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities established a task force on infrastructure and conducted a major survey of Canadian infrastructure conditions in 1984. Following this initiative, the UBCM extended the survey to complete a major survey on the current status of infrastructure in British Columbia in March, 1985, which unfortunately this minister and this government has virtually ignored.

The results of both the national and the provincial survey provide an invaluable amount of information on the real priorities of local government. That's what we want to talk about in this House, Mr. Chairman. Those priorities should be carefully examined by the provincial and federal governments, and so far this minister has refused to deal with those studies, has refused to endorse infrastructure, and consequently has refused to endorse major funds that could be a major source of job creation in the province of British Columbia.

Nationally, Mr. Chairman, the survey identified significant infrastructural problems throughout Canada. Such essential facilities as roads, sidewalks, bridges and sewers are in the poorest condition and are deteriorating rather than improving. The cost of bringing these most seriously deteriorated infrastructures to acceptable levels is extremely high. In cities with populations over 100,000 the costs are estimated to be about $680 per capita.

Generally the trends in British Columbia parallel the nationwide survey. It appears, however, that in British Columbia roads are a higher priority than in the rest of Canada, and smaller municipalities have the highest per capita infrastructure needs. Mr. Chairman, it's in those smaller communities that we need to take a really serious look at infrastructure rebuilding. Those communities have been hit hard by this current government and the current recession. What finer way to create jobs and rebuild local government

[ Page 7887 ]

than an endorsement of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities program on infrastructure rebuilding.

The ages, Mr. Chairman, of most infrastructure in British Columbia communities were surprisingly older than reported ages in the national survey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing orders allow for one 30-minute opening statement by a debate leader. Does the member wish to take advantage of that now? If not, I'll advise you that the three-minute light has been on for 15 minutes. Do you wish to take advantage now of the 30-minute....?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, please, Mr. Chairman.

We want to talk about infrastructure rebuilding, which this minister has just categorically tossed out the door. We think it's very important to put on the record our response to infrastructure and our response to job creation in the province of British Columbia. I know this minister wants to hear about the studies, because the only way that we're going to get it on the floor of this House is if we tell the story in terms of the needs of local government.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Do they tell you where the money is going to come from?

MR. BLENCOE: Let me get to that.

Mr. Chairman, total infrastructure requirements in British Columbia are lower than nationally. It's estimated that we require about $586 per capita, whereas nationally it's approximately $598 per capita. Roads represent a greater proportion of per capita costs than nationally — about 54 percent, or $316 per capita, versus 42 percent, or $249 per capita.

Both the provincial and the national surveys identified the same impediments to resolving the infrastructure problem. Inadequate funding is the basic one — we all know that. Prolonged public involvement and the problem of red tape is another one we should deal with. Political inaction and lack of leadership — which we have in this government, with its total lack of response to municipal infrastructure rebuilding — and in smaller communities the lack of staff are considered most serious impediments. On the basis of the per capita costs identified by the provincial survey, the total funding required to upgrade the six main infrastructure items in B.C. amounts, we admit, to over $1 billion. Now compared to current municipal budgets, Mr. Chairman, the required $586 per capita to upgrade these essential services, if spread over ten years, would require an increase in annual public works budgets of approximately 28 percent. This represents a 7 percent increase in total municipal budgets. But what this minister fails to recognize is that the federal government, if we can get them on board, will support the majority of funds required for this major project in B.C.

Unfortunately, if we get a federal program announced, and it's distinctly possible we will get a federal program announced, this government has gone on record as saying that it does not want to participate in municipal infrastructure rebuilding in B.C.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's our contention that investment in the health of urban infrastructure in every community is an investment in the economic future of our province. This type of long-term investment in the basic urban infrastructure is completely different from the back-door tax discounts promoted by the current provincial government. We believe that you're going to have to support infrastructure rebuilding one day — that the basic infrastructures upon which local government is based are in serious trouble, and that we're going to have to put the money into it very soon. Otherwise the astronomical costs of a deteriorating municipal government infrastructure are going to catch up with us, and we'll be facing those costs downstream.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Doom and gloom.

MR. BLENCOE: No, it's not doom and gloom, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Be positive.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm trying to be positive by suggesting....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: The UBCM has endorsed municipal infrastructure. They've requested this government to support municipal infrastructure rebuilding, but currently this government has refused to do so.

What's required is a commitment by the provincial government to articulate some provincial goals, to show some leadership and bring together local governments and the federal government to launch a major long-term municipal megaproject to improve the basic infrastructure in the province of British Columbia. There's no better major project than rebuilding local government and rebuilding local services: job creation and contributing to the provincial economy.

This government has put thumbs down to municipal infrastructure rebuilding. They've put thumbs down and therefore are not prepared to participate when the federal government, we hope, will announce a major project across the province. This government will not be on board, will not share the funds and will not share the job creation prospects. In our estimation, this rebuilding of local governments will concentrate job creation in small communities. It will be a program to rehabilitate urban infrastructure, and will distribute jobs throughout the province, particularly in those areas that this government has abandoned — all those regions, other than the lower mainland, of despair and high unemployment, which they refuse to deal with and for which they refuse to get job creation programs going. This rebuilding of local government will spread job creation programs. It will go into those small communities. It will be a major boost to regional economies.

But this government is on record as saying thumbs down to municipal infrastructure, and thumbs down to a federal program that we are optimistic will come to British Columbia and other provinces. This province has said: "No, no, no. We don't want jobs. We don't want regional job creation. We don't want municipal infrastructure rebuilding. We don't want sharing of new jobs in other communities, in those regions this government has abandoned." Consequently this government is on record as saying to the federal government: "We're not interested in any municipal infrastructure program." There's no leadership from this government in this particular area. We have to categorically say that we are most disturbed that this government won't support other provinces

[ Page 7888 ]

and other jurisdictions, and the UBCM and other municipal area associations who have consistently asked for greater support in municipal infrastructure rebuilding.

It is required in the province of British Columbia, in those regions that have been neglected over the last few years. Here is an opportunity to put those regions back to work, and create hundreds of jobs in those areas that they have abandoned. But what are we on record as saying? "We don't want to go into a cost-sharing formula with the federal government." We don't want to do that. British Columbia is not participating in this program, and the minister has dug his heels in on some spurious kind of accusation that he doesn't want to increase the deficit. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is a spurious argument because we know that money will show up again in the economy. It would create jobs and the people would have money in their pockets to spend and support their local economy in those regions they have abandoned. That's what we need, and we need some leadership from this ministry in job creation. We need some leadership.

The proposal for municipal infrastructure stands. Virtually every province in Canada has endorsed the proposal — Tory governments and Liberal governments. This crazy government is the only one that won't get in and try to provide jobs in those regions they have abandoned. This crazy government won't get in and support this program.

Mr. Chairman, the proposal has received unanimous overwhelming support from local government across the country. It has the overwhelming support of $12 billion over ten years with a cost-sharing formula of 50-25-25, which is similar to the old federal programs for neighbourhood improvements and housing assistance in the seventies.

[5:30]

This money would show up in the economy. It would create jobs, and this government has put its thumbs down on job creation, and it has not endorsed a program that has been virtually endorsed by every single province in this country.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before recognizing the minister, I will remind the committee that all hon. members tell the truth in committee, and accusations otherwise are most unparliamentary.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member is referring to recommendations by the FCM, an organization which I believe in British Columbia has approximately 25 percent of our municipalities as members. He can hardly suggest in this House that indeed they are the voice for British Columbia municipally in Ottawa. Shame on him for even suggesting such! This minister and this ministry have not opposed the need for improved infrastructure. Indeed, we have gone on record, as have other provinces, as supporting the fact that there is a need. In some parts of Canada the need is greater than others.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Why don't you go back to your bed. You'll have your chance a little later.

Then, of course, the other reason that we have not fully adopted the recommendation is that it was the result of some work done by a committee headed by Mayor Mike Harcourt, recommending that this proposal go forward, ignoring small municipalities in this province. Mr. Chairman, as far as we are concerned, and certainly as far as this ministry is concerned, all municipalities are important to this government. We're not about to endorse any proposal by Mayor Harcourt or anyone else who would recommend something that would omit or overlook the needs of all of our municipalities, and particularly small ones.

As far as the costs are concerned, over the past ten years we have been putting in approximately $100 million per year. This year it's going to be considerably more than that. British Columbia has put into infrastructure at the municipal level somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 billion over the past ten years. On top of that, you must add what municipalities have put in themselves, a good portion of which has come out of the unconditional grants. So you see, British Columbia has had a very excellent program not only in updating infrastructure but also in adding where it's required.

Mr. Chairman, we were concerned about any organization going to Ottawa on our behalf with their hand out for more money when indeed the real problem down there is to get some of the debts off the taxpayers of Canadians. Mr. Chairman, these people are also advocating that no matter what the cost is, whether it's going to cost money in health or education, they are now onto a bandwagon. They have discovered something that they think they can ride politically. Obviously from his remarks today, which were all prepared by someone else, here he has found another vehicle which he thinks he will be able to ride to political victory. Well, my friend, it's not working, because most British Columbians aren't listening to you.

I spoke to some of the people of the FCM executive here some time ago about the position of British Columbia and other provinces. He indicated yes, we understand that. We are really happy that indeed you recognize the need in many parts of Canada, but we fully understand the reason why you're not prepared to put the pressure on for such now.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

But this government will continue to provide funding for infrastructure. This year we will be putting somewhere in the neighbourhood of $115 million into infrastructure throughout the province of British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: This government pursues other joint ventures with the federal government. Is he saying that local government is not a high priority with him, to pursue a joint venture with the federal government? I think that's what he's saying. He's saying that those local governments and their needs, infrastructure, sewers and storm drains, upon which this provincial economy is based in the long term — they're not a priority. That's what he's saying.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, what I did say was that the next candidate to replace one of the members for Vancouver East has recommended that we approach Ottawa for funding to improve the infrastructure of only some municipalities in this province: That person has already indicated publicly his desire to seek one of the seats in Vancouver Centre. I'm sure it's on the record that indeed his concern was not for all of B.C.'s municipalities but rather for a select few — some of the bigger ones.

[ Page 7889 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I just want to get this minister on record. Is he prepared to say today that if the federal government does announce a municipal infrastructure rebuilding program with all the provinces except British Columbia, he'd therefore turn down the thousands of jobs that could be created in the next five years? Is he prepared to say he's still going to say no to that program?

I think we have to get an answer to this, Mr. Chairman. The government is continuing to say it won't support job creation, it won't support infrastructure rebuilding, it won't join all the other provinces in trying to get the federal government to enter into a joint agreement, as we do on other ventures.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: All he does is get personal, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: We're trying to talk about job creation in the province of British Columbia here. We're trying to talk about building municipal infrastructure, and he won't answer the question. Now if the federal government does endorse a program, is he going to still say no, thumbs down, he doesn't want the millions of dollars and the job creation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it's most important that we continue to talk about this infrastructure program.

MR. LAUK: If you don't answer some of these questions, I'm going to have to get up and.... [Laughter.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will have their opportunity.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the number of jobs that can be created by the municipal infrastructure program. Is he aware of the number of jobs that could be established in the province of British Columbia? Is he aware of the support by local government for creating jobs, particularly in those regions that you have abandoned? Is he aware that this province of British Columbia is now virtually the only province that won't participate, while all other provinces are negotiating agreements on municipal infrastructure rebuilding? Is he aware of that? Because of the politics and his silly position on.... Is he so petty that because Mike Harcourt is involved with this program, and the national attention that Mayor Mike Harcourt has got for his programs...? Is he so petty that he can't get on board, and support and work with other provinces to bring municipal infrastructure to the province of British Columbia? Is this minister so petty, Mr. Chairman?

It's sheer, sheer politics, and he can't drop those politics in the interest of creating jobs in the province of British Columbia. That's the issue: job creation. Here we've got an opportunity to participate with the federal government, to create jobs, and this minister is so petty, because Mayor Mike Harcourt happens to be involved. Well, it's a sad day, and we know this minister clearly is petty enough not to support municipal infrastructure rebuilding in the province of British Columbia.

I asked a question, Mr. Chairman, of the minister: has this minister had any negotiations with the federal government on infrastructure rebuilding? Has he entered into any discussions with the federal government to try to bring jobs to British Columbia, or has he just been talking about evictions and covering up the evictions in Vancouver? I can only assume that this minister has not entered into any discussions with the federal government and has not explored municipal infrastructure rebuilding in the province of British Columbia, when all municipalities are requesting and suggesting that we need infrastructure rebuilding in the province of British Columbia.

Is the minister telling this House that he has not had any discussions with his federal counterparts? I think it is incredible that when we have small communities and regions in this province advocating for years and asking this government to help them rebuild local government to create jobs and to save dollars downstream in terms of rebuilding their infrastructure, this minister is admitting today that he's had absolutely no interest in discussing or looking at the FCM study or entering into any negotiations with the federal government for municipal infrastructure rebuilding.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We have looked at the FCM report. We have had discussions with those people and with my counterparts across Canada, and the position that British Columbia has taken is that we do not put further pressure on the federal government for more funding which, no doubt, would be at the expense of health and education. That's all been done.

This province has the best funding formula of any province in Canada when it comes to the provision of infrastructure, the best one of all of Canada. It will continue to be such, and I would suggest to you that as long as this government is as successful as it is in stimulating the economy and getting thousands and thousands of people to work, then we're going to see more money go into infrastructure, because of the program that we have whereby it's funded through revenue-sharing. Revenue-sharing involves receiving a portion of income tax, personal and corporate, sales tax, etc. So, you see, it's of great interest to us and to all municipalities that we work together to stimulate the economy.

That's why we have 131 municipalities throughout this province committed to the program of partnership in job creation. That's why, because they know that the more people who are put to work, the greater the revenue that will come from infrastructure. That's what you call doing it yourself. It's working, and you're jealous of it.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has obviously gone on record and categorically stated to the UBCM and all those municipalities, small and large, that have requested some support from his ministry to get on board and join the national endorsement of a program of infrastructure rebuilding, one that is supported right across this country. This minister, because of petty politics and because Mayor

[ Page 7890 ]

Mike Harcourt happens to be involved in developing a national program to rebuild municipal infrastructure across this country, is going to stand alone and sink further and further, like the Titanic, and say: "I won't participate. We don't want the federal support." It's so short-sighted, so petty. It wouldn't take much, Mr. Minister, for you to get together with the UBCM and the FCM, take a look at the program and say: "Yes, there is great merit in this infrastructure rebuilding." But we still have this petty politics from that minister his thumbs down on a project that has virtually unanimous support across this country for sharing of dollars that are going to come here sooner rather than later. This minister is prepared, because of petty politics, to continue to say no — negative, negative, negative response.

[5:45]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, is that member prepared to go on record that we discontinue the program of revenue-sharing for the provision of funds for infrastructure and instead tag on to something that has been developed by the FCM? I would like to have that on record. I believe that what he is saying here today is that we drop the program that we have, whereby we've been putting in somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million per year, that we stop funding municipal infrastructure throughout this province the way we're doing it, and that we turn around and give it to FCM and ask the federal government to do it for us. This province will continue in this course of funding infrastructure. We'll do it through our revenue sources, and continue to create jobs in this province, and stimulate the economy so that more and more money will be developed in British Columbia for infrastructure. There is no way I will go along with your recommendation, or your party's recommendation, to cancel our revenue-sharing program and tag on to something developed by FCM and headed by Mayor Mike Harcourt of Vancouver — under no circumstances.

MR. BLENCOE: What absolute rubbish from that minister! The future of local government is at stake. In many areas across this province that infrastructure is ancient, run-down, and it needs support. Because of petty politics, a small-minded minister who won't endorse a program that has been endorsed nationally, and provincially by the UBCM....

He has the audacity to suggest that we want to cancel revenue-sharing. What absolute rubbish, Mr. Chairman. Of course we don't want to cancel revenue-sharing. What we do want is to participate with the national government in a major rebuilding of this country, a restructuring in the British Columbia. We want to share with the national government dollars that will rebuild our province, will bring recovery, when we've had a minister and a government that have actually created regions of despair right across this province over the last few years. We want to bring recovery to British Columbia; through the national government, through local government, this is one way we can create major job creation in the province. Yet based on petty politics.... We have one of the finest mayors in the country. Mayor Mike Harcourt has been working hard and diligently with leading mayors across this country to develop a program to rebuild infrastructure not only across Canada, but in the province of B.C. This minister is going to be a holdout and put thumbs down on job creation, on rebuilding, for petty, petty politics.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Some of the comments coming from the other side are somewhat amusing.

Mr. Chairman, in our estimation, municipal infrastructure and the rebuilding of our local government is a major project that can be undertaken in this province. It's our sincere and serious belief that there is the opportunity here, with the national government, to participate in one of the biggest job creation projects we've ever seen in the history of this province — into long-term jobs, into long-term rebuilding of local governments, into rebuilding the basic ingredients on which this province is based. And we have a minister that continues to embarrass the people of British Columbia, embarrass the UBCM, and embarrass this province nationally. Because of his petty politics and his small-mindedness, he won't endorse a program that has been nationally acclaimed, in terms of job creation.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I repeat: I will not, under any circumstances, turn over this responsibility to the federal government or any other organization. I intend to stick by the program that we have through revenue-sharing. We will not cancel that program, so you may as well get off that bit. That program will stay.

As far as the federal government is concerned, we will not go there demanding more and more money, at the expense of health and education. We will do it through revenue-sharing. We will continue to do that, as we have done over the past ten years.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it's very sad that we have a minister of the Crown of British Columbia trying to misrepresent the hard work of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They're trying to create the impression that the provinces of this country cannot cooperate to create a major job creation program nationally, and therefore provincially. There's no question that the FCM is going to control this project. The project, as this minister would know, is that funds will be allocated provincially, and the projects will be outlined by UBCM according to the greatest need.

Here is an opportunity — unlike the way this government has created all sorts of confrontation over the last few years — to bring those local governments, and all those institutions that are in the business of creating jobs.... Here's an opportunity for this province to cooperate with a national body and a national government, to create jobs in the province of British Columbia. That's what we should be talking about in this Legislature: job creation. This minister continues to refuse to endorse a national program that has been nationally acclaimed in terms of creating jobs in British Columbia.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Nationalize it, eh? You want it nationalized?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, small-mindedness — absolutely incredible. A program that's been acclaimed and supported, and we wish to see this program endorsed in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 7891 ]

Mr. Chairman, I have other issues to go on with today, but seeing the time, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.