[ Page 6937 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Stumpage payment loophole. Mr. Miller –– 6937

Mr. Williams

Sale of mapping branch. Mr. Lovick –– 6938

Social insurance numbers on enumeration forms. Mr. R. Fraser –– 6938

Hiring of persons over 65 years of age. Ms. Pullinger 6938

Sale of lakeshore lots. Mr. Kempf –– 6938

Sash sawmill at Armstrong. Mr. Williams –– 6938

Fish-testing policy. Mr. G. Hanson –– 6939

Health risk to natives from contaminated fish. Mr. G. Hanson –– 6939

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services estimates.

(Hon. L. Hanson)

On vote 41: minister's office –– 6939

Mr. Lovick

Mrs. Boone

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. R. Fraser

Hon. Mr. Reid

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Smallwood

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. PARKER: It's a pleasure for me today to rise and introduce to the House some very distinguished visitors. They're very important in the riding of Skeena. They are representatives of Alcan. I'd like to introduce three directors: Lord John Peyton, the Hon. Jean-Marie Poitras, Mr. George Russell; and executives of Alcan: François Senecal-Tremblay, Claude Chamberland, Stephen Brown and Bill Rich. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SERWA: Today we are privileged to welcome distinguished visitors from afar — Morioka. The historical and beautiful capital of Iwate Prefecture has been twinned with our capital city, Victoria, since 1985. Since then the citizens of Vancouver Island have enjoyed and benefited from the rich and fascinating culture of Japan, particularly the Tohoku region. From the ancient city, which will be the site of the 1993 World Alpine Ski Championships, I would like to welcome a softball delegation led by municipal assemblymen Shimoda and Suzuki. They are accompanied by Jay Rangel, who is the Victoria representative and chairman of the sister city committee. The members of the Social Credit caucus softball team will be meeting these gentlemen tonight at 6:30 at Central Park. Would the House please bid all of these fine guests welcome.

Oral Questions

STUMPAGE PAYMENT LOOPHOLE

MR. MILLER: I have a question to the Minister of Forests. The minister said yesterday that some theft may be taking place, but he doesn't know to what extent, or what it is costing the government. Has the minister had the opportunity to consult with his officials in his ministry to provide him with this information so that he will know what's going on within his ministry?

HON. MR. PARKER: The matter which the member is discussing is one of evasion of paying stumpage, and the exact numbers of what's taking place are not known until an offence is uncovered. The fact that it does take place from time to time is encountered and it's dealt with and the money is recovered as best possible. Sometimes we find that the individuals have gone into bankruptcy or have indeed left the country, in which case recovery is very difficult. But as to the precise number at this point, I'll have to take that as notice, and I'd be happy to share it with the House at a later date.

MR. MILLER: A supplementary on the same topic. As I met with the auditor-general, his advice to me was that that was quite a legitimate question which the ministry should be able to answer. Has the minister met with the auditor-general or his staff to seek their advice in trying to ascertain what the problem is within his ministry?

HON. MR- PARKER: It's not a matter for the auditor-general to deal with. It's a matter for the auditor-general to determine whether or not there are any shortcomings in the management of any one of the ministries or Crown corporations, and he has flagged some items that we have dealt with now. As to the exact numbers, it's the sort of thing we would deal with in a ministry. As I said before, I take the question as notice and will reply to the House at a later date.

MR. MILLER: The minister also said yesterday that he will try to introduce legislation to tighten regulations, but he went on to say that we can legislate until hell freezes over, but if it is the intent of someone to commit a criminal act, they'll do it. Is it the minister's position, or has the minister decided, that legislation allowing prosecutions as suggested by the RCMP would not be effective?

HON. MR PARKER: We'll try to introduce legislation this session to deal with the issue raised by the RCMP and the auditor-general. Whether or not we can get it into this session depends on the scheduling of the House. As I said yesterday, we'll try. There are no guarantees.

MR. MILLER: Again to the minister. The minister said yesterday in the House: "The very first premise that we have, unlike the members opposite, in dealing with British Columbians, for whom every one of us works, is that they're honest. We follow that as the first rule.... Could the minister advise if he checks his own groceries out of the supermarket?

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests, the auditor-general had three staff reviewing your scaling and royalty problems for one month. They found an unacceptable high risk of losses in their studies. In view of these findings of two or three people in one month, have you reviewed your own management inadequacies in your own ministry?

HON. MR. PARKER: As I have said before, we take the auditor-general's report very seriously, and we have taken steps to close the loopholes he has identified.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Forests has some 135 employees involved in scaling questions in this province. Yet three members of the auditor-general's staff found these gaping holes, high risks and inadequacies throughout the whole system. Have you not reviewed your management capabilities in your ministry in view of the fact that three people found gaping holes in one month?

[ Page 6938 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: The management routine of the Forest Service and the matter of scaling and revenue collection has been reviewed. It is under control. It has been reviewed with the executive and the senior management. The necessary steps that we have discussed with the auditor-general have been taken.

MR. WILLIAMS: The auditor-general indicated that in some regions your ministry relies almost entirely on the industry to monitor and report the volumes and species of timber harvested. Are you saying, Mr. Minister, that that policy has ended?

HON. MR. PARKER: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is saying that there are still districts and regions where the monitoring is done by the industry.

HON. MR. PARKER: The scaling is done by the private sector and the checks are done in the Forest Service by scaling staff and other operational staff, depending on what the check is about.

MR. WILLIAMS: There has been a system in place where the scale coordinator for the regions was not, in fact, able to coordinate and did not have a reporting system that he could control throughout the region. So you would get one district within a region doing one thing — leaving it entirely to industry — and another doing something else. Has that changed? That's my question, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes.

SALE OF MAPPING BRANCH

MR. LOVICK: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands. Can the minister confirm that there is now a process underway to sell off parts or all of the surveys and resource mapping branch within his ministry?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'll take that question on notice, please.

[2:15]

SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS
ON ENUMERATION FORMS

MR. R. FRASER: To the Provincial Secretary. All of us are aware that the social insurance number is used to collect unemployment insurance and welfare, it is used when you submit your income taxes, but it is voluntary on the enumeration forms that are now being sent around the province. Has the government considered making it mandatory on enumeration forms for the purposes of identification during a vote?

HON. MR. REID: I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't aware that it wasn't required on the enumeration forms.

HIRING OF PERSONS
OVER 65 YEARS OF AGE

MS. PULLINGER: My question is to the Provincial Secretary as well. Recently a person approved by a government agent as a supervisor of enumerators was refused by Victoria on the grounds that under the Public Service Act, someone over 65 years of age is ineligible to be a supervisor. Is it this government's policy not to hire people over 65?

HON. MR. REID: It must be my day, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't aware of that either. I will take that as notice and get an answer back to the member.

SALE OF LAKESHORE LOTS

MR. KEMPF: A question to the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands — and whatever else ministers of state are responsible for. Citizens in my area wishing to purchase Crown lakeshore lots have been given an ultimatum: pay what the government is asking or perhaps pay more in the future. Has the minister decided to charge a price for these lots which is in line with B.C. Assessment Authority assessments?

HON. MR. DIRKS: No, we do not sell for the assessed value. It is appraised value, market value.

MR. KEMPF: Given that the assessments done by the B.C. Assessment Authority are used to determine rates on tax rolls around the province, does the minister not think their use in this case would be fair?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I would doubt that there are very many people in this province who would sell their property for the assessed value.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, supplementary. Does the minister then believe the philosophy of his ministry, which in short says that the Assessment Authority of B.C. values are at best only a guide to current market value and are generally not suited for establishing market value?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I guess I'd turn that question around. I wonder if the member would sell his property for the assessed value.

SASH SAWMILL AT ARMSTRONG

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Agriculture. The B.C. Land Commission has turned down an application for exclusion from the ALR in the town of Armstrong for a sash sawmill plant. Could the minister assure the House that his ministry and

[ Page 6939 ]

ELUC will seriously review the commission's report prior to considering the exclusion?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

FISH-TESTING POLICY

MR. G. HANSON: A question to the Minister of Fisheries regarding the dioxin and furan levels in B.C. interior fisheries in the release put out by the government last week. In the press release it was stated that popular sport fish, including Dolly Varden trout and salmon, showed no need for consumption restrictions where tested. Can the minister confirm that the data shows no trout were sampled downstream from pulp mills, and that only one type of trout was tested and that was upstream?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I can neither at this time confirm or deny which species were tested at which particular area in the river, but I will certainly raise that with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), because those ministries are responsible for the samples.

MR G. HANSON: The federal report seems to validate my point. Can the minister inform the House whether testing will be carried out to test trout downstream from pulp mills?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I cannot confirm that either at this stage. Certainly if there's any jeopardy in any way to health, I'm quite certain tests will be taken and all species monitored to see what effect dioxins have had.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the testing for Dolly Varden is done on an average basis, which means that some Dolly Varden could be testing quite highly. Can you assure us that all Dolly Varden caught in the province are safe for human consumption?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would certainly like to say that automatically, but it would have to be as the result of those tests. I will make certain that the Ministry of Health and Ministry of the Environment take ample samples to ensure that the food is clean and healthy.

HEALTH RISK TO NATIVES
FROM CONTAMINATED FISH

MR. G. HANSON: A question to the minister in charge of Native Affairs. As the minister knows, the average consumption of fish is much higher in the native community than in the white community, and the federal figures are based on non-native consumption. The highest dioxin levels were found in fish species that are staples in the diet of B.C. native people. What steps has the minister taken to inform native communities throughout British Columbia of the health risk posed by eating fish caught downstream from pulp mills?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I believe that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment have issued cautions to all people consuming fish in those water systems, if bottom feeders are part of their staple diet. I'm confident that the ministries have given sufficient notice to Indian people to allow them to make a proper decision.

MR. G. HANSON: I know that all members of this House are aware that native people are very concerned about the level of toxins that may be in finfish and shellfish being ingested. I want to ask the question: because pulp mills are provincially regulated and the provincial Minister of Environment is involved, is the Minister of Native Affairs prepared to accept responsibility should it be necessary for native communities to terminate or cut back traditional fisheries? In other words, would you pay compensation?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: That issue would have to be dealt with should it ever occur. At this time there is no indication that it's the situation, and I don't see it being particularly useful to speculate on it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations to meet this afternoon.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LABOUR AND CONSUMER SERVICES

On vote 41: minister's office, $273,577 (continued).

MR. LOVICK: It's been some time since I've had occasion to pose questions to the Minister of Consumer Services, and I'm rather looking forward to the event, hopeful that we're going to get some clearer answers than I had the last go around.

The issue I want to raise with the minister has to do with consumer protection legislation. The last set of questions that I asked the minister — this is now a couple of years ago — was answered for me by having recourse on his part to changes to the Consumer Protection Act and modifications to that particular bit of legislation which it was suggested at the time....

I'm sorry, I can't call for order, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps you could tell the members opposite.

[ Page 6940 ]

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: May I proceed, Mr. Chairman? All right. Thank you. This would have been the first time that the minister opposite would have had an excuse for not understanding what I was saying; but I'll let that pass.

As I say, I was referring to the fact that a couple of years ago when I raised questions about consumer protection legislation, the answers tended to be embraced under one answer: namely, that we were making modifications to legislation which would solve the problem.

I want to canvass a particular issue of special concern to consumers everywhere, but an issue that arose specifically in my own constituency. I'm talking about a sales technique used by the providers of the cable service in my community, whereby a letter was sent to all of the subscribers in the system. I might just add in passing and parenthetically that if this happened in my community of Nanaimo, I suspect it may well have happened in another 50-odd communities in the province that are also serviced by the same cable company. I think the question is serious.

In any event, this particular company sent letters to its subscribers informing them that it would shortly be introducing six new channels. Suddenly the package was to be much more attractive, and everybody would leap at the opportunity. The problem is that the way this particular measure was couched was to say that if you want the service, "simply do nothing." It's reminiscent of Nancy Reagan telling us: "Just say no." In other words, the onus was very clearly on the consumer. The consumer is told: "If you don't want the service, then you must tell us you do not want it." Otherwise, for the princely sum of $2.95 a month you would receive the service.

The minister is familiar with that kind of contract; it's called negative option sales, as I recall — negative option scheme. I know what happened in the last amendments to legislation: we — that is, the government — took this giant step forward in terms of solving the problem and said: "What we will do to protect consumers against this kind of activity is give them 15 days in which to refuse." I hope the minister is going to tell me that his ministry is going much beyond that and looking very seriously and carefully at the prospect of simply outlawing that sales technique.

I'm wondering if I might pose that direct question first to the minister. Are you and the officials in your ministry actively considering changing the legislation so that this technique will not be allowed in this province?

HON. L. HANSON: I'm very aware of the situation the member is referring to. The negative option sales operation is not illegal in today's regulations or act, but it's also not enforceable. My staff recently had a meeting with a cable company involved, and the charges as a result of the operation, which they may issue on a monthly basis, are not enforceable.

Secondly, if they, through that system, provide a negative entry on their credit rating, it would have to be removed immediately, because it is not an allowable thing to do. The company involved has agreed that if there is any problem like that, they will reverse the charges.

We are continuing to monitor the situation, and while it is a legal procedure, it is not enforceable under the Trade Practice Act. If they provide these extra services, provide the negative letter or card and a postpaid envelope and so on, and it is not sent in, the subscriber continues to get the service, they bill them, and that bill is not enforceable and the non-collection of that bill cannot be used as a detrimental entry on their credit rating.

[2:30]

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer as far as it goes, but surely it begs the question concerning the desirability of this sales practice being legal. My question, a very direct one, is whether the government is going to take steps to simply make that sales technique illegal. Because pretty obviously, Mr. Minister, companies do that because they know it works very well. It's a very easy way to bump up your market, and I'm sure the companies have all kinds of evidence to show that it does work. It's well worth the cost to them of marketing that particular service.

The point is, though, that the consumers are the unwilling victims, and some of those people are going to get — let me put it bluntly — suckered into buying a particular system that they otherwise would not want to be part of. Through their own apathy, indifference or the kind of consumerist mentality that most of us tend to function by, which is to not pay much attention to those monthly bills as they come in but simply to go through the process of paying them, the result will be that the company's market will expand and increase significantly. I can't think of any solid arguments to support the proposition or contention that any company in this province should be allowed to continue that sort of sales practice. We're talking about a very slippery marketing device.

Surely what we ought to do, if we believe in consumer protection legislation at all, is simply say that we won't tolerate the practice in this province. Can the minister respond to that or give me some arguments with which, I am quite prepared to say, I am unfamiliar?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, I can assure the member opposite that we are continuing to monitor and will look at it. Future decisions as to legislative changes will be announced as they are made.

We are also aware of some other initiatives that are happening in the marketplace. In one instance that we know of, a service industry is using that negative selling technique. If it becomes a serious marketing strategy on the part of.... Even though it is not enforceable, we may consider that.

MR. LOVICK: It seems to me that the minister's answer clearly indicates that you are prepared to

[ Page 6941 ]

tolerate extra work. Surely the easiest and cheapest way to solve the problem would be to simply say that we are not prepared to tolerate that advertising technique. It's just that simple.

I can't understand what it is about the marketplace or about the role this government perceives itself as having that stands in the way of interfering and saying this kind of practice should not be allowed.

Is there some dimension of the marketplace that is sacrosanct, and that I don't understand? I think I know my basic free market economic stuff fairly well. I sure can't understand this one. Would you tell me who you are protecting? Why are we doing this? Why aren't we — the government — saying that we will protect the consumer against this kind of practice? This kind of practice doesn't serve anybody. All it serves are the interests of a private company which has a relatively easy way to increase its share of the market.

HON. L. HANSON: I think that most governments — certainly this government — do not want to intrude into the marketplace unless there is a real need for that. I am sure the member is aware that magazine companies tried this sales approach for a period of time not too long ago. It lasted a short time, because the companies that delivered were effectively giving away free magazines, because people didn't pay.

I will reiterate that when we, as the government, see the need to put regulations in place, we will act. At this point, we don't see that as an absolute necessity in a world that is probably overregulated as it is.

MR. LOVICK: I am not going to go on at great length about this. I certainly do not want to belabour the point. The minister has pretty clearly stated his position. But to suggest any kind of analogous situation between magazine sales and television is ludicrous in the extreme. There are very few people who gleefully pick up the magazines that land on their doorstep. It doesn't have the same position or importance in our culture. I'm sure that's obvious to anybody who pauses to reflect on it.

I have just one other quick question to the minister. He certainly was aware of the measure. I am wondering if there was any lobbying done either by the consumers' association or by the interest itself — namely, the cable company in this instance. Was there any representation made to government about this practice?

HON. L. HANSON: Not to my knowledge. I was never made aware of any lobbying that was done. I did receive — I can't really be accurate — maybe half a dozen letters from people with the brochure and the card. That was my first knowledge of that. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no lobbying.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, I would like to focus a little on alcohol and drug programs, the TRY program, the CAP funding and basically the programs offered through your ministry.

I have some concerns which I expressed last year when alcohol and drugs were removed from the Ministry of Health and moved into the Ministry of Labour. Some of those concerns had to do with the fact that I see alcoholism as a disease, and I think it ought to be treated as such. My concern was that we would be focusing mainly on the employee assistance programs — which are very important programs — but that this may be one of the movements of this ministry.

What we have seen over the past year, though, is rather strange: constant announcements of funding and of grants to organizations and a never-ending further privatization of the alcohol and drug programs. Some of these things have, I think, been very detrimental to the people in this province who have been serving. We've seen the erosion and dismantling of the special resources division, which was the provision to provide the education and prevention programs. That started in June of 1988 with the elimination of the women and youth consultants. Then the senior consultants were transferred to the Ministry of Health, the employee assistance program counsellor was transferred to WCB, and it appears that they're now contracting out native consultants. All of this is taking place on ground that is totally devoid of any standards.

Something that has concerned me over the years regards the lack of standards in the Ministry of Health when they contracted out, and the same thing appears here. To my knowledge, there are no standards regarding the qualifications of the employees who are receiving grants or being contracted out. There are no provincewide standards by the ministry saying: "This is the level of service that ought to be available in every community, and therefore we are going to provide those services." And there are definitely no standards involving salaries for people.

This may be a laughing matter, Mr. Minister. Perhaps the Premier would like to question the minister about this. Obviously you seem to think it's more important that you get the minister's ear rather than myself.

Mr. Minister, a very important point, and one that can't be overlooked, is the fact that we don't have these standards out there. Some areas of the province are well served by organizations that have applied for and received grants to provide a service. Others may not have the same level of service because they either don't have the organizations or the person to draw together a group of people to make those services available. It seems to me that the ministry has really derogated its responsibility and left it up to the communities to pick up the ball if they want to. Your program, which says "The responsibility is yours, " clearly indicates that it is no longer the responsibility of the government to ensure that programs are offered and available, or to ensure that everybody receives the same level of service throughout the province. "The responsibility is yours" tells me — 

[ Page 6942 ]

tells everybody — that we must pick up the ball and carry it from here on in.

The contracting-out that has been taking place, as I stated, is done without any standards. There's no continuity. There's no guarantee that any of these organizations or societies are going to receive funding next year or that the programs they're offering this year are going to be available down the road. There's no long-term planning in any area. The fact that the government has delegated this responsibility to societies means there is no overall plan to deal with issues such as alcohol and drug abuse in our province. We are operating from fiscal year to fiscal year. You have a $137 million three-year program, yet once again the grants are being offered on a yearly basis. We saw grants made last year with a commitment in some cases to '89-90, but no commitment for funding in the next year. The government's commitment to solve these problems has got to be a long-term one. The people who get involved must know that they're going to have the resources to make sure their communities have these programs for a long time.

I would like to ask the minister several questions on some of these areas. The ministry talks about prevention and education and makes the point to the public that these are the areas we must work in in order to deal with alcohol and drug abuse, and I totally agree that those are the areas we must focus on. At that point, why did the ministry dismantle the special resources division, which was the division that provided education and prevention? Why did you eliminate the positions of women and youth consultants? And who are doing the jobs that those people once did?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member for Prince George North suggested I should also speak and ask some of the questions, and I would be pleased to participate.

Before I do ask the questions, I would like to commend the minister and the ministry on the TRY program. It certainly is exemplary. I don't think there is anything anywhere in Canada like it. Certainly for many years we've had people in government talk about similar programs. We've had NDP governments, Social Credit governments and governments before that talk about these particular programs, but this government was the first ever to do it. Mr. Minister, you and your ministry are all to be commended for a program which is the best in the country.

[2:45]

I really didn't get up to speak only about the TRY program, and I will mention some other things as well. I heard some criticism from the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) and, Mr. Minister, I would like to give you another view. The member seemed to indicate that too much was left up to the community if they wanted to; those were about the words. I frankly don't see anything wrong with the community being involved.

I guess perhaps this is where we differ with the NDP. I would suggest that we continue to see the local community involved as much as possible because we in the free enterprise sector, I believe, have time and time again experienced that where you have the community involved — be it local government, school boards, local chambers of commerce, Rotary clubs, Kinsmen, Lions or community associations — chances are the programs will be far more effective than if they are simply left to government, particularly a government in Victoria or Ottawa. It is a tremendous benefit, I will always believe, to see local people involved in the process.

I also, Mr. Minister, commend you for having contracted out many of these services. I believe that contractors will be made to perform, and we can establish for them — and perhaps you will comment on this — a set of guidelines, ground rules, standards which they are required to meet. If they don't meet them, we can cancel the contract, I would presume; whereas if it's always all government, there is no way of cancelling the contract. We are stuck with whatever it is we are set upon.

So the idea of bringing in local contractors....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No. I've seen it again and again, hon. member for Prince George North, that where the government becomes involved, particularly a socialist government — and we've seen a couple of those in this nation, unfortunately, and we continue to pay the price — they get hooked into government always doing all things. It remains thus, things don't change and they are afraid to make the necessary corrections for fear it will show the populace how lousy a job it is they are doing.

I am referring particularly to socialist governments because they have a habit of always taking things upon themselves and cutting out the private sector or contractors, and we're talking about contractors. I commend you for having contractors involved and for setting high standards for them. If they don't meet the standards, cancel the contract and we can look to somebody else who will do a better job. I still prefer to see the private sector and the local community involved in providing that particular service.

I also heard the member for Prince George North say that she doesn't appreciate, like or understand the program because there are no guarantees of funding for next year or down the road. Again, Mr. Minister, I know that if we keep a sound economy and if we have a free enterprise government in this province, which continues to see new investment and growth of industry, we will carry on these programs because they are necessary and serve a tremendous purpose. But there are no guarantees. As a matter of fact, if ever — Heaven forbid! — the people of this province chose a socialist government, that would probably be the end of that program. They'd have to chop it because the economy would, I suggest, suffer considerably. I don't see, Mr. Minister, how you could provide guarantees. There are no guarantees. Only

[ Page 6943 ]

the socialists believe they can somehow provide guarantees. It's not possible.

Mr. Minister, I was speaking on this particular subject as well because I was hoping that the Leader of the Opposition might be around someplace and might be listening somewhere so that he could be in the House for some of this debate. It offends me a little bit that when we are discussing a very important portfolio, the Ministry of Labour, we always end up with only three members of the opposition in the House. The Leader of the Opposition, to my knowledge, has not participated once.

So if he is listening, I would hope perhaps that he will come into the House, because I would like him to stand up and provide some alternative suggestions to you, Mr. Minister, as to what it is an NDP government might do with respect to labour in this province. Mr. Minister, the NDP has for some time now — and I know we spoke of this yesterday, but I'm going to say it again and again until we get some answers — told British Columbians that if they became the government, they would replace Bill 19 with a new piece of labour legislation. We've not seen any sign of that.

I want to talk about Bill 19, but I also would like to see the opposition get up and say how they propose to do things differently. Instead of continuing to be negative all of the time, let's hear some positive comment. Let's hear some good, alternate suggestions. Tell us what it is you would do. And go back and remember that the Leader of the Opposition, your leader — I think — was going about the province saying: "If we became government, we would do away with Bill 19; we would bring in something else." As a matter of fact, in many of his speeches not so long ago, he was saying that the NDP would abolish Bill 19. "We would replace it with a fair labour law." He went on to say....

MRS. BOONE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I fail to see the relevancy of all of this to the minister's estimates. Bill 19, as you know, was two terms ago. This minister's estimates have to do with this year's budget, and certainly have nothing to do with the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The restriction in Sir Erskine May would certainly apply to some bills that might be discussed, but in this case, Bill 19 would not be one of them, because it's past legislation that's been dealt with.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Isn't that interesting! Suddenly, the NDP doesn't want to hear a mention of Bill 19. They don't want to talk about Bill 19. I would challenge you to speak about Bill 19 during the hours or days ahead. Talk about Bill 19. Suddenly they don't want to talk about Bill 19, because it's been such a success. That's why you don't want to talk about Bill 19.

They, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, said that they would be proposing an alternative to Bill 19. They've had lots of time. One thing about members of the opposition, they get lots of time off. They travel around the province. They've got lots of time off throughout the year. They can use any excuse, not having the time to provide an alternative to Bill 19.

The Leader of the Opposition has said during that early debate that Bill 19 is not going to bring stability. He said that instead it will bring instability. In fact, the exact opposite has happened. As a result of the cooperative attitude of both labour and management, the number of worker-days lost in British Columbia last year was the second lowest in more than 30 years. That's hardly instability.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Maybe that's why the opposition now doesn't want to talk about Bill 19. I think this is why, perhaps, they don't want to get into Bill 19.

AN HON. MEMBER: Too positive.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Too positive is right. They don't want to get involved in that. The Leader of the Opposition has also stated that Bill 19 is going to hurt the economy and hamper investment. I can recall that he was saying that in the House, outside the House and all around the province. Once again, the facts prove otherwise. The provincial economy has never been stronger and investment is at record levels. Statistics Canada says that B.C. leads all other regions in the country and is expected to increase its capital investment still more, ahead of any other place in Canada. We're leading the country. It's not so long ago that the doom and gloom of the NDP was saying: "Bill 19 is going to hurt the economy and hamper investment." I can remember it so well. It was said again and again.

When the media vainly tried to get the Leader of the Opposition's views on the day of the general strike in 1987, the Leader of the Opposition once again painfully sat on that picket fence, the same one he's been perched on since he became leader, and he wouldn't really comment or say anything one way or the other. As a matter of fact, it prompted one columnist to write that the public deserves more from the opposition.

Mr. Chairman, why has the opposition not told British Columbians their plans for labour legislation? We have a whole raft of private members' bills dealing with environmental questions — and that's fine and wonderful — but why have they not presented one private member's bill on labour issues? Why, if you said Bill 19 was so bad, why, if you said it couldn't work, why, if you said it would cause unemployment, why, if you said it would cause unions to lose their memberships — which hasn't happened — why, if you said there would be a tremendous downturn in economic activity, have you not presented an alternative to Bill 19? Where is your alternative?

Does it maybe indicate that the NDP has a devious, hidden political agenda? Come clean! Where are

[ Page 6944 ]

you? Where is your alternative? Let's have a look. Let's have a glimpse at this hidden political agenda of yours. Let's find out. It's two years ago now that a former NDP member of this Legislature, Bill King, said that a new NDP government would bring in anti-business legislation if business supported Bill Vander Zalm's version of industrial-relations bliss in Bill 19. Now where is your alternative? I would encourage, I would urge, I beg the members of the opposition, particularly your long-lost leader who's never in the House, to stand up and tell us what's your alternative, what's your option, what's the alternative to Bill 19. Let's hear from you. Let's hear from all of you on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Richmond wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Premier and myself, I'd just like to welcome a visiting group of students. They've just entered the public gallery. These are exchange students from Montreal, and they are accompanied by their hosting group, a number of students from the Richmond school, Burnett Junior Secondary School, together with their teachers. I would like to ask the House to please make them welcome.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, my questions to you were so long ago that I'll tell them to you again. My questions were regarding alcohol and drug programs: why did you dismantle the special resources division, which was the education and prevention division of alcohol and drug? Why did you eliminate the positions of the women and youth consultants? And who are doing the jobs that are done by these particular people?

HON. L. HANSON: The member will be pleased to know that she has hit something that I do have the responsibility for in my ministries.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have a quiet time for a second, Mr. Minister. Perhaps we could have this debate take place when members are recognized. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and the Premier have had their little time now; perhaps we could have the minister with his estimates for a minute.

[3:00]

HON. L. HANSON: Well, the member asked a number of questions in her remarks. We as government made a long-term commitment a while ago. We do have a three-year plan. I think the total amount of money is some $134 million, to be spread over — at least partially — last year, this year and the following year. The programs we have in place are quite innovative. In many cases we do have the services that the member was referring to being provided in communities. We have gone to a regionalization, if you will, for delivery of the programs, and we do have all of the resources that we had before in place.

As far as the privatization remarks that were being made, we have in some cases societized some of the treatment facilities, and we found that the TRY program has encouraged the volunteer aspect of each community to a degree where they find the socialization process very attractive to them. We have a manual, and every agency we have contracted with has to abide by that manual, which governs the standards for delivery of service. At this point we do not have any long-term contracts, but I think it's important that the member understand that by the societization and the various programs we have put in place, we are in an assessment period. We are looking very carefully at all the services to make sure those being provided best suit the individual community's needs. That's why the societization and regionalization is happening.

We're not intending to commission an independent study of the terms of employment among the funded agencies, but we certainly ensure that the agencies are up to a certain standard. We are going to do a study of the qualities of those people, but we're not going to do it independently outside of the ministry. We do not have a licensing process in place for people who work for the various agencies. But a number of community colleges are developing and delivering training programs for counsellors involved in drug and alcohol programs.

The member was talking about a number of grants, which are the grants we are providing under the community action program — CAP. An advisory committee has been put in place in every region of the province, which is made up of representatives of the services provided in that community and others who are interested in sitting on that committee. The applications made for community action program funding are submitted to this committee in each region, and it deals with the grants as they see appropriate. There has been some funding for some quite innovative programs. There has been some funding for some dry grad programs in some communities. There is quite a variety around British Columbia, even though it is on a one-year basis.

But we do have contracts. We have just recently reached an agreement with some of the agencies that are providing a service. There are so many agencies interested in providing service in various communities, and the response to the TRY program has been quite tremendous actually. We're now trying to establish a standard of treatment in each community by those programs.

I should add that we also have an advisory committee in place to help us look at these programs before we initiate them. They're made up of a number of very prominent people interested in drug and alcohol abuse and education. There are police chiefs involved, people from religious communities and from native communities, representation from the British Columbia Medical Association. I think there

[ Page 6945 ]

are about 25 in total, and I'd certainly be pleased to give the member a copy of the list of people who have consented to sit on the committee.

We do have a manual that is required. One of the things we're working on at the moment is trying to get an assessment standard throughout British Columbia so that the assessment procedures are done on a similar basis, and so that the most appropriate treatment determined as a result of that assessment would be relatively stable throughout the province. In other words, if a certain situation existed in the Okanagan, and that same situation existed in Prince George, we would like to see a method of determining that the treatment would be assessed to be similar in both communities.

There are so many avenues of treatment available today. There is, of course, Alcoholics Anonymous. There are a number of live-in situations where we provide full treatment right at the.... There are a number of consulting terms where people come in for a session and are helped in that manner. To attain that standard, we are still working on that. We haven't got it in place. My assistant deputy minister in charge of that is working to attain that standard. The assessment process is relatively similar wherever it may be in the province. I think that everyone would agree that it is a positive approach.

I know that the member asked a number of questions during her speech. Maybe I have missed some and she might remind me of which ones I haven't answered.

MRS. BOONE: You missed most of them, Mr. Minister. I wanted to know why you dismantled the special resources division, which is the education and prevention end of the ministry; why you eliminated positions of women and youth consultants; and who are doing the jobs that were done by those previous positions?

I think we all acknowledge that education and prevention is the keystone to dealing with alcohol and drugs, that it is very difficult to deal with the problem once it's there. We have got to attack this problem at the front end. We have always advocated that from this side of the House, and I have heard the Minister of Health talking about it as well.

It seems a little strange that at the time we are advocating prevention and putting $137 million over three years into a program.... I am surprised that you forgot it was $137 million, not $134 million, because every single one of your press releases that comes out states $137 million, and I have been inundated with that figure. If you have $137 million, why did you choose at this particular time to eliminate that division? Who are doing those jobs that were done by those people?

HON. L. HANSON: Sometimes when we are talking about these things, we add things together and come up with answers that aren't exactly the same: $134 million is correct, but when we add our CounterAttack, it is $137 million.

To speak to the other situation, there hasn't been anyone released. We have decentralized a number of services to the regional offices. The special resources programs are available in the regional offices. The services of the women and youth consultants that you mentioned specifically are available in the regional offices.

I think the member would agree that a regionalized approach, where each community has access to these resources as opposed to having them centralized here in Victoria, is probably a wise move, because it is much more accessible to the people who really need the service. She mentioned education too. We are going to be introducing this fall — with the cooperation of the Ministry of Education — an alcohol and drug educational component into the mandatory school curriculum. I believe the goal is September at the moment, although I understand there are some drafting difficulties with the program. It's our hope to introduce it into the curriculum this fall.

MRS. BOONE: It has been my understanding, Mr. Minister, that in January of this year the staff of the special resources division were told that their program area would no longer exist. You are telling me that it has been regionalized. Are you telling me then that rather than having people here in Victoria, those positions are now out in each of the regions and the staff in each of those regions has been increased to take up those positions?

[3:15]

HON. L. HANSON: We have regionalized many of those functions. Some people who were involved in one particular area have a slightly different responsibility, but we haven't taken them out of the system as such. I suppose that if you looked at the system in Victoria, you would have a concentration of people, but when you regionalize it, some people may be doing more than one function because of volumes and whatever.

All the services that we were providing previously we're now providing in the regions. I have heard very little complaint about that. Just about all the communication I have had on the TRY program and our other initiatives has been very positive.

MRS. BOONE: This is going to be a long process. I didn't think we were going to be very long on this area.

Is the minister saying that the regional offices have increased their staffing to supplement the jobs that were previously done by the special resources division? Or is the minister saying that now the same level of staffing has remained at the regional offices and that, in addition to the functions that they were doing before, they are now also doing the education and prevention? Are those functions now being done by the same people at the regional end in addition to the functions they had before, or have you increased the staff at that level?

[ Page 6946 ]

HON. L. HANSON: The Victoria group was always a resource group. There have been some increases in staffing in the various communities. One of the initiatives going on right now, because our program started a new year at the end of April, is that we are looking at staff complements in some of the regions. There have been some staff increases in the various regions, but we haven't increased them all.

MR. R. FRASER: It's a great pleasure for me to get into this debate. I want all those children up there to hear what great things this government has done for so many years. This minister has the wonderful opportunity of looking after things like WCB and ICBC and all those great programs. There are so many things we could talk about, but let's start with some of the great things that you'll want to hear about and that some of the school kids talked to me about.

Last Friday — a week ago Friday — my colleague from Vancouver South and I, along with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), were at one of the high schools in our riding talking about GradPass. It doesn't actually relate to that minister, but that's the kind of thing we've done with the drinking and driving CounterAttack; one of the great programs that this province has come down with. You will see how much safer it is on our streets because of that kind of program and because of the thinking that comes out of this side of the House. Maybe that's why the Social Credit Party has led this province for so long.

AN HON. MEMBER: And will continue.

MR. R. FRASER: And will continue.

Now with the TRY program, a most serious concern in our community, naturally, is the drug abuse problem. Young children being hooked on drugs like marijuana and cocaine and things of that nature was unheard of when those of us on the floor were going to school, probably — with the exception of the young member from Esquimalt, who.... I guess the two of you are going to be looking after this minister.

MRS. BOONE: We'll look after him.

MR. R. FRASER: The two of you; that's right. Well, it's nice to see so many of you here.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Yes, where are they? Where are those guys anyway?

The TRY program is a very positive approach. What are we doing in our schools and our communities to attack the drug abuse problem? We're going into the schools saying: "This can happen to you if you should run into those people who peddle drugs." Can you think of anybody doing that? Can you think of anybody picking on a human being in that way, making them totally dependent? You hear the experiences of young children who are addicted, who will do anything — steal from their families, let alone the things we don't mention in this House. No wonder we're making such a great effort to tell the students of the hazards of these things.

What we'd like also to do, if we could, would be to instruct some of the judges about the terms and the conditions of sentences given to people who are trafficking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I'm going to try and remind you whose estimates we're doing and ask you to relate just to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. Trafficking, perhaps; but sentencing is.... Even I'm having trouble relating to that.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, thank you for guiding me. I do appreciate the counsel I get from you and those who have the honour of sitting at the front in the Chairman's chair, and occasionally in the Speaker's chair. You have a history of experience here that is uncommonly strong, and we should all take advice from a man of such character — such a character.

I wanted to point out how serious the problem is and how important it is for the minister to go on with the TRY program. At least it's a positive way to demonstrate to the school children that it is not fun to get hooked on drugs, and that's why the ministry's doing that.

I move to a subject that has become quite close to me, the WCB. The minister's also responsible for that. We find that there's some suggestion that the board should become independent from government. Many people in my riding think it already is. According to the act, which I've read and I believe I understand, you can appeal decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. But my experience is that the board hasn't been all that interested in doing that sort of thing. Once a decision is made, it seems final. I'm not at all sure that that's reasonable.

Another thing I understand, told to me by members of the board, is that once a company changes its title, they lose their experience rating. That's a recent decision. You're called the ABC Co....

MRS. BOONE: You've lost your audience.

MR. R. FRASER: I've not lost the audience. Those students will never forget me. I bet if they could, they would move into the riding of Vancouver South to support the Chairman and myself.

I hope that you're listening, because I would like you to learn something today. This is a fresh new experience.

MRS. BOONE: I always listen.

MR. R. FRASER: I know. I know.

This is important. Why is it that a company that changes its title and keeps the same staff loses the

[ Page 6947 ]

experience rating? It doesn't seem reasonable to me. It certainly doesn't seem reasonable to the employers who have experienced this wonderful event and suddenly find their rates going up. If you have the same staff and if you have the same company and if you're doing the same job with the same people, why would you lose your experience rating? It doesn't make any sense. It's arbitrary, in my opinion, to have that happen.

If you're separating a piece of property from the business, and the property has nothing to do with the business, why do it? I would like the minister to ask the WCB why they do that, to see if they can come up with a logical reason. I think those two members over there would probably want to hear the reason so they could relate it to some of their colleagues.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Their so-called leader. What's his name again?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's the leader?

MR. R. FRASER: I know who the leader is. The leader is the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). The front man is the man for Vancouver Centre. Perhaps the leader is the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), or maybe the leader is the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). But I know it isn't the lady for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). That much I know; we're confident about that.

Back to WCB. If the minister could tell me why a company would lose an experience rating when it's only a matter of separating a piece of property off and the employees, job and the management are the same — then why does that happen?

HON. L. HANSON: The issue that the member speaks of has come to my attention a number of times. When we have the new board of governors in place, I assure the member that will be one of the policies we will refer to the board to assess.

MRS. BOONE: I'm going back to the questions again here, because you really haven't answered them at all with regard to the dismantling of the special resources division. You say that those people are still here in Victoria doing other jobs or what have you. That is a central core of people doing the education and establishing education and prevention for alcohol and drugs. That resource program has been eliminated. You say they've been sent out into the regions. You can't tell me if any extra people have been added there. You can't tell me who's doing that job. Are they doing the education and prevention program on a regional basis? Are they all done regionally, with no standards established for the province as a whole saying that this is what the education should be or this is the prevention program? Are they all done strictly at the regional level? Who is doing the jobs that were done by these people before?

HON. L. HANSON: I think the member misunderstands what those people were doing — I think there were four people involved. They were a resource group. They weren't doing prevention as such. They were doing education, distribution of materials and that sort of thing. A number of them had a library established. A number of them have gone to other jobs — there are four in total. I think, if I remember correctly, that one went to the Ministry of Health in another capacity. The service that was being provided by that group is now being provided by the regions and the people in those regions.

MRS. BOONE: Are you saying, then, that there is no central resource establishing education priorities for the ministry, that now this is on a regional basis, that all of the library resources and other things have been distributed out to the regions, that there is now one person in each region responsible for the education programs? Is that what you're telling me?

HON. L. HANSON: The library will be maintained here in Victoria. There is a head office staff we've always had that are still here. The people you are talking about were not involved in treatment. They were involved in education and distribution of materials. The distribution of materials is being done regionally. The library will continue to be here in Victoria, because there is a requirement for a head office staff to continue to plan and run the programs as we have them.

I don't know what other answer the member is looking for. The services that were provided by that resource group are now being provided regionally.

MRS. BOONE: Have you hired new and additional staff at the regional level? Or is this now a lower priority at the regional level, to be done in conjunction with all the other tasks that the regional people have to do? Is this a low priority that's just shifted into gear with everything else, or is there somebody at the regional level specifically responsible for this function?

HON. L. HANSON: Special Resources didn't carry out any prevention programs. The regions that are providing information and so on are doing part of the job that the resource team here in Victoria was doing. We still have a head office staff. The amounts of money being spent in the various communities are much higher. Look at the CAP programs, many of them educational, that weren't there before and are now being put in place. They were not directed or provided by the resource team that was here in Victoria.

I don't understand exactly what the member is getting at. The service that was provided by the resource team from Victoria may have been varied a little bit, but we are still providing an educational informational service through the regions.

[3:30]

[ Page 6948 ]

HON. MR. REID: I want to compliment the current minister during his estimates on the job he's doing in relation to the TRY program, but I'm saddened that the Leader of the Opposition is not here during the discussion in these most important estimates of this minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many are there?

HON. MR. REID: There are only two members of the opposition here to discuss this most critical issue, the estimates of the most elaborate ministry, having all the responsibilities. It's the issue that the opposition wanted to own and become quite conversant with. When we got into Bill 19 last year, I recall, as the Premier said earlier, they wanted to bring forward a new and innovative saviour kind of legislation. The fact is, we had a more incredible year in 1988 than we even expected as a result of Bill 19, and I want to compliment the minister for that.

I want to speak to the growth of the workforce in the province as it relates to the Labour minister and the success of Bill 19. It really created harmony and agreement among labour and management in B.C., and allowed the positive attitude of the province to be reflected, rather than the completely and continually negative attitude of the opposition. I know that the Leader of the Opposition is in the House today, but the real front man is not here; I wish he were. He's out, I understand, doing a sales job of some kind, but his job really is in here discussing serious issues of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services — issues to do with ICBC, alcohol and drug programs and the TRY program, which is the most successful in North America.

I want to compliment the minister for his program, and would encourage all members on this side of the House to talk about Bill 19 and its successes, the size of the labour force and what is happening in the labour force out there. The NDP has brought forward 20 programs, and not one of them mentions labour. I guess that's a justifiable reason for the Leader of the Opposition not to want to be in on this debate: they have no position at all on labour in this province; they have no care for labour in of this province. They care about things which are not of major concern in this House during the debate on estimates of ministers of the House. I am disturbed that the Leader of the Opposition is not here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Chair will take the opportunity to circulate copies of Sir Erskine May's rules about admissible and not admissible items during this section of debate.

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to let members opposite know that we will get to Bill 19 and the alternatives and so on that are under these estimates, but I'm not going to do it when 38 of the 44 members of the Social Credit caucus are missing. I think they would all want to hear. There's only a six-pack of Socreds in here right now; when the other 38 show up we'll deal with Bill 19.

I want to go to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services and pursue this matter of....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: We'll get to Bill 19 later. Right now we're on the program that my colleague from Prince George North has been referring to.

Let's just put aside the matter of prevention. Let's put aside the matter of the headquarters being here in Victoria. There are four people here in Victoria who used to do some work in terms of education, distribution of information, processing of advice in terms of the effect of various drugs, the effect of mixing certain drugs with certain forms of alcohol. Those were some of the functions of these four, as I understand it. The minister has conceded that those four people have now been eliminated in Victoria and that those responsibilities have been picked up in the regions.

My question to the minister is this: are existing staff now performing those responsibilities, or have we hired new staff in the regions to perform those responsibilities?

HON. L. HANSON: Well, the simple answer to that is some of both; we do have some more staff in the regions and we have had some reallocation of those duties.

MR. SIHOTA: Maybe the minister can tell us in which portions of the province additional staff have been hired to perform these functions and in which portions of the province those have been picked up as additional responsibilities.

HON. L. HANSON: I'll ask my staff to get that specific information. I don't know whether the member is referring to.... We've been assessing every program we've been doing, including what the resource team was doing here in Victoria, and we have reassigned them in different areas of responsibility. Some informational material, I suppose, is being distributed by these societies.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I've been listening here for the last hour and a half or so, and basically I guess the tack by the opposition, or those two members present, has been to try and determine what increase in staff has been provided for the TRY program, and I've heard it mentioned with respect to other programs. I've listened carefully. They want to know how much additional staff, and in what regions we have the additional staff. Mr. Minister, you can clarify this for me. Frankly, before I get you to answer this, I believe that we should really look to contracting many of these services that can well be performed by the private sector. The answer is not, Mr. Minister, as the NDP continues to suggest, that we must somehow have the biggest government in the country and that we must continually expand on people in government; and that unless we have that magic number of maybe 100,000 people working

[ Page 6949 ]

for government, there's somehow something lacking. They want government to increase, increase, increase. They're always asking for more people, more programs, bigger government. You're not talking to a bunch of socialists on this side; you're talking to free-enterprisers. Why don't you change your tack. You're not going to sell us on that message. We will not look to increasing the size of government again and again.

We're here to try and reduce the size of government, to reduce the impact on the taxpayers, to make it easier for British Columbians to be productive, to build, to seek a strong economy. You don't do this by continually increasing the size of government and by imposing more and more taxes on people. In one day alone — yesterday — you mentioned three new taxes, some of which we've really heard little about yet. Hopefully during the course of these debates, you'll tell us about some of these taxes and what they mean and how they'll impact on our citizens. But, I'm very grateful, Mr. Minister....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt....

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, I think the Premier is out of order when he starts to talk about taxes. It's got nothing to do with this ministry. Perhaps he can be brought into line with respect to those kinds of comments that are totally out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the Chair listens very carefully to try and determine whether debate is in order. And if the rules were adhered to strictly, I can assure you the House would have adjourned some months ago, if I were in the Chair and allowed to interpret the rules as they are laid down in the book. So the Chair has to use some latitude. I'm sure that if the members stray, they will be admonished on either side of the House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would encourage the minister and the ministry to involve private contractors. I believe, as I've said before and I repeat again — hopefully the socialists across the way will listen to this and give it some serious thought — that if we allow contractors to be involved in this process, as we've done it with many services for government, and privatize, we will have a degree of flexibility which will provide our people a greater degree of security. If we contract to people and we establish for them, Mr. Minister, as I said before, some strict standards which they're required to meet.... After all, they're serving people. They're providing assists to people desperately in need. We need to have high standards. If we set these high standards and those standards are not met by the contractor, cut them off. Put something in your agreement that we can cut them instantly. That's what I believe will give us the best control and the most effective program in the country.

Mr. Minister, I'm not here to criticize. I believe that you're doing a marvellous job. And this ministry is doing the best job that's ever been done in this province. But I would ask you to answer that question: are we not in fact relying to a greater extent on contractors to provide many of those services?

MR. SIHOTA: Let's go back to the Minister of Labour, after hearing that rant from the Premier about increases in the size of the public sector. It's interesting to note, of course, that since the Premier has come into office the size of his office has been tripled, perhaps even quadrupled, and he talks about reducing the size of government. There you have it. If there's anything that should be contracted out, in my view it's the Premier. We should get a new Premier in.

I want to get back to the Minister of Labour and ask him a basic question here. Someone used to provide these services. We're seeking an assurance that those services are still provided. Those services are essential, in the sense that those societies which are now being required to deliver the services that you and the Premier speak of have to fall back on someone for information and advice with respect to various forms of alcohol or drugs. That being the case, we are seeking assurance that those services are continuing to be provided, by whom, to what extent and in what portions of the province.

It's not a difficult question if the database is there. If the database is not there, then the minister should agree to bring us back that information, and we can take it from there to get those assurances that those services are being provided. With that explanation, I hope the minister is now able to provide us a clear answer.

HON. L. HANSON: I get the gist of the argument at this point: the members opposite feel that unless the service is delivered by a government employee, it's not delivered properly. The fact is that the service is being delivered, and it's being delivered on a regional basis. If the members would do an analysis of the service that is being delivered in each region, you would find that it is much better than it has ever been before. You'd also find that we have hundreds of people working on drug and alcohol rehabilitation, education and so on. Many of them are with a contracted agency; many are with a society that has been approved for a particular region; many are just plain volunteers, having a sincere interest in people with this difficulty.

[3:45]

HON. MR. DIRKS: On that last point by the minister, I'd just like to get up and compliment him on two programs basically. One certainly deals with regionalization, and that's his CAP program, where people in the area are looking at the various projects put forth by their peers and colleagues in the communities. They're assessing those programs and looking very closely at them. I would compliment you on this program, because I think it's very effective and

[ Page 6950 ]

certainly spoken very highly of in the Kootenay and Thompson-Okanagan regions.

The other is the work that is done by your workers' adviser. Over the last couple of years he has made several trips into my constituency to deal with members of the constituency who have had some problems with the Workers' Compensation Board. In both instances he has spent long days in the constituency office talking to constituents, and in a number of cases he was able to solve their problem simply by knowing which buttons to press at the right time and talking with the people on a one-to-one basis.

You've got two programs there that I certainly would like to compliment you on, Mr. Minister.

MRS. BOONE: I think we've ground to a halt on this thing here. The minister misinterpreted what we're saying. We are concerned that the job is being done. You have not been able to tell us who is doing the jobs that were done by the people that were let go. You say it's being done on a regional basis. You can't tell us who's doing it.

The fact is that there are no standards. No matter what the Premier says, when he goes on a rant regarding the private sector being able to do it better and all of these things, without any standards out there, we are unable to determine whether the same standards exist throughout this province. There are no standards regarding the qualifications of personnel, there are no standards regarding the quality of service that should be available throughout this province, and there are no standards regarding wages or salaries for people. That's a very basic thing. There are no standards in this province, and you are eliminating some of the central things. We have some grave concerns when it comes down to the establishment of standards, and that is what I think the ministry should be doing. You should not be giving up your responsibility of establishing those standards.

I'd like to ask the minister some questions on the establishment of the TRY program, which was developed and circulated. I understand that this program was developed completely independently from existing government programs, that the TRY phone line is contracted out, that the TRY booklet was contracted out and produced independently, and that there was no consultation at all with alcohol and drug program employees who provide education and prevention services for the government. Basically, it was organized and developed without any input from the ministry. Can the minister please comment on why the TRY campaign was developed using outside ad agencies and private consultants designing and implementing a program that could have — and should have — had the input of the ministry educational people?

HON. L. HANSON: That's sure interesting. I'm not sure where the member gets her information from — obviously from some source that I don't have access to.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The program was developed by the alcohol and drug programs branch of my ministry. It was thoroughly edited and reviewed by the interministerial committee on alcohol and drugs. It was reviewed and edited by the minister's advisory committee on alcohol and drugs. For the benefit of the member opposite, the members of that committee are Dr. Raymond Baker, who represents the B.C. Medical Association; Capt. Christine MacMillan, who represents the B.C. Health Association; Neil Menard, who is a representative of the B.C. Federation of Labour; Robert Buckley of the B.C. Business Council; Chief Constable Bill Snowdon from the B.C. Police Association; Laura Acton, school trustee; Dan Cumming of UBCM — Dan isn't chairman of UBCM anymore, but he is still involved; Charlene Belleau from the B.C. Tribal Forum; Flora MacLeod from United Way; Don McLean from ICBC; Bill Greer of WCB; John Smith, a medical consultant; a representative of the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association; a citizen at large, Ardayth Cooper; the Distillers of B.C.; the Vintners' Association; the Brewers' Association; the director of alcohol and drug programs, David Gilbert; my assistant deputy, Claude Heywood; and recently we added a representative of the Neighbourhood Pub Owners' Association.

The TRY program went through that process, which I think the member would have to admit is pretty involving of ministerial staff and those people who have an interest publicly.

MRS. BOONE: Was there any consultation at all with the alcohol and drug employees who provide education and prevention services for the government — the resources people we were talking about earlier?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, all the regional managers we have were involved in the process after they had talked to their individual regional staff. I really have difficulty in understanding how the member can suggest that it was done in isolation, without consultation. I don't know who else we could talk to.

MRS. BOONE: I asked the minister if he consulted with the education and prevention people. You won't answer that. You have not been answering any of the other questions that I put to you, so I won't expect an answer from that either.

CAP grants are given out, and there is a review committee established for each region. I understand that would be eight regions, probably through the ministries of state. Am I correct in that? Can the minister tell me how much has been budgeted for CAP for each of those regions?

HON. L. HANSON: I am just getting those figures. As I recall them, about $600,000 for last year. I think special programs had just in excess of $4 million this year.

[ Page 6951 ]

MR. LOENEN: How much for each zone?

HON. L. HANSON: How much for each zone? I'd have to get that information; I don't think I have it here. There are specific amounts for each zone, but I don't know that I have that information. We have the total budget allocation: region 1, which is Vancouver, was almost $8 million. Anyway, a total of $27 million for all of those regions — but that isn't CAP; it's the total budget for each of those regions. I can get the member the exact figure for each of the five regions.

MRS. BOONE: Are you saying five regions or eight regions, Mr. Minister?

HON. L. HANSON: Five.

MRS. BOONE: So they are not on the ministries of state?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the members to address the Chair.

HON. L. HANSON: There are eight regions, but there are five ministers of state. They come under the five ministers of state. I can't remember all of the names. I can remember the one from Thompson-Okanagan. There are five ministers of state. They come under the responsibilities or territories those ministers of state have.

MRS. BOONE: That's a different kettle of fish, because the ministers of state.... As you know, we have two ministers who are dealing with extremely large areas; in particular, the Minister of State for Northeast, or whatever it is up there. You've got him in the Nechako region as well.

If there is a review committee established for that region and that minister, is it the same one that deals with grants that go to the Peace River as compared to grants that go to Bums Lake? Would the same committee make decisions on those grants?

HON. L. HANSON: I guess it's a little confusing There are eight regions. Each of those regions has a committee representing them. Some of the ministers of state have two committees within their territory, because they have two regions. With five ministers of state and eight regions, some of them obviously have more than one region. Each region has a committee that is responsible to the minister of state, so there are effectively eight committees.

MRS. BOONE: I would appreciate it if the minister could get me the figures as to how much is available in the CAP program through each of those regions. I understand that the process involved right now is that a group may make an application. It goes to the regional alcohol and drug programs people, who investigate it and discover whether it's a legitimate organization, etc. They then pass it on to the review committee.

The review committee is the committee that makes the decisions as to whether a grant is approved or not. The ministry alcohol and drug people have no say in whether a program is good or not good; they merely state whether it is a legitimate organization or not. It's entirely the review committee's decision as to whether a grant is approved or not. Is that correct? If I'm not correct on that — I could be a little fuzzy — perhaps the minister can just inform me as to how those decisions are made.

HON. L. HANSON: The regional manager of alcohol and drug programs sits on each of those committees; therefore the philosophies of alcohol and drug prevention programs are taken into consideration when an application is approved or turned down. They have to have a component of education or public awareness before the program is approved. The way you explained it is substantially correct, yes.

MRS. BOONE: I understand that there are deadlines for submitting grants and for grants to be approved. What are the deadlines for those grants, please?

[4:00]

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, there are deadlines. I would be pleased to give them to the member. There will be another program with funds attached to it for assessment this fall which will also have a publicized date by which applications must be in before they can be considered by the committee.

MRS. BOONE: I can't get answers to some of the questions, because the minister hasn't got the information regarding how much was available for each region. One of the things I want to know is: how much was available to each region? Did any region last year, for example, which is now completed — I know it was a short year, the program had only come out — spend its entire budget? If there was money left over, what happened to that money? Is it rolled over so that they can use it this year? Is it lost? What happens to those things?

It's my understanding that in some regions some of the review committees are actually being overly frugal, one might say, with the money, and that programs are being turned down. All of the money is not being spent in those regions. I guess the concern I have is that I want to know how much was available for the regions. I want to know how much was spent last year. How much is budgeted this year for each of those regions for CAP? How much is available for those people? I've done some figures here in terms of spending for this fiscal year and have come up with $661,859, which I have calculated from the press releases that come through my office. I'm assuming that you do press releases on everything, because we get press releases on $2,000, so I assume that most of these things are press-released, with your commitment to $137 million repeated over and over. I just want to know how much has been spent, how much is still available for those people in the next year, if

[ Page 6952 ]

those moneys are being accessed and what happens to the money that does not get spent or accessed through the years.

I think it's an important issue, because it's very easy for the government to announce $137 million over three years, if in fact they are turning around and not spending that money. If the money is just being lost, then $137 million is not really being spent.

I'd like to ask the minister how much the advertising program that has taken place cost, including the TRY pamphlet and other advertising programs with regard to the program.

HON. L. HANSON: You started off on another tack there. I think I could answer some of the other questions that you had in the first place.

Last year, as you know, was the first year of the program. It wasn't a full year, because the announcement didn't come out immediately and the program wasn't in place immediately. In that period some of the regions spent all of their allocation, some spent even slightly over. Some didn't spend all of their allocation. The funding that was not spent, as with any government program, went back into the general fund; it doesn't carry forward each year.

This year we have pretty well exhausted — I'll get you all of the figures, to be exact — the first allocation of funds with the first deadline, as a provincewide program. We anticipate that in the second phase we will also allocate because, if anything, we're always short of funds. At some point we may have to look at the amounts allocated to each area and where the demand and the programs require some additional funding. There may be some adjustment when we look at another area whose allocation isn't being completely utilized.

But we certainly expect that this year — the year we're talking about now — will see the expenditure of all of the funds. I will get the information on what happened last year, what amount was allocated for the first application period this year — by region — and what is allocated for next year.

Moving on to the TRY program, we allocated slightly in excess of $2 million on the program. That included the print campaign in the newspapers, television listings, bus-boards, community relations programs, research and other materials, such as posters and newsletters. The cost of producing the TRY booklet in itself — in isolation of that, although it's included in that figure — was $292,000, and the cost of the distribution to about 1.2 million homes was $73,500. Printing and distribution cost about $365,000. The total media expenditures on the TRY campaign as of April 7 for television, radio, bus-boards and newspapers, including ethnic radio and television advertising, was almost $900,000 — $882,868.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would first like to ask the minister if he could advise us about the status of a couple of facilities in the lower mainland — the Peak program and Pacifica — where there were some concerns about the contract that the ministry was proposing with these organizations, concerns that in both cases saw the potential loss of those programs within the communities. Pacifica is a short-term residential program in New Westminster which provides services for a rank-and-file population and also has a seniors' program associated with it. The Peak program, of course, is for youth. I wonder if the minister could advise us about the status of contract discussions and the ongoing stability of those programs at this time.

HON. L. HANSON: We have reached agreement with Pacifica, and there is now a contract in place. Hopefully we will enjoy the services of Pacifica for a number of years. It has certainly been one of our highly esteemed treatment centres.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to turn to the working relationships between the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services and the Ministry of Education around drug abuse and alcohol abuse with young people, particularly adolescents.

One of the areas discussed by the Royal Commission on Education was the need for a coordinated approach among ministries targeted to young people, a whole range of programs and services and issues that affect children's and students' education but don't necessarily fall within the purview and the responsibility of educators, if you like, or the Education ministry.

Is this ministry seeing itself as part of what is proposed to be a protocol among a number of ministries, with the Ministry of Education, around the provision of services and programs? I would particularly see this in respect to the drug and alcohol abuse programs that might be offered. Could the minister advise us what the plans are in that area?

HON. L. HANSON: I would like to assure the member that because the responsibility for drug and alcohol has been transferred to the ministry there is no lack of cooperation with the other ministries involved. The most involvement in it, of course, is with the Education, Health and Social Services ministries.

We have an interministerial committee that works very closely in the development of those interministerial programs. The health care part of the education curriculum is being developed, and it includes an alcohol and drug component of the health curriculum that will become part of the Ministry of Education's curriculum.

We work very closely with those ministries, and I must comment that the cooperation we have received through that interministerial committee is highly effective and working very well. We have very little difficulty with that situation.

MS. A. HAGEN: I wonder if the minister could advise us, in addition to the alcohol and drug component of a health curriculum, what programs — and particularly what lighthouse programs, what

[ Page 6953 ]

new programs — his ministry may have in mind around the concern about drug abuse with young people. It's an ongoing issue, and certainly in respect to some of the, shall we say, newer drugs there is real concern in communities about young people getting access to and becoming involved with drugs that are highly addictive and really very dangerous to their health and well-being.

It's an issue that we would want to deal with in a preventive way. It's an issue that we would not want to see escalate to become a major problem with young people. That, I think, requires this ministry working in cooperation with the Ministry of Education to be ever vigilant.

One of the concerns in the schools is having the dollars and the trained personnel to provide the programs and services that are effective for young people. I'd like to know the minister's views and what actions he has proposed for the coming year in this very important area, particularly for the adolescents of the province.

HON. L. HANSON: We certainly see the youth and children as an area of special responsibility. Although it doesn't stop there, certainly it is a very important part. As I said, the Ministry of Education is cooperating very well with the ministry. They are in the process, as a matter of fact, of developing an in-school poster program right at the moment.

We have a small pilot program working with some of the high schools in Vancouver. In phase 2 of our TRY program we will be paying special attention to youth and their difficulties. There are a number of community things happening under the CAP program — so many that it's really hard to elaborate on all of them — but a number of them are directed at young people.

[4:15]

I believe one community's CAP program funded a theatre production related to drug and alcohol difficulties that was going to be taken through all the schools. We've printed and distributed a number of informational brochures that deal with the effects of using various drugs. One that has become high-profile in the media recently is something called crack. We've had a number of brochures printed on its effects and we're distributing those throughout the school system.

So we're taking a number of initiatives. Again, we still hope this fall to introduce into the health part of the curriculum some of the drug and alcohol educational aspects that would, with the cooperation of everyone, become part of the curriculum taught in all schools. I believe K to 10 are the age limits initially proposed.

MS. A. HAGEN: Does this ministry have a research and evaluation capacity around the need for programs and the effectiveness of programs? In many instances these programs are delivered through the Ministry of Education for the student body that we're talking about. That ministry is not expert in this particular area, and the problem is a changing one. We know that we've always had a problem with the use of alcohol among young people. We know that peer programs, for instance, have worked extremely effectively where they have been introduced to limit the number of young people who begin to smoke at an early age. And we know that by limiting the early introduction to smoking, we lower the number of students who eventually become smokers. The more esoteric areas that concern us all are the dangerous drugs that are available to young people and that we find moving in and around our communities.

I'm really looking for some indication of who is keeping tabs on this, who has some measure of the dimensions of the program, who knows where those problems are surfacing. What kind of research do we have in this ministry or, if not in this ministry, in some other ministry that really lets us target? Once programs are in place — if indeed they are in place — how are they evaluated? Are we really, through this ministry, able to be on top of this situation at the point where it's most important for us to be providing a service, education, a treatment response? Can the minister give us some idea where his ministry fits with that need?

HON. L. HANSON: We have allocated some $2.3 million in our budget to the evaluation and research side of alcohol and drug programs. In the communities we are organizing a coordinating body, if you will, trying to get.... For example, in many communities we now have an assessment team working in the hospitals, composed of a doctor, a nurse, an alcohol counsellor, a clerk and probably one or two others. In a number of communities we have a program for women where they have alcohol counselling and so on. I've forgotten the name of it; I was trying to think of it in my own community. In other words, in each community a number of people are very involved: Alcoholics Anonymous, the native communities.

We're now trying to put together advisory committees or coordinating committees so that no one is abandoned after a period of treatment. The assessment team in the hospital may help to educate the doctors and the nurses to recognize symptoms of abuse: even though the patient may come in with some other problem, to recognize that a contributing one may be a symptom of abuse. What happens when those people leave the hospital scene? Is there some coordination so that they get further treatment and so on? When we've got those teams organized, we hope they will provide some assessment of the various programs. We would look to the regional managers and those people involved for assessment of the programs that are going on. We would ask the teams that we have in those hospitals to make that assessment also.

I'm not sure you were here when I named the people on the committee. We have them operating in a number of areas. They are very interested in the alcohol and drug program, and most of them have almost daily contact with the difficulty. We will be

[ Page 6954 ]

asking them to assess the various aspects of the program.

We are very much in the growing stage of putting these programs in place, so if at any time we will ever be very conscious of assessing all the things we're doing it certainly will be now, because we are looking at and evaluating everything that has been done in the past and all the new programs we will be putting in place. Assessment of the performance of these various programs is very high on the list of priorities, and we will use every resource we have available to us to help with those assessments.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to change the topic slightly and ask a couple of questions of the minister to better understand the process the ministry undertakes as far as labour market strategies go. Could the minister indicate whether or not there are at present any interministerial committees dealing with the overall issue of labour market strategy?

HON. L. HANSON: I think you may be referring to the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training for that initiative.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm asking the minister whether his ministry does any work with regard to overall labour market strategies — what's going on in the province; is any legislation needed to assist specific groups; is anything needed in the way of government assistance to encourage development in any particular sectors; what is the reality among working people in this province; how can the ministry help; those kinds of things.

HON. L. HANSON: I'm sure the member is referring to the Ministry of Advanced Education, because that's where that responsibility lies directly.

We do have an interest in maintaining employment standards: hours of work and those sorts of things. At one time the Ministry of Labour had the responsibility for apprenticeship programs and so on, but that was transferred to the Ministry of Advanced Education. We do keep track of the conditions of various contracts that are negotiated within the province. One of the responsibilities of the Industrial Relations Council is to provide a database for those particular kinds of things. My ministry does deal with the minimum wage, and continually assesses it and how it is affecting the workplace.

Other than providing some information to the Ministry of Advanced Education, we don't do an assessment if there are more.... As an example, are more electrical installers needed in the province? We would provide some information if we had it within the ministry, but we wouldn't have the direct responsibility for determining that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Is the minister saying that you're not involved in any long-term or overall planning?

HON. L. HANSON: We certainly are involved in all sorts of long-term planning, but not in the area the member is asking about.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister is having some difficulty. I'll provide some specifics.

The area I'm particularly interested in is women and their role in the labour force. The reason I have more or less zeroed in on that area is twofold: (1) I feel some attention needs to be paid because of historical inequities; and (2) because of my critic responsibility with social services and the information that is coming to my attention in increasing quantities that women are disproportionately poor in our society in general. The statistics I'd like to share with you.... I'm hoping you can provide some information as to the attention your ministry has paid to this specific area, and I'm looking for some indication that your ministry is doing some work in this area and will provide some leadership, not only in your direct responsibility for labour but also in your cabinet responsibilities in working with other ministries to address some of these wrongs.

I'd like to start off by sharing with you a quote from a United Nations report. This quote has been used over and over again. I'm sure the minister is very familiar with it. The report is called "The State of the World's Women." The quote says: "Women still perform two-thirds of the world's work, receive one-tenth of its income and own less than one hundredth of its property." In our society, the only way that income is distributed is through wages and work; therefore, there is a direct responsibility. I believe it falls on your ministry's shoulders.

When first reading quotes like that, one tends to feel that those statistics are directly affected by countries in the Third World, and somehow they don't relate to Canada or indeed to British Columbia, given the wealth of our province. Unfortunately, that's not the case. The reality in British Columbia is that women are still stuck in low-paying positions. They are not being hired or promoted at the same rate as men. According to a particular report filed in Ottawa and done on 371 federally regulated businesses in 1988, the average income across Canada for women is something like 65 percent of that earned by men.

It becomes increasingly obvious that in British Columbia, on the basis of the same report.... Statistics show that men in Prince George, for instance, earned more than twice as much as women. The median male salary in Prince George based on income tax filed in 1986 was $27,300 or $4,500 higher than the provincial average. By contrast, women in the city earned a median wage of $10,400 compared to $11,600 for the province as a whole.

[4:30]

The income tax data show that the gap between women and men in the central interior and the rest of the province has widened since 1981, in terms of median salary. Things are getting worse instead of better. I'm hoping that the minister can indicate that

[ Page 6955 ]

attention is being paid to this situation, and I'd like to hear what you're doing about it.

HON. L. HANSON: We have knowledge of the issue, and we are concerned. I believe, in today's expressions, that you're really talking about pay equity legislation. That's probably what you're looking at.

Four other provinces have pay equity legislation at the moment. Ontario has had considerable experience or difficulty with its application. We are monitoring what is happening in the other jurisdictions in Canada. We have no intention of introducing any legislation in the immediate future, but we're certainly aware of the situation and are watching what is happening in other jurisdictions.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm very disappointed to hear that, and I'd like to go on. While the government continues to monitor the situation, women in this province face a rather abysmal reality. Let me give you a few more statistics. More than half of all low-income Canadians — and that goes for British Columbians as well — are female. Six in ten low-income persons between the ages of 16 and 64 are women. Seven in ten of the elderly poor are women. Women constitute 82.7 percent of the unattached aged with low incomes. That's the reality. Those are the facts of life that women face in this province. I would like to hear from the minister why he thinks those facts exist.

HON. L. HANSON: I don't dispute that those facts exist. I haven't been privileged to see the research the member has done, so I am not going to even comment on them.

We do continue to monitor the situation. I think it's an unfair comparison, to make generalizations like you're making. There is an acknowledgment that it is something that society will have to look at. We in this government, as we assess the situation and assess how successful other jurisdictions are in dealing with it, will bring forward our position on it at that time.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister has not disputed the fact that the way wealth gets distributed in our country is through the wage. The minister also acknowledges that he has some responsibility through legislation and otherwise to affect that in some way.

Let me share another startling statistic that really should bring the issue home and hopefully move the government in some way. This is the government that tried to make some hay on their profile of strengthening the family. Let me tell you that families headed by women are more than four times as likely to be poor as male-led families. The number of single-parent families in this province, and in Canada, has been on the increase for some years. Well over half of all female-headed families are currently on welfare, because women cannot make enough money to feed their families. That is impacted not only — as the minister indicated — by wage equity legislation, but also by the minimum wage. It is also impacted by the need for affirmative action programs in the province.

These gross inequities in our society have been in existence for a long time. Some provinces are grappling with the issue, some more successfully than others. For this government, who say they care about families, not to be putting together programs that deal with these inequities, deal with the existence of poverty in this one group alone — a group that is poor only because of their gender — is not good enough.

The statistics I shared with the minister indicating that seven in ten of our seniors are women living in poverty are an indication of this neglect that has gone on for so long — neglect not only in the area of need for intervention because of the minimum wage or pay equity, but also pensions. Many of those women worked most of their lives in one type of job or another and found themselves at the age of 65 without the support to live in dignity.

I am hoping that the minister will strike a committee with the Minister of Social Services acknowledging that women are disproportionately poor and that your ministry has the mandate to deal with the whole area of the labour market and wages. Along with the Ministry of Social Services, you should encourage the Minister of Advanced Education, now responsible for the status of women, to sit down and put a program in place that begins to deal with women's reality in this province and begins to use as its mandate or its priority the eradication of poverty in this group. I am hoping that the next time we deal with the estimates of your ministry, you'll be able to let the House know that there is some sort of positive action in this area.

HON. L. HANSON: The issue the member has raised is certainly a very complex one in our society. I think that we would actually be remiss in attempting to deal with it without a really in-depth look at the various difficulties that are faced by women in our society. There is no doubt that this government has a commitment to that. In the throne speech, the Lieutenant-Governor said that we will be appointing a minister of state for women, which will be done at the Premier's timing but, I understand, before too much time has elapsed. Certainly that is a lead issue that the individual with that responsibility could certainly take.

I have had discussions with my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen), who by now does have some responsibilities in that area. But it's a much more complex question.

The member mentioned that a number of our female senior citizens are in financial difficulties or are living in poverty. We certainly want to provide solutions that will work, as opposed to solutions that may not work. That's why we are continuing to see what is happening in other jurisdictions and hopefully we'll be able to gain information from that. Certainly it would be a very appropriate issue that the new minister of state for women would address very early in their agenda.

[ Page 6956 ]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR SIHOTA: I was going to deal with another matter, and I'll get to that in a few minutes; but I want to just canvass this a bit further, in light of the comments that were raised by my colleague from Surrey.

Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised at the minister's response to this issue. The issue of poverty and the extent to which poverty overwhelms women is an issue that should not be just glossed over during the course of a 15-minute discussion here. I'm a little surprised that the minister's basic view is: "Well, we're looking to see what's going on and we're seeing what other jurisdictions are doing."

I would like to know from the minister: what studies have you taken, if any, of the Ontario legislation, for example; and what are your conclusions with respect to that legislation? Are you saying that that legislation is impractical, can't work, can't be applied to British Columbia? I would like to have some indication of the extent to which the ministry is monitoring it. Is it a casual monitoring of it? Is it a serious monitoring of it? And if so, to what extent and which way is his ministry probing it? What kind of funds are committed by his ministry in this year's budget to the analysis of pay equity?

Those are very basic questions that I think the minister should provide my colleague with an answer to.

HON. L. HANSON: We continually monitor all things that are happening within the responsibility of the ministry. Our experience with the Ontario legislation has been — at least the initial response — that it isn't working as well as had been anticipated. We have a research branch that continually reviews the issue. We are in constant contact with the officials in Ontario. We're certainly not glossing over the issue. We continue to monitor those sorts of things that are happening In all jurisdictions.

I get reports periodically on successes and on difficulties that others are facing, those that are intending to introduce this sort of legislation. I have, as I said earlier, no initiative at this point to introduce legislation immediately; but we certainly are continuing to study and monitor. We don't allocate specific funds within the ministry to do this; it's an ongoing responsibility of the ministry and is included in the overall budget of the research branch, which has the responsibility to continually monitor what happens. There are several people doing that on a regular full-time basis, not restricted to this particular issue but for a number of issues.

[4:45]

MR SIHOTA: What impediments does the minister see to the implementation of a pay equity principle in British Columbia? In light of what has obviously been some study by the minister, perhaps he could advise us what impediments he sees to the implementation of that kind of principle in British Columbia.

HON. L. HANSON: The member asked what impediments we see. We don't see any impediments other than we haven't at this point developed a philosophy or seen a philosophy used in another jurisdiction that works as well as originally intended. I quote from the Globe and Mail: "'More than half of the 1.7 million women covered by Ontario's pay equity legislation will get no benefits from it because of a loophole in the law,' the Pay Equity Commission reported yesterday." It goes on with that. We haven't yet seen an attempt to deal with the situation in its entirety the way we feel it should be. That's the impediment.

MR. SIHOTA: If there is a loophole in the legislation, it's certainly not difficult for British Columbia to come up with legislation that mirrors Ontario, for example — if we were to go to the Ontario model — and plugs the loophole now that you're aware of it. There's all sorts of other legislation that we introduce in British Columbia, and we don't hesitate to introduce it because in other jurisdictions where they've implemented it, other people have found a loophole. Since when has it been the policy of government to wait till there's absolute perfection in legislation in other jurisdictions and only then to move with the implementation of legislation? That's not the way it works. Different provinces, based upon their philosophical commitment, introduce legislation based upon their political agenda. If there are difficulties, then you remedy them as time goes on.

I don't understand your saying: "Okay, here's this Globe and Mail article that points out what's wrong with Ontario." Isn't it the case, Mr. Minister, that it's just not a philosophical priority for this government to move for equity in the fashion that we're talking about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we go to the next speaker, I might just remind hon. members, as I did yesterday, of the citation from the nineteenth edition of Sir Erskine May — I believe it was on page 741 — which says that during the course of debate there should not be any debate on the requirement for legislation or legislation that might be coming down this session. I just remind members of that. We're still on vote 41.

MR SIHOTA: I'll go back to the question I asked the minister, because I'm not standing up here, in all respect, Mr. Chairman, to talk about legislation. It's interesting, because we've had an enormous debate here all day long, and the Premier has gone out of his way to speak on legislation, and we're just on the periphery of talking about legislation.

What I'm talking about is a philosophical commitment from this government, and one of the ways you reflect that philosophical commitment is legislation. Let's put that aside. The other way you reflect that is in allocation of funds through your ministry for those kinds of initiatives. Is it not true then — let me ask the minister again — that the reason the government isn't moving quickly on the matter of equity as we've

[ Page 6957 ]

described it is that there's no philosophical commitment? The government just doesn't see it as a philosophical priority. Isn't that really the case, Mr. Minister?

HON. L. HANSON: As I said earlier, we have monitored the situation. We've seen too many examples where legislation is produced that hasn't been well thought out or researched and doesn't perform what it was intended to do. The legislation in Ontario has had some difficulty in its application. It's been difficult to find the appropriate benchmarks, and sometimes it can be particularly expensive to small businesses. To focus issues just like this is why we are appointing a minister with the responsibilities to specifically deal with issues of this sort. I find that difficult to translate into a philosophy that we have no interest.

MR. SIHOTA: Let's just go back to the basic point here. First of all, there is no point in talking about the possibility of another ministry being created. We don't know if that's going to happen. We haven't seen the legislation. In fact, if one reads what the press is reporting, it's questionable.

Secondly, we don't know if this matter would fall within the purview of that committee. What we do know is that the matter now falls — today as we stand here — within the purview of this ministry and this minister. So this move from hypothesis to fact....

Now let me ask the minister again the pivotal question here. Will he agree that it's simply not a priority matter for his ministry? Yes or no?

HON. L. HANSON: I've answered the question about ten times already. I think the member wants me to get up and say that we have no intention, and that it's not a priority. That's just not true. We look at it as a very important part of a social difficulty that exists not only in British Columbia but in all of Canada.

The philosophy that was expounded in the throne speech is that we will be appointing a minister responsible for the interests of women. That is the philosophy of this government. If the member doesn't accept that, he will have to ask someone else.

MR. SIHOTA: What I don't like is the fact that the minister's view seems to be that we are just going to continue to look at it. We have here a kind of — if I can put it this way to illustrate the example — cancer that is spreading. It's not adequate to simply say that we are going to look at it as the problem becomes greater and greater. The question is: what initiatives is your ministry offering to remedy the spread of that cancer or that social phenomenon? What steps is his ministry taking this year to remedy that problem? That's the question.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister shook his head and refused to get to his feet. We've outlined the reality of poverty among women. The minister has recognized that he has some responsibility, and he says he is studying it. Perhaps we can get at it another way.

Not only the issue of equity and closing the wage gap, but the issue of the minimum wage, affirmative action.... Can the minister indicate what kind of study or information you have at your disposal about women's situation in the labour market here in British Columbia? Will you share that with us?

HON. L. HANSON: I have statistics of wages earned by various segments of the market. I don't have studies that deal with the poverty aspect of what the member is asking. I deal with those gross statistics as they are presented to me. Percentages and various things have to be analyzed very carefully. We continue to do that.

I repeat that we are looking at the pay equity legislation that has been introduced in some other jurisdictions, and we see several difficulties that are happening, or at least that they are experiencing in those jurisdictions. We will continue to look at that until we see a really good solution that someone has had experience with.

We quite often generate legislation. The member opposite would be surprised if, when we generate legislation, we don't look at what is happening in other jurisdictions. We spend a long time before we bring forward legislation. We will continue to do that. Our commitment to the status of women as such, our philosophy, was outlined in the throne speech. Regardless of what happens with that, if we do reach the point where we introduce legislation to this effect — and the Chairman mentioned that's out of line in the discussion of the estimates — it probably will lie within my ministry, despite what the.... The ministry of state with that responsibility would certainly be involved in anything we did in that area.

Again, I tell the members that we monitor it and will continue to monitor it. I'm made aware of many observations on things that have happened in other jurisdictions. I haven't commissioned a study, but we continue to monitor what happens in just about all jurisdictions and on just about all of the responsibilities of the ministry to see if there is an idea we can adapt to some problem we may be having here or to see how a certain idea is working in another jurisdiction. That's part of every minister's responsibility.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think what is very clear here is that this particular minister has done absolutely nothing to deal with the inequities in the labour market. We've asked him several times to give us information specific to women's reality in the labour market. We've asked him to refer to studies, and he says he continues to monitor. We've asked him for action, and he indicates that some mythical ministry of state may indeed do some work in this regard.

I want to remind the minister that the statistics I have shared with you to do with women's poverty in this province are the history of this government and of your political party. Thirty years of rule in British Columbia has created this poverty. Thirty years of

[ Page 6958 ]

rule and inaction has brought about a history of inequity, where women in this province....

[5:00]

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we're here to discuss the estimates of the Minister of Labour. Dealing with the social problem of poverty is for another discussion. If we can stick to our estimates, it certainly would....

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to remind the minister of his mandate for the labour market in this province. We're not talking about a social phenomenon; we're talking about a labour market inequity. We are talking about a strategic component of the labour market — over 51 percent of the population — and an increasing number of people who are entering the market and using the wages they earn in that market to support their families. That is the minister's responsibility, and no matter how much the minister dodges and dances around it, it is because of his inaction that we continue to live with that reality.

I'd like to ask the minister specifically whether his ministry has done any research as to the type of employment and percentage of representation women have in different sectors of the labour market in this province.

While the minister looks for advice from his people, I might remind him that the report I referred to earlier — the one done for federally regulated businesses — is one of the very first ones that zeroed in on women's reality. I'm hoping the minister can dispel that and give me some indication that he or his ministry has done some research in this area.

HON. L. HANSON: I think the member must be confused about what the responsibility of this ministry is.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know.

HON. L. HANSON: I have a very clear understanding; I have difficulty with the understanding of the members opposite. What is the member looking for? Are you looking for pay equity legislation? Is that your request? I've told you that we will study that, and that when this government feels — according to the gentleman in the chair — that legislation is appropriate, we will bring it forward. At this point I have no intention of introducing legislation in this session.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister is having some problems hearing. I'm not talking specifically about pay equity legislation. I'm talking about the reality women face in the labour market; I'm talking about a minimum wage that is at half the poverty line. The minister has indicated that the minimum wage is under his responsibility.

Is there any relief, Mr. Minister? Have you done any studies as to who gets the minimum wage in our province and whether or not people can live and support their families on minimum wage? I suggest that the statistics I gave you as to the number of women living in abject poverty have to do with that reality. Perhaps the minister can tell me whether he's looked into that aspect of his responsibility and whether we can look forward to any action there.

HON. L. HANSON: Again, we continue to look at the minimum wage. When this government was first elected, I believe the minimum wage was $3.50 or $3.35, I'm not sure. We've had continual studies done within the ministry; they're internal studies. And as a result of those studies, we have seen two increases in that minimum wage. When we do those increases, before we take that final step to increase the minimum wage, we do the studies to see whom it affects, and get responses from the different segments of the marketplace. So we continually do that. I have had in my term as Minister of Labour maybe four presentations from my staff on the effects of the minimum wage: what it is in other jurisdictions and what happens when you increase it, and so on. With that information, we generate the decision that we should increase it or leave it the same or increase it to whatever level. That's an ongoing process. It's always happening.

MR SIHOTA: I want to pursue this matter a little bit further with the minister, and get off the minimum wage for a minute and get back to pay equity. The minister is correct: we are raising a social problem during the context of his estimates. Certain social problems fall within the purview of certain ministries. Health-related social problems fall within the Ministry of Health; some of them fall within the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. But the matter of incomes earned by women as compared to incomes earned by others is an issue that falls within the purview of his ministry. That's the issue we're dealing with.

My colleague from Surrey has pointed out that there are significant discrepancies. Other jurisdictions have recognized, through ministries of labour, the presence of those discrepancies and tried to deal with them in different ways. Some have tried to deal with them with human rights legislation; others have chosen to deal with them with specific pay equity legislation; others have decided to deal with them through task forces. The question here is how this government is dealing with it, and the answer coming back is: "We're looking at it." I don't think that's adequate. I'd like some explanation in terms of what the minister means when he says "looking at it." If he could embellish on what his ministry is doing when he says "looking at it" — but I will get to that in a minute.

The other question, which he still hasn't answered and I will put to him again, is: what are you doing, as a ministry, constructively this year to remedy that problem? I'm not asking for legislation; I want to know what your ministry is doing to remedy that problem.

[ Page 6959 ]

HON. L. HANSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, that sounds to me like a thinly-disguised request for legislation. My learned friend over there may be able to argue in a courtroom the details of that, but to me, in my simple way, that is a request for legislation. As I told the members opposite and will repeat, we are aware of pay equity legislation. We are aware of what other jurisdictions are doing. We continually keep ourselves aware of what other jurisdictions do. I keep getting reports from my staff about how various things are working. We at this time do not intend to introduce legislation. I can't make it any clearer than that. If the member doesn't like the answers that I give, they are answers that are the truth, and I don't know what other answer he would like.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the truth of the matter is that, quite frankly, you're not doing much. And quite frankly, the reason you're not doing much is that you don't have a philosophical commitment and, quite frankly, you're scared about the implications. Quite frankly, as you said earlier on, Mr. Minister, you're worried about the reaction you're going to get from certain components of the business community who don't adequately understand the nature of the discussion. It's that lack of understanding which in some ways, I think, has come from the minister.

When the minister says that he requires legislation, let me just quote to him the following. Okay? Just listen to this for a second: "No employer shall discriminate between his male or female employees by employing an employee of one sex for work at a rate of pay that is less than the rate of pay at which an employee of the other sex is employed by that employer for similar or substantially similar work." Do you know where that comes from?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: That's right. From section 7 of the human rights legislation, which of course falls within the purview of the ministry. And it is true that there are some people — the minister will talk about my profession — who will talk about the meaning of words like "substantially similar work." I think we know that there's a certain debate that goes on in human rights circles on the wording of this provision: whether it goes far enough or not. You may not even need legislation; you may have it. The Human Rights Commission.... So let's put aside that concern which the minister keeps on hanging his hat on, in terms of us talking about new legislation. You may already have the provision.

What you lack is giving some direction. What you lack is the will to say to the people who look after that legislation: "Yes, let's make that provision a reality for a change. Let's put some meaning behind that. As a matter of government policy we want to make sure that the spirit — not the legalese but the spirit — of that section is being adhered to."

I want to make it very clear to the minister that the issue here is one of simple government commitment and whether or not you've got the commitment to deal with the issue. Let me ask the minister again if it is not true that it's simply not a priority matter for the ministry.

HON. L. HANSON: I thank the member for pointing out that it's in the Human Rights Act. Where that is contravened, they should take it to the Human Rights Act for a decision.

The member opposite wants me to say that pay equity is not a priority. It's not a non-issue either. It's something that we in the ministry deal with as a regular handling of the responsibilities of the ministry.

I reiterate that we have no intention of introducing legislation, quite simply because we haven't come to that decision as yet. That decision is a decision of government — when they feel it is appropriate.

In trying to force me to say it isn't a priority, you can then stand up and say: "The Minister of Labour says it's not a priority." Well, it is a priority and it isn't a priority; it is something that we deal with as our normal responsibility in our day-to-day interests in the responsible running of government, and we will continue to do that. When we are ready to introduce legislation, the member opposite will be advised.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister himself doesn't have to say in this House that it's not a priority; his actions speak for themselves. It's implicit from the absence of action that it's not a priority. It's certainly incumbent upon the minister to make the case that it is. To say that we are "looking at it" is not really making much of a case. There certainly is very little in terms of substance to what the minister has to say in that regard.

[5:15]

I know the minister understands the political consequences of being pinned down on the matter of saying it's not a priority. The minister doesn't want me to run up and down the province telling groups that he and I always speak to and the other groups that I speak to in my justice responsibility. He doesn't, of course, give me the words directly saying it's not a priority, but it really isn't; that's very clear.

If it is, I'll give you a couple of escapes right now. Are you prepared, Mr. Minister, this year to direct the Council of Human Rights to conduct an investigation into the matter of pay equity, with some recommendations to the government, pursuant to the powers that exist under the Human Rights Act? Is the minister prepared to ask the council to do a study on pay equity? Is he prepared, as a sign of priority in the ministry? Yes or no.

HON. L. HANSON: That's not the responsibility of the Council of Human Rights. It's a semi-judicial body that deals with issues that are brought before them for resolution.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister can give direction to that council. He can request that the council do a study on the issue. The council has, under section 7,

[ Page 6960 ]

which I just quoted to the minister, the ability to look into the pay equity issue.

Let me ask him this: if he's not prepared to do that, as a sign of his government's priority on this issue, is he prepared to refer the matter to the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations to make a report to the House on it?

HON. L. HANSON: I am not prepared to reveal the government's plans for the future. When they are announced, the member will be made aware of them.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Both I and the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew are trying to get some indication of the kind of work the minister is doing; we're trying to look at what kind of opportunities the minister has for action. For the minister to say he is monitoring.... I said earlier that the minister is dodging and dancing around this issue. What are you afraid of, Mr. Minister?

The reality that women face in this province can be addressed. It takes political will; it takes a commitment from the appropriate ministers to look into the problem. If you have the commitment, use your resources and identify where the problems are. Look to the many groups that are working on this issue across Canada.

In the last year I have spent a considerable amount of time, in addition to my other responsibilities, looking at the issue of pay equity and at the other jurisdictions in Canada that have introduced legislation, and have compared much of that legislation, trying to find out where its strengths and weaknesses are, in an attempt to define what we will do when we become government. It's very clear that if the political will is there — certainly given your resources, which are far greater than mine — you should by this time be able to identify at least the direction that the government will go. I suggest that your inaction.... Certainly what we have seen today indicates that you have no intention, that you intend to ignore the issue as long as possible. I would suggest to you that the women of this province.... And I wouldn't by any means restrict it only to merely 51 percent of the population, because I think that most information that people have at this point indicates that there is a tremendous support out there to address these inequities.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Yes, the minister is right that other jurisdictions have problems with legislation that they have introduced. It's a learning experience. You identify those problems and you don't revisit them. You do something to address those problems in this jurisdiction. Certainly there has been enough learned by now in other provinces that this government could act. Just a holding brief, listening to what your staff have to say about what's going on in these other jurisdictions, isn't enough. We have asked you for action in this area, and we've suggested different areas where you could take action. Still we get nothing back.

MR. SIHOTA: It's not a priority.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It's very clearly not a priority, and by the way the minister is acting, I would suggest it's beyond that. It's not only not a priority, but I think you're afraid of something, afraid to address these basic injustices.

If it's not a priority and if it's not a matter of fear, then perhaps the minister just doesn't care. Is that it? Are all these words about families, about caring, just words? Where's the action? You know what the problem is. You certainly see the result of the history of this government. When are you going to act?

MR. SIHOTA: The minister's non-answer to those words from my friend from Surrey speaks for itself in terms of the absence of priority. I understand that there's no requirement on the minister to answer any questions. And I grant the minister, it is not an easy issue; it is a complex issue, and there are implications. We have looked at it. I am well aware of some of the complexities. We've looked at the legislation, and we are aware of some of the faults there.

It's a problem that is not going to go away. It's an issue that should be dealt with. It's an issue that most governments are sufficiently sensitive to, and want to deal with it in some affirmative way. I guess what I find disturbing about the debate that we have had on this issue is that the government isn't sufficiently sensitive to the issue to allocate it some priority.

You have got some options apart from legislation. Believe me, I am not a fan of referring stuff off over and over again, but I really do think that this is the kind of issue, given its complexity, on which you as a minister ought to invite some public response. This can be done in three ways. The best vehicle is a legislative committee; let it go around the province and seek briefs and submissions on the issue. You also have an opportunity through the Council of Human Rights. And you can establish your own committee to tour around the province, study the matter and make some reports to government, so we can get on with dealing with it.

In fairness, the government is remiss in not handling it that way; in fact, remiss in not handling it at all. I say that with respect to what the minister said earlier about looking at it. I understand what you're saying: you're looking at it. But quite frankly, you're doing no more than just monitoring the problem. I do believe that you are fearful of having to deal with a complex problem. Problems don't go away simply because they are complex. Usually when they are complex they compound. I think that is all you are inviting here.

It is a sufficient social issue, and I think it is sufficient to say that it falls wholly within the purview of this ministry. Given our age and time in history, it's something you should deal with. There used to be a time.... I always laugh when people say pay equity is a women's issue. I've never seen it that

[ Page 6961 ]

way. I'm sure the minister knows that there used to be a law in this province that said that if you were from the ethnic persuasion that I am — if you were Asian or oriental — and worked in a sawmill in British Columbia, you got paid 10 cents an hour less than everybody else. I have relatives and parents that grew up with that kind of law and understood it when it changed. They still talk about it because it's in their memory. I don't want to get into the politics of who was pushing for what changes in the law at the time, but I can tell you this: when you come from that kind of a background, you also have a particular sensitivity, as I do, to pay equity. You see it as more than just an issue involving a particular sex. The issue really is of some level of justice and fairness. Of course, it's not as complex to eliminate the legislation that I referred to. It's astounding how long it took us to take it off the books of the Legislature and the laws of British Columbia.

Pay equity is therefore not just a women's issue. It's an issue of fairness, an issue of equity. If you look at it the way I look at it, with that special background, then you have to recognize that it's something you should deal with, and deal with promptly. For all their faults, because there are faults in Ontario — and in Manitoba as well — you have to applaud a government that sees the wisdom of beginning to deal with the issue. Sure, people will look for loopholes in legislation. They always look for loopholes in human rights legislation. They look for loopholes in minimum wage legislation. They look for loopholes — as we discussed yesterday — in employment standards legislation. They look for loopholes in income tax legislation. They're going to look for loopholes in these matters as well. That's why we establish a regulatory scheme to try to minimize the advantage that people may seek through those types of loopholes.

I think you're wrong. In the context and the spirit in which I now raise the matter, let me ask you just one more time; then we'll get onto something else. Would you agree to refer this to one of those three vehicles that I outlined and get on with the job of getting a set of recommendations, some guidance, to the government on this issue? I don't think that's a radical request. I think it would be a prudent beginning on the part of this government. Would you not agree that this should be done now?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the member that the issue goes beyond a sex issue with women, and that there are other problems with it. At this point I am not going to commit to anything the member is suggesting, or at least I won't commit to the suggestion that it be referred to those. I will commit to considering that, as we watch what happens in other jurisdictions.

When we make that decision, we will advise the rest of the members of the opposition, as well as the rest of the members of the House. At this point, we haven't made that decision, nor do I intend to commit to making it here today.

MR. SIHOTA: I think there is true remorse in that position, and I think it is unfortunate that you are taking that view. You could take the view that you will take it to cabinet and make some recommendations. That may be another way of handling it. But I really think it's unfortunate and disappointing that you are doing that.

It really is an issue that transcends a lot of the politics here. I understand there are complex questions. The most basic question is: at what level are you going to apply it? Are you going to apply it to every business in the province from the corner store up to the largest employer in the province? Are you going to do it in the public sector first, or in the private sector?

I think those important practical questions — not philosophical questions — ought to be addressed through some vehicle that will engage in analytical study and make recommendations to government. I understand those concerns, because we've looked at them. I think it's unfortunate, and maybe the province and those who have had the injustice inflicted upon them are just going to have to wait for a new government.

[5:30]

Maybe there is going to have to be some political will exerted by the general population of this province before the government realizes it is indeed a mainstream consideration, and they can now act on it with some safety. I guess that is the way they would look at it. It really is too bad that you're not prepared to get on with an important job.

I want to shift gears and get on to another very important issue.

MR. SERWA: Hear, hear! Good stuff.

MR. SIHOTA: No, no. I don't agree with you. I take great....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair. Please avoid the shots from the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he duck?

MR. SIHOTA: I thought I did duck.

I take great objection to those who say, "Well good, let's get on to another issue." I just don't think you applaud that kind of stuff. It's an important issue. The government has made its position clear; we've made our position clear. It's unfortunate what the government is doing. I don't think it's worthy to applaud when I say, "Well, we'll get onto something else." I want to leave that in a very serious way with government, embedded in your minds, so that if there are a few things that stick out at the end of the day from these estimates in the minister's mind, I hope this issue is one: the matter of equity in pay.

Another one that I hope sticks out, which I think is a travesty, a tremendous injustice out there and astonishing again that we've seen as little progress on this fundamental issue from this ministry — we always use the word "boggles the mind," but it really

[ Page 6962 ]

does — is the matter of farmworkers in British Columbia neglected to the extent they have been by this government. I want to canvass the issue with the minister in the few minutes that we've got left today.

Workers' compensation legislation in this province was enacted in 1915, and although farmworkers work in one of the most hazardous of all industries, they were excluded from coverage under the act. That, of course, became a major concern in society, and it was recognized that indeed it was unjust that farmworkers be excluded from the provision of the Workers Compensation Act.

In 1949 the government commissioned the Sloan royal commission by the name of the Workmen's Compensation Board Inquiry. In 1952 that commission recommended that the Workmen's Compensation Act be amended to "extend compulsory coverage to the various fields of agriculture." That was in 1952. That was before I was born, if I can really date it; that was 37 years ago.

In 1966 the Tysoe royal commission on workers' compensation observed: "The desirability of covering agricultural workers for compensation is generally recognized by most authorities." That was in 1966. That was after I was born; that's when I was a little duffer living in Vancouver.

There was a series of public hearings set up in the province in the fall of 1974, interestingly through a vehicle that we talked about earlier: a select standing committee of the Legislature that the NDP established at the time to seek advice on coverage for agricultural workers. That committee recommended in April 1975 that compulsory workers' compensation coverage be extended to include domestic and agricultural workers. The committee recognized the high-risk nature of both those fields of employment. Interestingly, there was an election in December 1975, and the Social Credit government that followed chose not to act on the recommendations of the select standing committee.

You've had a whole history of absence of coverage for farmworkers in British Columbia. Most recently, a report commissioned, I believe, in November 1988 by the Workers' Compensation Board and prepared by the firm of Deloitte Haskins Sells, noted: "The committee's report dismissed as unjustified fears expressed by some farmers regarding the additional paperwork required and the possibly unnecessary intrusion of safety inspectors on farms. It also suggested that the cost of coverage might be decreased if more farmers were to belong to the scheme."

That was 1988. We still haven't seen any movement by the government, in terms of coverage on the health and safety of farmworkers. They do receive injury benefits; I know the minister knows that. That happened in April 1983. Will the minister agree to refer to the new board, as its first order of business, the matter of health and safety coverage for farmworkers?

HON. L. HANSON: The member certainly has some interesting thoughts. It is interesting to note, though, that British Columbia has had farm worker coverage, although they are not covered by regulations. It's also interesting to note that I don't think there is another jurisdiction in Canada that has regulations in place for farmworkers, although a number of them do have coverage similar to British Columbia's.

I'm not sure what the member is referring to in the study that was made: that if there were regulations in place, there would be more people covered. It is a requirement now that anyone who is an employee, or who is under the definition of "employee," and who is employed in the farm community has mandatory coverage. There's a payroll assessment based on the amount of money.... Those farms are commonly referred to as ma-and-pa operations, and if they're not under the definition of an employee, they do not enjoy WCB coverage. As an example, anyone who incorporates a farm, and then the owners become employees and are covered....

I don't think the issue is coverage; the issue is regulations that are applied to the industry.

It's true, there was a study done by Deloitte Haskins Sells. It was commissioned by the WCB. I guess the generalized result of that study was that there should be the introduction of regulations in the farming industry, but that they should be phased in over a period of a few years. The study is much more complicated than that, as the member knows. That's the generalized work.

We, together with the Workers' Compensation Board, had a meeting with a man whose name, I believe, was Murphy. He was the author of the study under this firm, and he was there to describe the study and answer any questions. In attendance were representatives of the farming community and labour organizations.

Before we could follow it up, there was a disruption at the Workers' Compensation Board, and during that period it got sidetracked for a moment. But we continue to have those meetings. We hope the meetings will result in an agreement on the correct course of action to be followed. If that doesn't happen, the issue would be referred to the new board of governors as a piece of unfinished business.

In demonstration of the difficulty of the process, the fact that other jurisdictions in Canada are wrestling with the same issue is certainly an indication that it's not a simple issue. Safety concerns in the farming industry will not be miraculously solved by the imposition of regulations, although I don't think there's any question that a solution to that difficulty has to be found. Hopefully the process will be that the communities of interest can reach a consensus as to how it best can be implemented as a result of that report, which again recommends that it be phased in over a period of years. If that doesn't resolve itself, we're continuing to have those meetings in the hope that we can resolve it before the board of governors. But if that doesn't happen, then it will be piece of unfinished business that will be referred to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, I would ask that the

[ Page 6963 ]

member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) and the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) acquaint themselves with page 434 of the nineteenth edition of Sir Erskine May.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sure they're greatly indebted to you for that reminder, Mr. Chairman.

I don't quite understand this process you've got with Mr. Murphy. What is that process? I'm not clear.

HON. L. HANSON: The reference to Mr. Murphy was only that he was the main author of the report as an employee of the consulting firm. He had taken part in a meeting between the WCB, my ministry, the farming community, the labour community, and so on, to explain all the details of the report he had produced. After that, other than in a consultative role to clarify anything that is unclear, he is not in the picture.

MR. SIHOTA: I understand then that the minister is saying there is some dialogue going on with various groups with respect to the implementation of these regulations. They may be there prior to the implementation of the new board, and if not, then they will be referred to the new board to deal with. I take that to be the case.

That being the case, I want to emphasize again the importance of doing this. In the fall of 1982 the B.C. Medical Association recommended that the Workers' Compensation Board enact regulations to protect farmworkers from pesticides. It said at that time: "These recommendations would contribute significantly to decreasing worker and public exposure to pesticides." At about the same time, the Consumers' Association of Canada called upon the WCB to protect both farmworkers and consumers from pesticides. The Human Rights Commission in 1983 recommended that health and safety regulations be extended to the farm industry.

[5:45]

There are other groups. A 1983 coroner's inquiry looking into, I believe, Mr. Deol's death made some recommendations with respect to protecting farmworkers from pesticide dangers. In 1984 another coroner's inquiry made similar recommendations with respect to an incident at a mushroom farm. The litany of cases goes on and on. I can share them with the minister here.

I am quite prepared to allow his process to continue, because I have his assurance that it will be referred to the new board in the event that the matter is not attended to by this process that he has got. I'll rely on that assurance and maybe deal with the minister later on it.

I'll switch to another issue which was touched on briefly, and that's the minimum wage in British Columbia. I know that prior to the commencement of the legislative session the government indicated.... There was a difference of opinion, I believe, between the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), who thought you were going to make some changes, and the minister, who said that would not be the case. If you look at the facts, the minimum wage obviously is below the poverty line. In 1975 it was 122 percent; in other words, it was above the poverty line. By 1988 it was 81 percent of the income that's required with respect to the poverty line, according to StatsCan. That should of course be a factor in the government's mind in terms of deciding whether or not the minimum wage should be increased. In my view, a policy of government should be to take it beyond the poverty line. The poverty line in Canada in 1988 was estimated to be an annual income of $11,564; and a $4.50 wage rate in B.C., working 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year, would generate an income of $9,360.

What I'm not clear on from the ministry is this: what variables does the government consider when it intends to make decisions with respect to increases in the minimum wage? Is it economic conditions in the province, which the Premier was telling us earlier today are great? Is it representations by the business community, by small businesses and trade unions? Is it inflation? Is it the poverty level? Is it all of those variables? If so, could you then explain why you've stayed where you are for the time that you have? I believe you increased it to $4.50 in July 1988. Based on what considerations does the government decide to increase the minimum wage?

HON. L. HANSON: It's all of the variables that the member mentioned. He is quite correct; we did increase it in July of 1988, which is a little less than a year ago. I have a mandate from the Premier's office to report annually on that basis with a recommendation. We will be doing that shortly.

We look at all sorts of things, of course — all of the ones that the member mentioned. We look at the level we're at compared to the other jurisdictions in Canada. I understand at this point that Ontario is looking at a change. I don't think they've introduced the change, but they're talking about a change there. Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba have a higher minimum wage. I think they're $4.75. Four of the other provinces also have the $4.50 minimum that we have.

We look at the labour market. We look at its effect on inflation. We like to try and analyze the effect that it will have on our very young people working in part-time situations and so on, and their opportunities of employment. It has effect on a number of small businesses, I guess mostly in the service industry. We try and get a reading on the impact of a change in the minimum wage on their particular area of business.

All of the things the member mentioned are part of the process that we look at. After we have reviewed all of those, we take forward a recommendation. That recommendation will be coming forward shortly. It's about our annual time to do it.

MR. SIHOTA: All those indicators are to the positive. It's below the poverty level. You haven't kept up with inflation. Economic conditions are good. Other jurisdictions are increasing. Isn't it true, Mr. Minister, that you've made a decision to increase the minimum wage?

[ Page 6964 ]

HON. L. HANSON: When we have made a decision, certainly we'll announce it. The debate on estimates is not where, if we had made that decision, we would probably announce it.

MR. SIHOTA: You've made the decision. Maybe the minister from Kamloops is right that the announcement is going to be made at some time. People rely on that. My suggestion is that you should make the announcement. Am I wrong that you haven't made the decision? Are you saying that you haven't made a decision to increase the minimum wage?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 41 pass?

MR. SIHOTA: He's on his way up. With all respect, Mr. Chairman, the minister was halfway up; that's why I didn't get up. I'm thinking that he was going to respond. I'll wait for him to respond.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I should stay in my seat. In any case, I must re-emphasize to the member opposite that there has not been any decision made to increase the minimum wage, there has not been any decision made not to increase it. The issue has not been dealt with as yet.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess it will be dealt with in the course of your annual review.

Yesterday I asked the minister some questions with respect to Rick Konopasek and the number of ministries that were not complying with the Employment Standards Act. Can the minister tell me now how many ministries are not complying with the provisions of the Employment Standards Act and what deadlines have been imposed?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, I do have that information available now. The employment standards branch has contacted all the ministries and is working with them to rectify the problem. I believe yesterday the member mentioned that Forests, Social Services and Housing, Transportation and Highways and Health were a significant problem. Added to that list where there is a significant difficulty are: Agriculture and Fisheries, Solicitor-General and Tourism and Provincial Secretary. We are currently awaiting replies from the Attorney-General's ministry, Government Management Services, International Business and Immigration and Municipal Affairs with regard to their compliance. There will be compliance by all ministries by the end of July. The Ministry of Social Services, which is a very large ministry and where the issue was raised, had some difficulty in addressing the problem because of the size. But I have to say that they certainly should be commended for the commitment they are showing to being in compliance with the act. They have developed an electronic time-sheet. It will be used, or at least experimented with, on the next pay period. We hope to have it fully in use for the June 23 pay period.

One of the interesting points is that there was a small problem within my own ministry. We are now in compliance. That problem involved about 34 people, and they are now being paid as they are....

Just to put it into perspective, we pay about 33,000 people on the last work day of each pay period. Certainly we have been given to believe that we are one of the leaders in the field of electronic deposits and organizations with large volumes. There were approximately 2,000 people in the auxiliary category who could have been affected by the delay in payments.

With that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HON. L. HANSON: You took the words right out of my mouth.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

[ Page 6965 ]

Appendix

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

5         Mr. Clark asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations the following question:

Has the Government advised the Government of Canada that British Columbia is opposed to the imposition of a sales tax on consumers for food, interest rates and other essentials?

The Hon. M. B. Couvelier replied as follows:

"Under the proposed federal goods and services tax, basic groceries, prescription drugs and medical devices will be entirely tax free. Residential rents, most health and dental services, day-care services, legal aid services and most educational services will be tax exempt. No tax will be charged on interest rates although a tax will be imposed on purchases by financial institutions, including banks.

"Low income taxpayers will be compensated for the cost of the tax through a new federal sales tax credit.

"Since the tax does not apply to the specific items mentioned in the question and since tax on many other necessities will be offset by the new sales tax credit, the Government of British Columbia has not felt compelled to oppose it on that basis."