Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1992

Volume 4, Number 16

[ Page 2623 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

MEDICAL AND HEALTH
CARE SERVICES ACT

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Medical and Health Care Services Act.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, the Medical and Health Care Services Act replaces legislation under whose authority the Medical Services Plan of B.C. has operated since 1968. It provides a new vision for the role of the Medical Services Commission in its administration of the plan. We are moving from an insurance company model of the Medical Services Plan to recognizing the commission's role as a significant manager of medical and health care services.

This act will provide for comanagement of the Medical Services Plan -- the first true comanagement model of its kind in Canada. The commission will provide for a completely balanced, fair approach to management that permits the public, the B.C. Medical Association and government to work together with full powers to jointly solve the many difficult issues facing the medical system now and in the years to come.

The commission will also ensure that all other health care practitioners covered by the Medical Services Plan will have an active and effective voice in the management of issues affecting them in a similar, comanagement way. The legislation recognizes the duty of government to set the overall budget for medical services in the province.

The expanded commission, however, will have full authority and accountability to provide reasonable access to British Columbia residents to medical, health care and diagnostic facility services within the budget approved by the Legislature. The act clearly sets out the rights and responsibilities of beneficiaries and providers under the Medical Services Plan. It provides strengthened ability to audit, in keeping with the recommendations of the auditor general. It strengthens provisions to recognize the confidentiality of personal information gathered in the course of administering the plan.

In keeping with the concept of greater responsiveness to community needs through regional planning, there is also a provision for regional budgets if these prove desirable at some future time and the management framework has improved. The act also provides for a fair and open hearing process for both beneficiaries and practitioners, and an independent appeal board is established for the first time.

Throughout the development of this legislation, government has sought the views of practitioners and consumers, received many helpful suggestions, and the bill has been improved as a result of them. Some of these discussions are still ongoing, and I say here again, as I have said in public before -- I recognize the time, hon. Speaker, and will be as quick as I can -- that we will be prepared to bring forward amendments at committee stage should we be able to reach agreement with the BCMA on the nature of those amendments.

I think what we are proposing here is a creative, innovative approach which will lead Canada in the development of medicare into the future.

Bill 71 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
AND CONSUMER SERVICES

On vote 51: minister's office, $303,875 (continued).

D. Mitchell: In response to the minister's very eloquent opening statement that he made yesterday afternoon, it was very nice to hear from the minister in this House. We haven't heard from the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services since the session started. That was probably the major contribution that the minister had a chance to make in this House, and so we welcome that. In fact, his absence has been conspicuous. But it is good to have him back here.

Our concern in the opposition is that the minister does have quite a bit on his plate, and therefore he hasn't had a chance to contribute to the debates in this Legislature to the extent we know that he's capable of and to the extent that he did in the previous parliament where he did make a major contribution. We hope, in welcoming him back, that he will have a chance to make more significant contributions in the future.

We noted his comments with respect to the official opposition critic, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who can't be with us due to illness. We will certainly pass on his kind comments to the critic, and we appreciate the comments that the minister made with respect to the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

With respect to the review of his estimates we'll do our best to carry on in the absence of the critic, but we do have a few questions for the minister. We'd like to start off by addressing some of the issues on the Labour and Consumer Services portion of his responsibilities.

Of course, the minister has huge responsibilities in British Columbia -- massive responsibilities, as the minister says. As the minister noted last evening, labour relations in British Columbia have historically been a key element in the British Columbia economy; and unfortunately, in the past they have been too adversarial. If this minister can bring some cooperation and consensus and light and happiness to labour relations 

[ Page 2624 ]

in this province, he will have done a great job during his tenure as Minister of Labour. We wish him well in that challenge. It's a huge challenge. That challenge itself would certainly be enough for any single minister of the Crown. But in addition, the minister is also responsible for the constitutional portfolio of the government at a critical time, not only in our province's history but in our nation's history as well. How one minister of the Crown can possibly handle both of these portfolios is difficult to fathom, but the minister has told us, and he mentioned yesterday in question period, that it was no problem. In fact, whether he is super-Moe or the Termoenator, as one editorial cartoon recently referred to him....

The Chair: Hon. member, I think you're expanding the latitude of debate beyond the confines of standing orders. If you could address your comments to the minister's office, the Chair would appreciate it. Please proceed.

D. Mitchell: I certainly would like to address my comments to the vote that is before us, which is the minister's office. If it's in agreement with the committee, during the review of the estimates of the minister's office we would like to have a broad-ranging discussion of all the minister's responsibilities, and then we'll come back and deal with all the votes very expediently.

[10:15]

The minister has indicated that as far as the review of labour relations that's currently taking place in the province and the independent panel that was appointed.... Hopefully the government's mind is not made up; hopefully there is no presumption or predetermination of what those findings might be, and it is a truly independent review. We will have a chance during this estimates review to talk about that and the composition of the Industrial Relations Council as well.

What I would like to do to start off is deal with ministry operations. I'd like to ask the minister about the ministry staff. It becomes apparent through looking at the estimates book that the ministry staff has increased. We see that liquor programs, the British Columbia Council of Human Rights and programs for the prevention and treatment of substance abuse have been transferred from the ministry. So apart from the constitutional affairs portion of the minister's portfolio, there doesn't seem to have been any evident increase in new programs; yet there has been a 17 percent increase in staffing that I can calculate. The staff who are listed have now increased to 294 from last year's total expenditure for 251 staff. I wonder if the minister can indicate how we can account for that 17 percent increase in staffing in the ministry.

Hon. M. Sihota: We've transferred about 370 people out of the ministry to other ministries, particularly to the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Attorney General. Some positions have gone over to the Ministry of Health. On top of that we have made a conscious decision to beef up a couple of areas. First of all, as all hon. members know, I think, we inherited quite a mess in the human rights area in terms of a backlog that needed to be attended to. We've made an important decision to hire six additional people to begin to clear up that backlog. There are inordinate delays, as I'm sure the Minister of Education has already indicated, with respect to the human rights field and dealing with complaints. In my view, there are other ways we can deal with those efficiencies, and hopefully we'll be able to develop those as time goes on.

We have also taken the view that we need to beef up the employment standards component of the ministry. In that regard, an additional 11 employees have been hired to deal with some of the employment standards problems that we've got in the province. Again, there's a lot of delay in looking at issues and questions with respect to enforcement.

Finally, five additional employees have been hired in the consumer operations branch of the ministry to address a number of unacceptable activities in regard to trade practices.

The hon. member might be interested to know that since 1977-78, staff levels in this branch have been reduced from 31 to the present level of 23, despite about a 26 percent increase in telephone complaints.

D. Mitchell: One comment on that. The minister indicated reasons for a 17 percent increase in staffing in his budget, which he is presenting to us for approval here today in this committee. Can the minister indicate whether or not that is a trend that is likely to continue? Are we looking at burgeoning bureaucracy here? Is there going to be a continuing need for these programs and for staffing to grow in the ministry, or is it under control now?

Hon. M. Sihota: The objective of government is always to run things in a lean and efficient manner. I can assure the member opposite that that's the way we like to function. It's certainly the way I like to function in terms of this ministry. It's run in a very efficient fashion. It's understaffed in a number of areas, and we have to attend to those. I'm not interested in creating bureaucracy for the sake of creating bureaucracy. If we pass laws like the Employment Standards Act, it's important that those provisions be enforced -- and enforced with some dispatch -- and that we be able to keep up with the increase in complaints. That's what we're trying to do, both in terms of employment standards and in terms of human rights. People expect these matters to be dealt with with dispatch and resolve. In the past we've seen where people had to wait six, eight, 12, 18 months to get problems attended to on that front, and I don't think that's acceptable.

We have to measure leanness and efficiency against developing a product that attends to the needs of the consumers out there. Consumer demand has been increasing -- if I can put it that way -- in terms of its request for these programs. Consequently, it's something that we're going to attend to by increasing staff where the need is.

Let me give you an example. I might be somewhat off in this, but I remember that when I first took over this portfolio, one of the things that astonished me was the number of complaints on the residential tenancy 

[ Page 2625 ]

side. After medical services, which gets the highest level of inquiries from the public, the second-busiest program in government is residential tenancy, which happens to fall within this ministry.

D. Mitchell: Just before we get off the topic of staffing in the ministry, I wonder if the minister might comment briefly on the use within his ministry of consultants and contractors: whether there is a policy for hiring consultants or contractors and whether it's common in the ministry. Is it possible to inform the committee today of consultants and contractors who have been hired by his ministry since he's assumed the portfolio?

Hon. M. Sihota: We've been trying to keep the shadow bureaucracy to a minimum. We have some contractors working as arbitrators in the residential tenancy branch. That's a longstanding practice; we've got a number of people employed there. Because of the short-term nature of the constitution -- I would hope -- obviously we have chosen to go that route in that area of policy in the ministry. The third area, of course, is the people that we've got involved in the review of labour legislation and labour policy

D. Mitchell: With respect to the consultants and contractors that the minister has referred to in those areas, would he agree to provide to members of this committee a list of all the consultants and contractors who have been engaged?

Hon. M. Sihota: There would be no difficulty in providing you with that information. We've done that by way of letter to your critic with respect to matters he raised, I believe in March, and we'd be happy to do that again.

D. Mitchell: The minister mentioned that one of the busiest areas of government -- certainly with his ministry -- is the residential tenancy branch. I would like to ask a couple of questions about the activities of that branch.

There's one area that is relevant. I'd like to ask a question about security deposits. I wonder if the minister could advise whether or not the ministry is taking any action to revise the current sections of the Residential Tenancy Act governing the administration of security deposits.

Hon. M. Sihota: That is an important public policy area. It's certainly one that we are actively studying, and it is my hope that government will be able to have a position on that issue made public sometime during the course of the summer. The matter of whether or not landlords should be entitled to collect is an important area of public policy. A number of groups have called for the abolition of security deposits. There are others who insist that they must continue to exist. There are others who have argued that the onus, with respect to how they are collected, who they are paid to and who must make the claim, ought to be changed in legislation. Those public policy issues are currently under review by the ministry. It's an excellent question, and certainly a difficult area of public policy reform.

D. Mitchell: I agree, it is an important area. The Rental Housing Council of British Columbia provides check-in, check-out forms, which helps avoid disputes between landlords and tenants. I wonder whether or not the mandatory use of these forms would help resolve some of the disputes that currently exist between landlords and tenants, and I wonder if the ministry, as part of this review that he has indicated is ongoing, is going to make the use of these forms mandatory, or at least to play a more active role in the distribution of these forms to landlords and tenants. Is that an initiative that the ministry might be considering?

Hon. M. Sihota: Again, it's a good question. There is no doubt that those types of forms assist in clarifying the condition of premises once people move into them, and they are an important piece of evidence in the event of dispute. Certainly, from my own experience in dealing with some of these issues, they are not always as conclusive as one would like them to be. I note that other fields of activity are moving more toward that kind of practice. For example, in the real estate area, I note that real estate agents are now asking prospective vendors of homes to produce a standard checklist where vendors fill out the condition of homes so that prospective purchasers have some greater assurance than simply the representations made by an agent. I think those are all good steps designed to inject an element of certainty into the relationship in the marketplace. We'd be well served if that practice continued.

D. Mitchell: This is also on the residential tenancy branch. Currently tenants must rely upon the courts to enforce the orders of arbitrators. If there's only a small amount of a security deposit to be returned, it's often more expensive to proceed with the case due to filing fees, lost wages, etc., than to let it drop. Is the ministry going to be taking any steps to give the residential tenancy branch a mandate to enforce the decisions of its arbitrators with respect to this kind of issue?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm pleased to confirm to the House that this matter is under active review and consideration and is being looked at by the ministry.

D. Mitchell: Like so much else, it's under review. I can understand that -- the government's in its early stages -- but there sure is a whole lot of reviewing going on. Hopefully something will come of the review.

I'd like to ask about the arbitration system within the residential tenancy branch. With the exception of judicial review, which is very costly and complicated and rarely used, the decisions of arbitrators are final and binding, with no right of appeal. I would refer to the October 1991 ombudsman report on the residential tenancy branch, which recommended that a system be 

[ Page 2626 ]

established to allow arbitrators' decisions to be appealed. Can the minister advise if the residential tenancy branch will be introducing a review mechanism which is both accessible and affordable, to allow for the appeal of arbitrators' decisions?

Hon. M. Sihota: I see where all the questions are going. I want to make a point with respect to a comment that the hon. member made in terms of a review. He's right. We're early in our mandate, but I don't want that to be in any way represented as inaction.

[10:30]

Let me just go back a bit. The whole matter of landlord-tenant relations is a very delicate area of law and public policy. Changes in one element of that relationship can have unintended consequences. Quite frankly, in a number of areas the issues are quite politically volatile. I want the hon. member to understand that there is an active review of legislation ongoing. It had been our goal to be able to produce legislation during the course of this session, and we may still be able to meet that goal. As we speak here, the ministry is actively looking at legislative changes on the residential tenancy front to deal with many of the issues that he has enumerated so far. I don't think that comes as a surprise.

During the election campaign we made a significant promise to bring about changes to better fine-tune the relationship between landlords and tenants, and that applies not only to the typical apartment or house sort of arrangement that may exist between landlord and tenant, but also in the area of mobile homes. In particular I want to acknowledge the efforts of the representative from Malahat-Juan de Fuca, who is not in the House to hear this -- I may have to repeat it -- in terms of lobbying on that front.

We're very close to coming to some conclusions in that regard. As the hon. member can appreciate, there is a Ministry of Housing and it's important that the activities of this ministry be well coordinated with that ministry. I want to confirm that the minister and I have worked very closely with respect to these matters. But when there are two ministries involved as opposed to one, with two ministers and two bureaucracies, it inevitably tends to take a little longer than one would desire or expect if it were just one ministry.

In addition to that, there are other issues, such as rent controls -- another difficult area of public policy. With respect to the latter issue.... We're considering a Green Paper option and a legislative option with respect to all of the other issues that he has enumerated. We're looking for a solution that balances the need for finality of the process and ensuring justice to the parties with respect to the arbitration process that he talked about.

I read with interest what the ombudsman had to say and certainly discussed it at great length with officials. I think it fair to say that an appeal mechanism for arbitrators' decisions is easier said than done. There is a cost associated with going to appeal; there are grounds of appeal that have to be enumerated; the amounts in dispute, as the member correctly noted, are sometimes not all that significant. I think one has to weigh all that out in the equation. I really don't know where, at the end of the day, we'll settle on that question. It's not as easy as it appears at first blush. But I will say this: we have met and will continue to meet with many of the tenant representatives and groups -- I note they want another meeting; I will be meeting with them later on next month -- and we've met with the Rental Housing Council of British Columbia on, I believe, two occasions to discuss their concerns as well. We're taking all of that in, in terms of the review that we're engaged in.

We're very close to concluding most of these issues, and I don't think landlords and tenants should have to wait much longer -- indeed, will not wait much longer -- so that they can see a resolution to these issues. But I don't want to mislead anybody. I am not persuaded that this last matter that he mentions on the appeal process is going to be resolved in a way that will satisfy anybody. It's not that simple. I have to really think through that aspect of it. I'm not sold that another level of appeal would really do the trick, but I would have to weigh that against the calls for it.

D. Mitchell: I know the minister is busy, so I hope he can find time to think through this kind of process. While we're dealing with landlord-tenant relations, I'd like to ask another question on the arbitration system itself and the training that arbitrators receive, because I think there's an issue there as well that has been highlighted by some parties.

I think arbitrators currently receive a very small amount of training, something like three days of training. There is certainly a school of thought that argues that increased levels of training would ensure higher rates of consistency, both in terms of the decisions given and the methods employed in arbitration hearings. I'm wondering if this consistency, which certainly would be welcomed by both tenant and landlord groups.... I'm wondering if the ministry is taking any steps to improve the consistency of the arbitration process through enhanced training for arbitrators. Is that one of the things that the minister is referring to that's under review and is being considered?

Hon. M. Sihota: Of course, that is part of the ombudsman's report, if memory serves me correctly. I'm sure that's the basis upon which the member asks the question. Obviously it makes a lot of sense to have people who are skilled and proficient in these areas to come in and work. We try to hire people who have experience in arbitration-type work, who know how to conduct hearings and bring parties together and can handle disputes. On top of that, they have a four-day training period, which I guess is always open to question as to whether that's adequate or not. In any event, we look for people who have that kind of background and experience, and we assess them. We also assess them in terms of the work that they do after they've been engaged to determine whether our initial analysis of their situation and skills was correct. Contracts have been terminated when we felt that perhaps the job wasn't being done as well as it could be.

[ Page 2627 ]

So the member makes a good point. Obviously we want to make sure that British Columbians have access to the highest quality or calibre of arbitrators, and that they have an opportunity to develop their skills. Some of that is the responsibility of government and some is the responsibility of the individual, but the more skilled and proficient people are, the better success you're going to have in terms of the result and the outcome.

D. Mitchell: Certainly there are alternatives to arbitration, which can sometimes be costly, expensive and time-consuming. I understand that in the past, information officers employed by the residential tenancy branch performed the role of a kind of conciliator on an informal basis. They would provide information to both parties in landlord-tenant disputes and attempt to resolve the disputes. I understand this service was discontinued because of a lack of resources. It seems to me that this service might reduce both the expensive arbitration process and any potential frustration inherent in that arbitration process. I wonder whether, in order to save money and time, the ministry might be looking at devoting more resources to that kind of a mediation process. I'm wondering if the ministry is considering restoring that kind of important service. I'm referring to informal mediation as opposed to arbitration.

Hon. M. Sihota: There are a number of points I want to make on that. In terms of mediation we are moving in that direction. We obviously have not gone back to the system that existed before. That's fair enough, in my mind.

We have also taken a major initiative in terms of consumer awareness. Landlords and tenants have better information available so as to deal with these types of disputes. I'm pleased to say that we have taken on the new initiative of making information pamphlets and other material available to landlords and tenants so they are better aware of their rights. That can assist them before they get to mediation or arbitration. I'm pleased to say that we will be doing that in a number of languages for the first time, to recognize the multicultural and multilingual nature of the province.

I'm also pleased to say that we've set up a 1-800 number. People anywhere in British Columbia can get access to the residential tenancy branch and get information on how it operates. That's an important service that didn't exist before. It certainly makes the service more accessible to British Columbians in a fashion that didn't happen before. I think that's also part of reaching out.

The reason I emphasize those points is that that type of preventive, educational and consumer awareness work is often far more effective than dealing with people when they're in a row. If you haven't paid your rent, there isn't a lot of room to mediate. On a lot of these other issues it's better to try to do the preventive work by making sure that the services are more available to the public than has otherwise been the case.

We're encouraging plain language in tenancy agreements to assist in minimizing disputes, so that parties have an idea of what's in the agreements. I'd like to see us move toward standardized agreements to the best extent that we can, so that there's greater clarity in the roles and responsibilities between landlords and tenants.

All of these things are being worked on and developed and are happening in the ministry. They're happening in part because of the work that was done by the ombudsman in the report that he tabled late last year. So there is substantial progress in that area, and there's more reaching out.

That's reflected in our budget. As you've noticed in our budget, we've increased the quantum of funding for the residential tenancy branch to deal with these kinds of issues because of the demands that are placed on that branch. I think there will be more to come. We as an administration are philosophically committed to making sure that an appropriate level of service is provided to tenants and landlords in British Columbia.

I don't think I'm telling you tales out of school to say this: if you take a look at the overall allocations in this ministry, and particularly in this area, this is one of the areas in which government consciously made a decision to beef up programs and services. That was partly in response to the ombudsman's report and partly a response to that kind of philosophical value that I talked about earlier on. I'm quite sure that that will continue, because we are very determined to respond to the commitments that we made to tenants during the election campaign. We made good initial progress in that regard. We'll have to buttress that with legislation and with some kind of work with respect to rents. Having done all that, plus some of the work on mobile homes, we'll be well on the way to dealing with some of the inequality of bargaining power that exists between landlords and tenants.

A. Warnke: I wish to seek leave of the House for an introduction.

Leave granted.

A. Warnke: It is my pleasure, on behalf of the member for Chilliwack, to introduce a group of 48 grade 7 students with their teacher, Ms. Esau, from Yarrow Elementary School in Yarrow. They will spend the day visiting this beautiful city of Victoria and will later this morning take their place in the gallery here. Would the House please join me in acknowledging their visit to the Legislature and to Victoria.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, while we're on the residential tenancy branch, I note that the branch has two offices: one in Vancouver and one in Victoria. I wonder if the minister could comment on how those two offices serve the entire province, and whether there are any plans, during this year under review in this budget, to develop other branch offices in other regions of the province to serve British Columbians throughout the province.

[10:45]

[ Page 2628 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, I also welcome the students from Yarrow. It's good to see them here enjoying a day in Victoria, as the school year wraps up. I see all the students are up there quietly engaged in their best behaviour. I'm sure we'll reciprocate by engaging in good behaviour in here. So no heckling, you guys.

I want to discuss the question of staff, because I want to get one point clear. The hon. member should know that 70 percent of tenants in British Columbia reside in the lower mainland, and 20 percent of them reside in the greater Victoria area. That explains, to a large measure, why the offices are located in Vancouver and Victoria. That is not to say that there aren't issues, concerns and needs for service in the rest of the province; it's simply to bring to your attention some factual information that explains what the ministry is doing.

Having said that, obviously we're always interested in expanding the services available. But when considering that, one has to be mindful of other facts. We have arbitrators -- a very important service in the north, in the Okanagan and on northern Vancouver Island -- so that services are provided by arbitrators throughout the province. One also has to be mindful of the fact that we now have the 1-800 number, which makes it easier for landlords and tenants to get information from the residential tenancy branch.

In addition to that, I think the hon. member should be mindful of the fact that we also have 65 government agents throughout the province who can provide information and do some of this work. On top of that, if I may say so, noting the high quality of MLAs who are at least found on this side of the House, a number of them do good work in their constituencies. I know my good colleague from Prince George is listening with great interest as I say this. I know his constituency office, along with that of my colleague the Minister of Government Services, has done an exemplary job in terms of providing services to their constituents who fall between the cracks and can get access to those MLAs' offices for the information that's required. I must say that I'm deeply impressed with the work that's being done by several of my colleagues from the interior. It's indeed quite impressive. I think that the field is relatively well covered and that people are reasonably well served in that regard; but we will always be open to reviewing these matters.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased that the minister feels this is an area that's being looked after. The provision of information in particular is what he's referring to. The 1-800 number -- the toll-free line that he refers to -- is a positive initiative, and I think the ministry and the branch should be applauded. The move into plain language -- the brochures that are produced by the branch, as well as the Residential Tenancy Act itself -- is sorely needed. The forms used and the act itself are in desperate need of simplification. The plain language initiative is something that's very timely. We welcome that and look forward to it coming on stream.

But I note that the Rental Housing Council as well as the Tenants' Rights Action Coalition have called for increased distribution of information. So I would hope that the minister's comments are going to be followed up. We'll be watching with interest to make sure that the branch does in fact service this need and that it is, as he says, well covered. I'm not so sure, but we'll continue to monitor that. I know it's been a problem in the past, and I can't believe that in just the six or seven months he's been minister the world has changed -- although I know that the minister's working hard to change the world.

I'd like to ask a question about investigation and enforcement under the act. The consumer operations area of the ministry can undertake investigations under the Residential Tenancy Act. However, I understand that investigations in this area are difficult and are only very rarely undertaken. Will the ministry be taking any action to enhance the ability of the branch to undertake investigations to determine whether or not the act is being violated?

Hon. M. Sihota: The students are gone, so you can now heckle again.

It's a difficult area. The ministry has hired additional people as investigators, so there's some potential for work. That has to be considered in the context of other demands and the workload in that area. I appreciate the member raising the issue and will certainly consider that further. It's really not an area I'd put my mind to much, and therefore I appreciate your mentioning it. I'm wondering if you can amplify on what you see as the problem. I think it would assist a bit if you could give me a better idea of the concern.

D. Mitchell: Certainly, for the benefit of the minister. Under section 40.1 of the act, for instance -- and I think this is a good example -- a group of tenants may only proceed with a single action against a single landlord if there's a dispute, and only if that single landlord gives them permission to. So if that permission is refused, my understanding is that each tenant must then proceed with a separate arbitration against the landlord. In addition, arbitrators' decisions only apply to the party specifically included in the arbitration. In other words, while the matter may relate to a whole building rather than be tenant-specific, the landlord need only rectify the problem as it applies to the tenant bringing forward the complaint. In that context, I'm wondering if the ministry is considering amendment of the act to allow for many tenants to participate in a single action against a landlord if their grievance is the same or similar.

The Chair: Before the minister responds, I should remind the committee that we should not be discussing legislation during estimates.

Hon. M. Sihota: I guess you learn something every day. I was reflecting on my own experiences as an MLA and also as a lawyer. I know that on several occasions I represented a number of tenants against a single building owner, and I have done that in the constituency work we do as MLAs. I always thought there was no impediment to doing that. However, I'm 

[ Page 2629 ]

told -- and it's a good point -- that although you can have one arbitrator hear all of the complaints from a number of tenants and you can consolidate them all for one hearing, which is the practice I've often found myself engaged in in terms of representing tenants in front of the board as an MLA, when I could do that -- I am now, obviously, in my new responsibilities prevented from doing that -- all of the tenants individually must pay the fee for the hearing. So it's sort of technically dealt with as a single complaint and requires a multitude of fees, although there may be just one hearing. You can consolidate all the actions into one hearing, so you don't get ten different arbitrators coming down with ten different decisions.

From my own point of view, I think there's room for improvement, and clearly we should take a look at single class actions for these types of issues. It's a matter that has to be dealt with by the Attorney General's ministry, which traditionally has been reluctant to allow for class actions in the general sense in British Columbia. I can assure the member, because of the issue he raises, that we'll attend to that, and I thank him for making that suggestion. I had thought you could do it, but it turns out you can't. You can. It's just that you're treated as an individual applicant, and therefore everybody pays the fee, although there's only one hearing and you can consolidate it. So you can do it, but you can't. You should be able to do it, and hopefully you will be able to do it.

D. Mitchell: I look forward to reading the minister's comments in Hansard. I think I understood what he meant.

One other question under this investigation under the act. Under another section of the act -- section 52, I think -- fines of up to $2,000 can be levied against a landlord who violates....

The Chair: Pardon me, hon. member. As I indicated earlier, references to legislation, the necessity for legislation, etc., are not appropriate in Committee of Supply.

D. Mitchell: I'm talking about the statutory authority for the residential tenancy branch. I need to refer to this bill, but I'm certainly not questioning the legislation.

I have a question to ask about the branch and its obligations under this particular statutory authority. The section of the act I'm referring to is section 52, which provides for a possible fine of up to $2,000 for certain violations of the act. I understand that it's very rare that any convictions are made under the act, but both the Rental Housing Council and the Tenants' Rights Action Coalition have indicated a willingness to consider giving arbitrators the ability to issue fines to those who violate the regulations. I'm wondering if in the future the ministry is considering giving arbitrators the power to issue fines for non-compliance with the act. Is that something that would be under consideration?

Hon. M. Sihota: It is a matter of future policy. I can assure the member opposite that it's part of the review that we're engaged in. But remember that the purpose, as I see it, is to make sure that people are aware of their rights and their responsibilities; that they are well informed of those obligations in a preventive way, so that we can minimize violations of the legislation. The point has been taken by the ministry and is under study. Again, I'm sure you will see a document produced soon that will give you some comfort that the matter has been attended to or at least looked at.

D. Mitchell: While we're on the issue of landlord-tenant relations, the minister did refer to the fact that this doesn't refer only to landlords and tenants in apartment buildings in urban settings but also to those who live in manufactured homes in trailer parks. I have a question on that, and I'd be interested in the minister's comments on this area. In particular, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who is the critic for this area, has some specific concerns in his constituency in this area as well. I ask this question on his behalf.

In the past number of months both the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove and a number of us in the House have received a number of concerns and complaints from owners of manufactured homes. The concerns pertain to the rezoning of land. Sometimes, many years after manufactured homes have been in those locations, land has been rezoned; yet once the property has been rezoned the residents, most of whom are retired or on fixed incomes, are faced with the very difficult prospect of having to move. I'm wondering if the minister will clarify his intentions for implementing stronger legislation, regulation, or taking a look at the branch's authority, which would provide owners of manufactured homes with avenues of recourse when this kind of difficult situation arises.

[11:00]

The Chair: Hon. member, I don't think that the point has been made strongly enough. Any matters to do with legislation, future or present, are out of order in Committee of Supply. Only the minister's administrative responsibilities would be appropriate. I would hope that the debate would be guided by those parameters.

Hon. M. Sihota: This is an area I feel very strongly about. In your opening comments you made reference to issues that I'd raised previously in the House. You commented on the fact that in this session, because of my constitutional responsibilities, I have not been in attendance anywhere near the degree that I used to. On the other side of the coin, I'm not in opposition anymore; and the same joy you took when you found yourself coming into question period may not be the same when you're on the receiving side of it.

Let me say this: a very important area of public policy, one that has a very high priority in my mind.... It's an area where we need to develop a stronger -- if I can put it this way -- bill of rights for manufactured-home owners to give them greater security of tenure. It's very important that that happens. People make a 

[ Page 2630 ]

considerable investment in buying a manufactured home, and there is usually not a lot of land available for these sites. When rezoning or other eviction-type actions occur, the options are very limited and the value of the asset that they've acquired can potentially diminish if there's no space available.

The member talked about experiences in Fort Langley. In the riding that I currently represent, Esquimalt-Metchosin, I know that the problem is compounded by the fact that a number of the mobile-home units reside on native lands. The applicability of residential tenancy legislation to those lands is another question unto itself, and another area of concern to me. That creates a vulnerability in terms of the manufactured-home owner that perhaps isn't there for someone who lives on non-native land.

I certainly know, from the larger riding that I used to represent before, that the people who used to rent spaces throughout the province were always vulnerable to rezoning, creating these kinds of problems. Of course, rezonings are matters for regional districts or municipalities, and I really can't touch upon those. If your point is that the rights of manufactured-home owners need to be strengthened, then the answer to that is yes, I agree. I said in my opening comments that I commended the efforts of my colleague from Malahat-Juan de Fuca, who has carried on in the tradition that I started, and before me, Frank Mitchell, to deal with these types of issues. And we'll do it in a fashion that I'm sure will satisfy those who are vulnerable in this regard. You're correct in saying that it's often senior citizens on fixed incomes or young couples just starting out and trying to find their first sort of own self-contained unit to live in.

We're determined to proceed with action in this regard. I haven't decided what the form of that action will be, except to say that I've had extensive discussions with my colleagues on that matter. The hon. member may be aware that some two years ago there was a task force established to look at this issue. In my mind, the conclusions of that task force were unsatisfactory; but there was a minority report, if memory serves me correct, with respect to that task force. That minority report, in my view, would be a good starting point.

I would encourage the hon. member, given the fact that this matter is being discussed in the House now, and given the fact that there are British Columbians who are concerned, to take the opportunity of mailing this extract from Hansard to your constituents and your colleagues who are concerned about this issue. It might give them some comfort to know that we're very aware of their concerns and very much want to deal with them. I will do the same in terms of making this extract available to them, including your question, so that they're aware of the fact that it's very much on our mind as a ministry and very high among the emerging priorities that I want to deal with.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's comments. The task force that he refers to is, I believe, the 1990 Mobile Home Task Force, whose report we have looked at. The report essentially indicates that the government land-for-housing task force was in the process then of identifying government land which could be made available for rental housing development sites, including, obviously, manufactured-home sites. The minister indicated in his comments that not a lot of land is available for sites, and that is part of the problem. I note with interest that the previous administration had a policy that where Crown land was available and needed, it was released for development for these purposes. Has that policy been maintained by this government?

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: The member opposite is commenting on a vast range of responsibilities that fall on my desk, but I am pleased to report that I am not responsible for Crown lands; that falls to another minister. Nor am I responsible for those matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

That's not to say that I'm not concerned about these matters; I am. I know that in my own constituency there are a number of tenants at the Fort Victoria Trailer Park on the Old Island Highway who find themselves very much in this situation. That park has decided that it will make some changes to its structure and ultimately cause people to move out, and there's really not a lot of land available. I have been working very closely with the park and the tenants there, in a structured way, to assist in finding space for people. In that case the success that we've enjoyed is a consequence of a landlord who is prepared to work in a very cooperative way with us and with the tenants, many of whom have lived there for all their lives. So that one is working well. But during the course of those discussions the whole matter of the availability of Crown land does come up.

I'm not going to get into bashing the previous administration -- they took that during the election of October 1991 -- but there just isn't a lot of Crown land available in greater Victoria, and I don't know how much Crown land exists in greater Vancouver. I think the hon. member appreciates that point. But we're very interested in making sure that those people have options and that the vulnerability they feel is attended to. To some extent we can do that, and to some extent the private sector can do that. I think both sectors will work within their abilities to solve these problems.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to move on from the residential tenancy branch to a question on another area of the Consumer Services portion of the ministry, in particular under consumer operations.

I notice with interest in the spending estimates for the ministry that within other areas of responsibility there is an allocation for advertising, but under Consumer Services I can find no allocation whatsoever. In terms of the mandate of the ministry in the area of Consumer Services and the mandate of provision of information to consumers in British Columbia, could the minister indicate to me why, in the budget at least, there is no expenditure under advertising or publications?

[ Page 2631 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Chairman, it's a great a pleasure to see you in the chair. As usual, you look very distinguished this morning. With that said, I'm sure you'll buy me lunch.

The total budget for advertising in the ministry is $224,661. The hon. member should know that the reason it doesn't show up as an item unto itself is because it's included in the central budget. Secondly, the hon. member should know that we actually do expend moneys on advertising with respect to Consumer Services.

In that regard, I just want to bring to the member's attention two points. The first is that this April we launched consumer awareness week and engaged in an extensive advertising program to make consumers aware of their rights. We did it with a very high degree of success in terms of the feedback that we received. It was well received and well structured. I know the hon. member is very busy. If he didn't have an opportunity to see the material that we produced, I'd be most happy to make it available to him so he can be confident that it's good work and tends to the need to advise consumers of their rights.

The second point I'd make is a very important one. For years we've had a consumers' association for British Columbia, and for years -- I don't know how many years -- they did not receive assistance from the government. It's been seven years since they received some assistance from the provincial government. That's unacceptable, in my mind. They're out there advising consumers of their rights. They're a watchdog in the marketplace. We made a very conscious contribution to their efforts this year for the first time in seven years. That's a shift from the way the previous administration dealt with that group. I leave it up to the member to contact that association and get their feelings about that move on our part. We thought it was important to do that, so that's happening.

In addition to that, if you take a look at the overall budget on Consumer Services, you'll see that we've added additional staff to do the work at that end of the ministry. It's important that that end of the ministry be beefed up. It's always been the easiest area to cut, and it had been cut to the point where.... Quite honestly, my view is that either we get serious about consumer services or we don't. If we're serious about it, then we have to start to rebuild the repertoire of services in that area. I'm pleased to say that the cabinet agreed with that point, and that's why you've seen the increases in that budget. 1 know that I said I'd make two points, and I've made three. I really want to make a fourth, and that is this: I've also felt that it's important that we be proactive in the area of consumer services in terms of sending out signals to the community that we intend to be far more aggressive in enforcing consumer law violations in British Columbia.

For several years the Ford Credit corporation had, quite frankly, been ripping consumers off by violating the seize-or-sue provisions. You can either seize or sue someone who violates a lease, but you can't seize and sue, and Ford was. We said that that's wrong. They told us to take them to court, and we have. Again, I think those kinds of actions were not seen on a regular basis with the previous administration, at least not that type of class-action suit. And please note the comments I made earlier about the Attorney General's ministry and their view on class-action matters. There will be other litigation commencing in the weeks ahead with respect to another consumer violation. We're just in the process of preparing the necessary documentation in that regard. Being proactive on the litigation front serves notice to those who seek to avoid their responsibilities that they're going to have the book thrown at them when they flagrantly violate consumer law.

[11:15]

For my fifth and final point, may I also say this: I am persuaded that there needs to be a beefing-up of legislation around the consumer law area and, to my mind, a comprehensive bill that deals with consumer rights. I can assure the member opposite that that will happen.

Those are five steps we've taken which were previously non-existent, with the exception of consumer awareness week. That's not bad progress for the four or five months we've had in that field since the Legislature commenced, and the six months we've had since we've been government. I'm proud of that. I am very committed to reinvigorating that component of the ministry, because, as I said earlier, if it's not.... I do this knowing full well that these words may be quoted back at me from Hansard; I do it very consciously.

I believe that if we're not going to get serious on the consumer side, we might as well say to the public, look, we just don't have the capacity to do the job you expect us to do. There's no point in perpetrating a hoax on the public and creating the myth that a component of the ministry exists, when it really doesn't. Either we get on with restructuring and beefing it up, or we put our hands up in the air and say, look, it's been so gutted over the years it's just not worth keeping up. We've crossed the threshold question in that regard as an administration, and we're moving forward with pride.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to hear that the minister is taking his responsibilities for consumer services and consumer relations in British Columbia seriously. In fact, I believe that there is a need for a watchdog for British Columbia consumers and for someone to play a leadership role.

I note with interest that the minister has indicated that the ministry is engaged in something new: third-party funding for the Consumers' Association, which he referred to and which he indicated is a departure from past practice. I wonder whether or not what he's really indicating here is that it might be more cost-effective for government to fund third parties such as associations -- perhaps associations geared toward providing services directly to consumers in a more effective fashion than government can ever do, given the bureaucracy that builds up in government and the need to fund programs over the course of time. I wonder whether that might be the direction we could be looking to. If that is the case, couldn't we expect in the future more modest funding for a centralized ministry such as the one he's responsible for? Would third-party 

[ Page 2632 ]

funding be a more cost-effective, more responsible way to go, as far as spending taxpayers' dollars is concerned?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I don't agree. I think there's room for third-party funding, and at times it can be effective. But there's also room for the province to be involved, because it's important that the state play a role in protecting these rights.

Obviously, with every decision you make with respect to the expenditure of funds, you try to do it in a way that gets the best value for taxpayers' dollars. In some cases it makes sense to go in one direction; in other cases it makes sense to go in another direction. I wouldn't want the hon. member to think that this government in any way thinks that one alternative is the only way to go. Quite frankly, in most of these areas it makes sense to attend to different spheres of influence, enforcement and activity.

No one solution is the panacea for all the problems. Attending to each of the areas of activity in an appropriate and effective way is really the solution, and in this regard it makes sense for the ministry to do some of the work it has been doing and some of the work it needs to do. It also makes sense for public interest groups out there to have the resources necessary for them to do their work. The important thing for the government is to avoid duplication and to ensure efficiency. When we make decisions about how we distribute funds on the consumer side, that is what guides us.

L. Hanson: The issue of consumer services within the ministry has been fairly well convassed, but I have a couple of questions I would like to ask. When was the 1-800 number put into service, Mr. Minister?

Hon. M. Sihota: It was put forward on May 1. If you have a problem, go ahead.

L. Hanson: No, I don't have a problem. It had to be fairly recent, because I wasn't aware of the number.

In any case, I'd like to spend a minute on the motor dealers' responsibilities that the minister has within his ministry. Some time ago there was an initiative started or considered by the ministry to deal with giving the Motor Dealers' Association some larger part in the administration of the bonding issues and the decisions as to whether there should be claims and so on, much similar to the minister's own profession, the legal profession, the real estate board and so on. Maybe the minister can update the House on where that situation is within the ministry.

Hon. M. Sihota: I just want to talk to staff about that for a moment, because I wanted to get an update on where we were on it. I didn't hear your question, so if I don't address the question directly, shoot it again. We will be proceeding with legislation to attend to that problem through establishment of a fund, and that work is ongoing in the ministry.

J. MacPhail: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. MacPhail: It gives me pleasure to be able to introduce 50 grade 5 and 6 students, along with their teacher Diana Duncan, from Thunderbird Elementary School, a very important and active elementary school in my riding. They're accompanied by four parents as well. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

L. Hanson: Mr. Minister, the Motor Dealers' Association were asking to take some part in the process of decision-making, if there were claims against the bonding issue. You're suggesting that you're considering putting in place a fund that might be drawn on in the case of illegal actions or the sale of motor vehicles in question. The question I asked was: what part would the Motor Dealers' Association play in the process?

Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate the question, and obviously that will be answered when we come forward with the legislation. I think the hon. member will have to wait until we produce the legislation in that regard. If he's looking for some assurance that they will have a role, I will give him that assurance.

The Chair: Hon. member, I would remind the committee that legislation is not proper debate in Committee of Supply.

L. Hanson: Thank you, hon. Chair. The minister raised the issue of legislation; I didn't raise it.

In any case, hon. Chair, I know you may rule this question out of order also. The minister mentioned that they had charged the Ford Motor credit company with some apparent illegal move, and I was just wondering if that has been resolved yet. Or is it still before the courts? A simple question.

The Chair: I would remind the hon. minister that the subject matter is before the courts, and it's not open for debate in Committee of Supply.

Hon. M. Sihota: The courts just aren't that efficient.

L. Hanson: Thank you, hon. Chair. I seem to be getting into difficulty with you each time, but I didn't ask the question to discuss the legal ramifications. I just asked if it is still before the courts, which I don't think is an illegal question under the circumstances.

I have a question on the travel assurance fund. What is the financial situation of the fund now? It has been in some difficulty in the past. Is it now healthy -- to look after any claims that might happen as a result?

Hon. M. Sihota: On the previous question, yes, the matter is still before the courts. Hopefully it will be resolved.

I see the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca has found his way back to the House. I encourage him to read Hansard. Based on what was said, I'm sure he will mail it out to all of his fans.

As of April 7, 1992, the fund had $318,951.53.

[ Page 2633 ]

L. Hanson: If I were an accountant I could probably look at the estimates and be able to tell how that is. But there was an amount owed to the government that had been made on the basis of a loan. Was that paid back? And is this totally free and clear now?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to move on to the labour relations portion of the minister's portfolio, if I could. Looking at the budget under ministry operations, I notice that there has been a very large increase in the asset acquisitions section, under labour relations administration. It's a huge increase of almost 4,000 percent. I'm wondering if the minister can indicate if there has been a change in accounting policy. What is this asset acquisition category in the budget, with this huge increase of almost 4,000 percent?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm going to ask my staff to get an answer to that question and get back to the hon. member.

D. Mitchell: I'd appreciate that, and I appreciate the minister's commitment. There's something unusual going on with the accounting. I can't understand why last year in the estimates under "asset acquisitions" there was $7,000 or $8,000, and now it's gone up to more than $313,000. That was the essence of the question.

I had one other question on this. It's a curiosity. There has been a huge increase of some 135 percent in the operating costs under labour relations administration in this year's budget, as compared with last year's budget. I don't know if it is possible to answer that now as well; if it is possible, I would appreciate an answer.

[11:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the question was actually answered earlier, when I indicated that we'd hired 11 additional people in employment standards. In addition to that were six people to deal with the human rights backlog and part of the labour panel review work. That would account for much of the increase.

D. Mitchell: I wonder if the minister would mind getting back to me on this as well, because it's a huge increase in administration costs -- 135 percent. While I understand what he's saying in terms of what some of the increase might represent, it seems rather exorbitant. We don't need to take up the time of the committee right now on that necessarily, but if the minister could make that commitment, I would be prepared to go on to another topic.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think I've given you the answer. Remember, we're doing a very extensive consultation on labour relations in terms of the new labour legislation in British Columbia. That is not a cheap undertaking by any stretch of the imagination. It takes a lot of money to go around the province and consult with British Columbians. We have a nine-person panel; don't forget, that takes up a component of the work. When you start looking at the IRC review, the increased administrative costs with that, the increased commitment that we've made to employment standards and the engagement of additional personnel to do that.... It's not in very many ministries that we've seen that kind of an increase. In terms of staffing we have proceeded with that, and we are also doing some work with respect to pension benefit standards. There's a lot of new work happening in the ministry, which in the past has generally been given short shrift by the previous administration. In our view, the Ministry of Labour is a ministry that requires additional beefing up.

Consistent with the philosophical values that we represent as a government and as a political party, we think it's important that we take a number of initiatives that are designed to assist working people, the working poor and those who are consumers of our services. It's a reflection of that value and that sort of philosophical commitment that we move in the direction of beefing up this ministry. The numbers that you see are reflected in that, to do the consultative work that's necessary, to do the enforcement and administration that's necessary around the Employment Standards Act for those who aren't represented, and to get on with cleaning up the human rights backlog. We're proud of that.

I think it's very important that we increase services to working people in British Columbia. It's very important to our kind of outlook on the world. We want to replenish this ministry, and we're taking a number of steps to do that, both in the public and.... Let's face facts: there is a lot of new public policy work that is being done in this ministry that wasn't being done before. We've always talked about labour review, but let's not forget that we're doing a review of the Employment Standards Act. As this morning's debate has pointed out, we're doing all sorts of dramatic work with respect to residential tenancy. We've inherited a new piece of legislation with respect to pension benefits, and a bit of work has to be done there. We're moving into other areas of policy that didn't exist before -- fair wages is a good example. So it's a far more proactive ministry, and because it's more proactive, there are more demands on the ministry. For example, we're having more demands placed on the Industrial Relations Council because of the lifting of the boycott on Bill 19, which puts a demand on mediation services and asset acquisition in that component of ministry operations.

With respect to your previous question on asset acquisition, I'm told that we're spending $300,000 for systems development on pension standards. So that's why there's the increase there.

So there's a lot happening in this ministry that had previously been left unattended to. The profile of this ministry in terms of where we're coming from as a government is being enhanced, and I think that's welcome. I don't think you get that kind of speech from most ministers, but in this case we're very determined to improve the saliency of the Ministry of Labour -- if I can put it that way -- to allow it to better interact with 

[ Page 2634 ]

those who rely on our services and, as always noted, to deal with them in an efficient and effective way.

I note that despite all these changes we still remain, I think, the third-smallest ministry in government. We're obviously reaching out to a lot of people and running some programs that are in great demand. I told you about residential tenancies being the second most in-demand program, and employment standards falls in the top five. So we're doing a lot of work. We're running a lean operation, but we're attending to a lot of people and beefing up the resources where we've been deficient before.

D. Mitchell: I feel like I'm serving on Treasury Board, and I'm hearing the speech that the minister may have made in his presentation to Treasury Board justifying his existence. It may be the closest I'll ever want to be to serving on Treasury Board, because I understand that it's a very gruelling process. But the minister's made a rationale for the exorbitant increases in spending on administration. I understand from what he's saying that a lot of it is going towards contractors, consultants and external people who are not building up the bureaucracy because they're being hired for these various reviews that are ongoing. If a lot of the portion of the extra administrative costs are indeed going towards those costs, then I think we can look forward to next year not having these increases simply repeated because they might be one-time cost components only. That's good. We applaud that, because we don't want to see the buildup of bureaucracy where it's unnecessary.

I'd like to move into talking about some of these reviews, particularly on the labour relations side. The minister has referred to the major labour relations review that's ongoing in terms of reviewing the Industrial Relations Act and the fact that it is an expensive process. Is it possible for him to inform us in this committee today as to what the total estimated cost of that review will be?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think I've already told the member. The number is $1.5 million.

D. Mitchell: The minister indicated in his opening remarks yesterday that the labour relations review is an independent review. I think he implied that the government's mind is not made up in terms of the directions to the changes to the Industrial Relations Act that can be anticipated. He has certainly talked about that openly in public. I don't think it's any secret that there are changes being contemplated. The minister has indicated that his own mind is not made up, and neither is the government's. I'd like to get him to elaborate on that a bit, because certainly if we went back -- and I have no intention of going back to all the promises or commitments that were made when the current governing party was in opposition -- there were a lot of specific promises made. Is he now saying that those promises aren't necessarily carved in stone, that they will not necessarily be implemented as part of this review, that the consultative process is in fact genuine, that the government's mind is not made up? For instance, when it comes to secondary picketing, anti-scab legislation, the kinds of promises that were made by the minister when he was in opposition.... Will these not necessarily form a component of any changes? Is the government's mind truly not made up and neither is the minister's? Can we take that as given?

The Chair: Hon. member, I would remind the committee that legislation is not proper debate for the Committee of Supply. I would caution the hon. minister in his response to this that the legislation is not appropriate.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, I'm not going to talk about the legislation; I'll talk about where we're coming from.

I believe very strongly that the labour relations atmosphere that has existed in this province for some time has been an impediment to investment, because it hasn't been stable. In part it has been unstable because of Bill 19, which was introduced in 1987, I guess it was. That instability has to come to an end. I don't think that it makes a lot of sense to introduce legislation that simply tilts the playing-field in the opposite direction. I think people want fair and balanced labour legislation. They want legislation that will stand the test of time and serve the public interest. That's what we're interested in achieving. What's fair and balanced, of course, is always a matter of debate. It will be a matter of debate in this House when we get down to the nitty-gritty of legislation.

Any legislation put forward by government in one way or the other reflects the ideological views of government, and I would suspect that in this area one will be able to make the case at the end of the day that the ideological views of this government are found in the legislation. When one cuts through all the rhetoric, there will probably be areas where that's not true, and probably areas where that is true. More important than that, though, is that legislation enjoy the confidence of the people that it seeks to apply to. In order to get that confidence, it is very important that the consultative process around the legislation be one in which the parties have confidence. Great care was taken by this administration in selecting the people that are on that panel.

I'd hate to have to go through it again, but I can tell the member that it was an inordinate amount of consultation -- days of endless meetings -- with the various interest groups in the labour relations field to secure their views as to the best composition with respect to that panel. The views of all elements were taken into account, and all groups were consulted. At least I think all groups were consulted; I am sure you could find someone who said that they weren't.

There was extensive consultation in terms of the makeup of that group, and that task was taken very seriously. We could have walked in in November and announced the thing overnight; we didn't. We waited, with some criticism, right through until January before we established the panel after extensive consultation, and I think that's important.

[ Page 2635 ]

It's important that it be done right in terms of the starting point, and I think it has been done. I think it's important that the process is as comprehensive as possible, and that's why the group has travelled extensively around the province. It's important that their product seems to be one that is consensual, hopefully. Where it's not, obviously government will have to make public policy choices.

That work is ongoing. To my knowledge, I have not received any criticism from business in particular about the work that group is doing, and I think that's a good indication, quite honestly. We will continue to allow that process to work and to do its job. We will receive its report at the appropriate time, and then we will proceed with legislation.

That's not to pretend for a moment that you folks over there on the other side of the fence won't, in some way, try to characterize the legislation in a fashion that perhaps it is not. But we will have that debate, and I'm sure it will be a good debate in this House. We're determined to come up with legislation that stands the test of time. It won't be just changed in the future should -- God forbid -- the day arrive that an administration with a different philosophical outlook finds itself on this side of the House.

We're going to proceed in a calm, rational, methodical and logical way, knowing full well the commitments we made when we were in opposition and the public interest responsibilities that fall on our shoulders when we receive a mandate from the people of British Columbia. We will try to balance those to the best of our skill and ability.

That's the approach we're taking. I think that should give you a lot of comfort. I'm sure that when the legislation is introduced, you won't fall victim to the partisan trap of engaging in criticism where it's not warranted.

[11:45]

D. Mitchell: I asked a question of the minister as to whether or not any of the conclusions of this review process were predetermined. Now the minister is trying to predetermine the opposition. We have no idea of what is coming forward. We don't want to talk about future legislation; we are concerned about the process that might lead to future legislation. The budget that we're being asked to review in this committee today is spending money that is paying for that process. We should talk about that process in particular.

The minister indicated that what will come out of this process will certainly have the ideological stamp of this government, and I'm concerned about that. [Applause.] I note that members of the government applaud that, but we have to raise a real concern about it. The minister tried to give words of concern and comfort, but can we actually find comfort knowing that the legislative framework for labour relations in British Columbia is going to be ideologically driven, or bear the ideological stamp of the governing party? Can we really take comfort in that? If we are going to achieve the kind of labour relations stability and harmony that the minister speaks of and that we so desperately need in British Columbia, then the framework that we are going to be changing -- the minister indicated that there will be significant changes -- cannot be ideologically driven. It has to be pragmatic. It has to be driven by common sense; it should not be driven by ideology. We need a commonsense approach. We need an approach that deals fairly with both management and labour. We can't be lurching left and right and allow political ideology to be driving this debate. I am concerned about that.

The reason I asked the specific question of whether or not there was any predetermination of the findings of the process is because I note in the process that the labour relations review has received a number of submissions to date. One of the presentations has been brought to my attention, the presentation from the Canadian Paperworkers' Union, region 4, on proposals for labour law reform in British Columbia. It's dated March 19, 1992. Attached to their presentation -- which is very detailed and very good, I might add -- is an appendix in the form of two letters. One letter is from the former member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who is now the Minister of Labour, and one is from the former Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Premier. Those letters and that submission to the industrial relations review have some statements in them that seem to indicate that there may be some predetermination. I'd like to ask the minister more specifically about the comments that he made, which have been submitted to this review that he has now commissioned through his ministry.

For the record, in a letter dated April 11, 1991 -- so it's just a little over a year ago -- when the minister was a member of the opposition he wrote to the political action committee of the Canadian Paperworkers' Union, and he indicated:

"For your information I should advise that on several occasions I have indicated that should the NDP form the next government, we would repeal the provisions of Bill 19. They will be replaced with a new labour law which attends to changes in the areas of secondary picketing. I have indicated publicly on several occasions that current provisions with respect to secondary picketing are unacceptable."

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The process and the costing for the panel is contained in the budget. The Chair admits there is some overlap on legislation work and the panel work. Specifics of the legislation would not be in order for debate in here, but certainly the process of the panel itself would be.

D. Mitchell: It's certainly the process that I want to focus on here. There's just one last sentence in this letter which I think is important to read into the record. The minister concludes this quote by saying: "The NDP has also promised the implementation of anti-scab legislation." The minister indicated that when he was a member of the opposition.

In the same presentation to this panel....

F. Garden: Point of order. I thought I just heard you make a ruling, hon. Chairman. The previous 

[ Page 2636 ]

speaker totally ignored that. Is that the kind of respect they have for the Chair in these committees?

The Chair: Your point of order is well taken, hon. member. The Chair and the opposition House Leader have recognized the delineation between the work of the panel and the specifics of the legislation.

D. Mitchell: This panel received a number of interesting presentations and representations on this particular one that I referred to. This is the process of this panel, which has been paid for by this budget, and so I think it is very relevant.

In this particular presentation from the Canadian Paperworkers' Union there was also another appendix: a letter attached from the Leader of the Opposition of the day. Again, I think it's relevant, because it gets back to this question that the minister and I are discussing as to whether or not there is any predetermination of this process. We want it to be open and honest, and we trust that it will be. I'm seeking from the minister some further comfort that it is, and I think all British Columbians will be wanting to know that there is no predetermination or conclusions in advance.

The letter that the minister wrote to the Canadian Paperworkers' Union has been cited. Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition -- who is now the Premier -- also wrote a letter to the political action committee of the Canadian Paperworkers' Union. I won't quote that at length at all, but he does say: "As our Labour critic Moe Sihota outlined to you in his April 11 letter...."

The Chair: Order, hon. member. It's never in order to refer to an hon. member by name.

D. Mitchell: I apologize, Mr. Chair. I was quoting from a document. The quote concludes: "...our government would repeal Bill 19 and implement anti-scab legislation." I note that members are applauding, but the question here is an important one. What I'm getting at with the minister -- if government members can refrain from applauding for just a second -- is that we are seeking confirmation that this labour relations review is open and independent and has no predetermined conclusions. Representation has been made to the panel itself which cites the position of the members of government and the promises they made when they were in opposition.

Would the minister comment on that, and advise whether or not he has repudiated the previous position or if he has held them in suspension or in abeyance until now? Is he giving any direction to the panel, or is there any conflict in this kind of representation being made to the panel?

The Chair: Hon. minister, with a caution about the specifics of legislation.

Hon. M. Sihota: All I can say is that the hon. member should spend a little more time reading more of my letters. He may see the wisdom in the policies of the New Democratic Party. But I can tell you that there are no predetermined conclusions, and the sky's not....

D. Mitchell: We'll take the minister at his word because we must and because we want to, and we hope that the process is indeed open. Part of the problem here, when we're dealing with reviewing the Labour estimates for a government that is closely aligned with the organized labour movement, is that there is always the potential for that kind of conflict. I personally believe that it's difficult and that it's going to be difficult for this government to preside over a moderate labour relations environment when in fact the political party that forms the government is closely tied with organized labour -- in fact, constitutionally aligned with the organized labour movement.

So I would ask the minister to comment on whether or not he sees any fundamental contradiction or inherent conflict when a governing party is tied with one sector of society in a constitutional, formal sense. The letters I'm quoting from the past certainly provide a history and baggage that make it difficult to be objective.

Hon. M. Sihota: There is no contradiction or conflict in a political party or a government standing up for ordinary British Columbians. We're here to represent the views of British Columbia, and we take pride in the fact the working people in this province have some confidence in this government. We will deal in the delivery of our policies -- not speaking as a minister now, just generally -- in a way that says to working people: "We appreciate the confidence you showed us on October 17, and we're working to deliver on your concerns."

I want the opposite member to understand that we're not getting into class politics here, but this is a political party that has enjoyed support from all walks of life and from people in all spheres of influence. Take a look at this wonderful caucus that we have here in the House and this cabinet. We're here in greater numbers than your caucus is. Take a look at the member from the North Shore, who has tremendous experience in health care and in insurance work. Take a look at the good member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, who is a small businessman and an entrepreneur in his own right and is sitting on the benches of this side. Take at look at the good member for Cariboo North, who has worked in management at the pulp mill in the Cariboo. Take a look at our Minister of Agriculture, who is a mine owner-operator in British Columbia.

We have people in this party who come from all walks of life, and that's why this party enjoys the high level of support that was found in the election results of October 17. This party not only represents people of all occupation groups, but I'm pleased to say that this is a party that, for the first time in history, has been able to achieve gender equality in the composition of its cabinet. Women are well represented as a group in this cabinet and in this caucus. We're pleased with that, hon. member. I can't say that you can attest to the same.

[ Page 2637 ]

Of course, visible minorities. For the first time in this House we have three members from one visible minority in a caucus. Again, I'm pleased to say that that's the case. It represents the way in which this government, particularly under the leadership of our Premier, has been able to reach out to British Columbians in all regions and all walks of life, of all ethnic backgrounds, and bring together a consensus government. That will be seen in the legislation that we introduce, and I'm sure that at the end of the day the efforts of this administration will be applauded and supported, much as they've been applauded this morning by several members in this House.

Mindful of the hour, and under the intense lobbying of my colleague from the North Shore, who tells me has enjoyed this debate.... He is imploring me to ask that we rise and report progress.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada