Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1992

Volume 4, Number 17

[ Page 2639 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my father, Jim Cull, who is visiting with me in the Legislature today. I'd like to ask the members to make him welcome.

Hon. R. Blencoe: One of the traditions at this time of the year is that many schoolchildren visit, and Victoria is part of that tradition. This afternoon we have 45 grades 2 and 3 students from Quadra Elementary School visiting us today to learn more about this fine institution. With them are a number of parents and, in particular, their teacher, Corinne Susut. Would the House please make them all welcome.

B. Jones: Visiting today are four people who probably wear a lapel pin that has a Canadian flag and a carpenter's hammer on it. They are members of the Provincial Council of Carpenters. Joining us today are Colin Snell, Jeff Roger, Dave Streb and Heinz Korn. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure today to welcome some visitors in the gallery from the great state of Texas. Mr. and Mrs. Lon Roth and Mr. and Mrs. Larry Shaw are visiting our Legislature today. I understand that they make a habit of touring North America and visiting various state and provincial legislatures. I don't know if members are aware, but the Texas Legislature -- or the Texas Leg., as it's called -- has a reputation for being even more unruly than this one. I would ask the House to disabuse them of that notion by making them incredibly welcome today.

Hon. T. Perry: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and I thought the House was quite "ruly" today, not unruly.

I'd like to acknowledge the presence in the precincts of Mr. Ken Copeland, the president of Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd., who, along with some of his colleagues, today presented to British Columbia Systems Corporation a donation of state-of-the-art, ultra-fast computer equipment worth $5.7 million, which is going to have a major impact on computing facilities in the science and technology field in B.C. I'd just recognize that the Legislature dining-room did him justice at a luncheon with the Premier and the Minister of Government Services a few minutes ago.

Hon. L. Boone tabled the 1990-91 annual report of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the 1991-92 annual report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

COMPETITIVENESS OF FARMERS

L. Stephens: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. The small business farmers of the Fraser Valley can't compete with the cheap American lettuce that's being dumped in the province. Prices are below their costs of production. While the farmers are forced to plow under their lettuce, the Minister of Agriculture is in Hong Kong. What is the Minister of Trade doing to ensure that our farmers remain competitive?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's a wide-open question. On the question of what this minister is doing, I work with the Minister of Agriculture, and we are constantly reviewing the competitive position of our farmers. We are very concerned that we protect our farmers on issues like dumping. You will be happy to know that dumping is something that we don't feel is adequately resolved in the current negotiations with respect to the North American free trade agreement. One of the many reasons why we aren't supporting that agreement right now is that Canada has not taken a strong enough stand to protect our farmers against dumping.

L. Stephens: Mr. Minister, the only thing cheaper than talk today is American lettuce. The government inaction is creating what we call small economically restricted farmers, or SERFs for short. As a result of this government's desire to remove British Columbia from the North American free trade talks, is this minister telling our farmers they should bury their crops and enrol in job retraining programs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I had a little trouble trying to figure out the point of the question. Going by your final part, if the point of the question was whether we're encouraging our farmers to give up and roll over, we're saying no. We are concerned that our farmers take every opportunity they can to keep their costs of production in line, that we protect the land for them to farm on economically in this province, and that we encourage our retailers to be competitive in terms of offering good-quality produce.

With respect to the cross-border shopping issue, we are working with the Canadian national task force. One of the issues that they have addressed is the marketing chain, the distribution channels. In order for our industry generally to remain competitive, we have to be sure that we can get our products to market effectively.

With respect to what happens here for our farmers, I'm very pleased to say that the Minister of Agriculture of this government has been the strongest minister supporting our farmers in a long time.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

L. Stephens: There has been no action. In light of this government's betrayal of the B.C. farmers, how can all business in British Columbia be confident that this government is protecting their trade interests?

[ Page 2640 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think it's fair enough to say that this government sent its Minister of Agriculture to Geneva to raise the profile of the role of the GATT in protecting farmers.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member asking the question has all kinds of answers from her back bench, and I would be very interested....

[2:15]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Could the minister wrap up his reply.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They ask me these complicated questions, and they leave me wide open to answer....

The thrust of this government's trade policy is to defend the interests of business and working people alike, equally balanced. What more can I say?

NDP CAMPAIGN FUNDING

L. Hanson: I have a question that's not quite as complicated, and it's to the Premier. Does the Premier agree with Dave Stupich that it is perfectly appropriate to use charity funds for the promotion of socialism and the NDP? Does he agree with the former NDP Finance minister that his party and the ideology it represents is really in the same boat as food banks and charities, and therefore just as deserving of charity funds?

The Speaker: Could I ask the hon. member to indicate how that relates to the Premier's jurisdiction in this House?

L. Hanson: Hon. Speaker, as I understand the government and our political system, the Premier represents the opinion and philosophy of the party that he is leader of.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Perhaps I could ask the hon. member if he has a new question.

L. Hanson: I'm not sure, hon. Speaker, that it has to be a new question -- but let me go on a bit. I have in my custody a handwritten receipt book from the 1988 Jim Karpoff campaign. It includes receipts for cheques made payable to the NDP that are clearly marked with the letters SCE, which we believe stands for Surrey Civic Electors. Will the Premier investigate the abuse of tax-deductible donations to the NDP which are being funnelled through its farm-league parties to fight municipal elections -- in this case through a federal MP who now shares a constituency office with the Minister of Social Services?

The Speaker: Hon. member, again I regret that I must ask if you have a new question that does come within the jurisdiction of the Premier in his responsibility for the executive council.

L. Hanson: Hon. Speaker, maybe you could enlighten me as to who is the spokesman for the philosophy of the party in power.

The Speaker: Unfortunately, the hon. member knows that the Chair cannot enlighten this House about other than the rules of the House.

NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT
COMMISSIONS AND REVIEWS

W. Hurd: A question for the Premier. The opposition notes with interest the advertisements for two more boards and commissions on the weekend: an education funding review and the Provincial Child Care Council. We now have another health council announced today. My question to the Premier is: how many boards, commissions, reviews and reports is that? Does he have any idea how much the taxpayers are paying for this quasi-policy arm of his government?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, we are consulting with the people of British Columbia on important issues such as how we treat our children. My question to the member is: why are you against consulting with citizens about the way we treat our children?

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, the opposition has been keeping careful track of the number of councils, boards, official reviews and reports being commissioned by this government. For the benefit of the Premier, it totals more than 20 at a cost of $45 million. My question to the Premier is: is it a matter of public policy, and who is in charge?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. Could you repeat your question. I'm sure that nobody could hear it.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the government can explain to the House what it did while it was in opposition: investigate ways of creating more boards, commissions, reviews and reports?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can tell you that this government is very proud of the appointment of Stephen Owen to the Commission on Resources and Environment. It's about time that we had a British Columbian of that calibre working with the people of British Columbia to develop a policy on how we're going to have a sustainable forest industry, how we can double the park and wilderness areas and how we can settle with the aboriginal people in this province. Those are the goals of this government. We have first-rate British Columbians like Mr. Owen carrying on a $4 million Commission on Resources and Environment. I think the people of British Columbia disagree with your 

[ Page 2641 ]

skepticism about involving the people of British Columbia.

W. Hurd: When can we expect a commission of commissions to keep track of this twilight zone level of government? Is this Premier prepared to make sure that the hundreds of appointees running around this province are at least going to exercise restraint in the expending of $45 million of the taxpayers' dollars? Where's the level of accountability here?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I think that involving the people of British Columbia in the important issues that I just outlined is essential for good government. I think the hon. member will agree with the recent appointment of a legislative committee to look into the remanufacturing industry in this province, so that we can create more jobs in British Columbia. It's an important legislative committee initiative. The member belongs to that committee, and I would hope that he would put more work into that.

Quite frankly, hon. Speaker, the only commission or committee that we should set up is to find out where the Liberal opposition gets those kinds of questions.

LABOUR MINISTER'S FORMER LAW FIRM

R. Neufeld: To the minister responsible for ICBC. According to the ad on page 538 of the Victoria phone book, the minister's firm specializes in personal injury law and ICBC claims. I note that the minister's disclosure form specifies that he no longer has an interest in the firm but that he receives income from a partnership interest. Can the minister advise the House whether his former law firm is still specializing in ICBC work, and tell us what income or benefits, if any, he is receiving from the practice?

The Speaker: Hon. members, the question is not technically within the minister's area of responsibility. However, the minister has indicated he wishes to comment.

Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate the question and the opportunity to clarify the issue. I ceased to have any involvement in the law firm as of November 5, 1991, which is the date I was sworn into cabinet. I draw no income from that law firm, and indeed, ceased to draw income from that law firm prior to November 5, 1991. Whether it does any work for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, I don't know. I haven't talked to anybody in the firm in that regard. But I can tell the member that up until November 5, 1991, to the best of my knowledge, it had never done work for ICBC.

R. Neufeld: I wonder if the minister could advise if he has any interest at all in the firm, in the building, or any buyback options in the business.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I will not allow that question. I allowed the first one because the minister was standing and wanted to answer. But it is not within the ministerial responsibility.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS

A. Warnke: In light of what one hon. member said, I'm going to disappoint that hon. member as well, because I just have a housekeeping question today -- for the Minister of Health. Could the minister confirm that she invited members of the B.C. Medical Association -- including the past president, Dr. Gur Singh, who flew in from Kamloops, and the present president, Dr.Steve Hardwicke, who flew in from Penticton -- informing them and other members of the BCMA that it would be an all-day meeting, and that this was scheduled last Sunday?

Hon. E. Cull: I set up a meeting with the executive of the BCMA that was to last from 9:30 until 6 p.m., but I informed the BCMA that I had a meeting in my riding that I would be at during the afternoon. They were fully aware of that before they came down to the meeting.

A. Warnke: True enough, she may have been at a certain function in the afternoon. But why did she not continue with this commitment later and return to meet with members of the BCMA, who made this effort to come down to Victoria, instead of boogieing in Vancouver at a rock concert?

Hon. E. Cull: When I left at 1:30 the meeting continued on. They didn't invite me to come back. In fact, I travelled on the helijet with doctors who were returning to Vancouver at the same time, to go to my speaking engagement with the health assessment association.

The Speaker: The bell has signalled the end of question period.

Presenting Petitions

P. Dueck: I wish to present a petition.

Leave granted.

P. Dueck: We have about 200 names here. They are patients of Dr. Holmes and Dr. Heffner. They are asking that Bill 13 and Bill 14 be withdrawn. They feel that the doctors are not being....

The Speaker: Hon. member, on petitions we can only explain the topic very briefly.

Hon. E. Cull: I took a question on notice yesterday from the member for Prince George-Ominica.

L. Fox: Point of order. With respect to the fact that the minister took the question on notice, I note that the Speaker herself ruled that she had answered the question, and therefore I was able to ask a supplementary. I don't believe that the question was in fact taken on notice.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I will have to look at the Hansard to determine on that point of order and will 

[ Page 2642 ]

reply as soon as possible. If the minister would like to table the answer, we can review that and see how it compares with the Hansard record of the question.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, if you should so rule, I will write out the answer I have to answer the member verbally. But if the member doesn't want the answer to the question he asked yesterday, that's fine by me. I have no reason to give it, except that he asked a question I didn't have the information for.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Pursuant to standing order 2(2), I would advise members that the House will be sitting tomorrow afternoon between 2 o'clock and 6o'clock and not tomorrow evening. With that, hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply B: E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
AND CONSUMER SERVICES

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

[2:30]

D. Mitchell: I welcome the minister and his officials back to resume our discussion about labour relations policy and, in particular, the labour relations component of his ministry.

Before we adjourned for the lunch-hour, the minister made some comments about the industrial relations review by the labour relations panel that is out consulting in the province right now. I'd like to ask a couple more questions about that. The minister also indicated the forms of consultation that have taken place. I raised a question at that time -- which I don't think was fully answered, but the minister did comment on it -- with respect to whether or not the consultative process by the panel is open and independent and whether or not there has been any predetermination of its findings. The minister indicated that the process certainly is open, but he hasn't given an unqualified statement as to whether there has been any predetermination of its findings. Just to get us back on track here this afternoon, I wonder if the minister would like to clarify the comments that he made this morning and maybe strip away the political rhetoric and just focus on that question.

Hon. M. Sihota: After that electrifying question period, I've got to tell you that you folks over there have your work cut out for you.

You want an unqualified answer -- yes or no -- in terms of whether there have been any predeterminations or advanced conclusions that we've put to them. Absolutely not. I haven't gone to the panel at any time and said, "Look, this is what I want at the end of the day," or anything near that effect. If that's your concern, allow it to rest, because there is no basis upon which I've said that to the panel. In fact, I've done the opposite: I have let the panel know that it should go and do its work, and I wished it success in doing that. There hasn't been any instruction of that type given.

D. Mitchell: Of course, the minister will appreciate why I asked the question. One of the reference points is the previous administration, which initiated a review of labour relations in the province. Simultaneous to that review taking place, there was, according to some claims, apparently an internal review taking place simultaneously, which ultimately determined the policy of that administration.

I asked it because of the optics -- how it looks -- with this administration in terms of a panel receiving representation by unions like the Canadian Paperworkers' Union. In the appendix to its report, that union attached letters and statements made by this minister when he was in opposition and by the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition making specific commitments and I suppose trying to hold the party in power to promises and commitments made in the past. From what the minister is telling us, they certainly won't be held to those promises. That raises another set of political questions I don't intend to canvass today, which is the whole issue of promises perhaps being broken.

There's a germ of a problem there. The problem is, and we alluded to it this morning, that when a political party that finds itself in power is aligned with only one economic group in society -- when it's constitutionally aligned with organized labour -- can the paradox of power ever work itself out? Can that party ever truly govern in a moderate and non-ideological fashion on behalf of all citizens of British Columbia when it's representative of only one group? That's the problem, and that's why there are questions being raised about the independence of the review. That's why I raised the question, and that's why I think it's important for the minister to address those concerns that are out there -- not to address them as questions from an individual member of the Legislature.

I'd like to ask the minister if he could indicate, for the benefit of members of the committee, whether an interim report has been made on labour relations for the minister by the special advisers to the Industrial Relations Council. If there has been an interim report, would the minister indicate what the preliminary findings are?

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to make a number of comments with respect to the comments made by the hon. member.

It is anyone's prerogative to make a submission to the panel, and far be it from me as Minister of Labour, or from this government or from any member of this chamber, to suggest to any group what the nature of their presentation should be, and whether they should or should not append letters or anything else in support of their application. This is a free, open and democratic society that we live in, and people have the right to freedom of speech and the right to express their opinions. Government has an obligation to make sure that those opinions are listened to.

[ Page 2643 ]

Our democratic institutions work only if people can make their case with full force and effect without any restrictions or limitations being unduly placed upon them. In this regard, any union in this context is free to come before this panel and express its opinions. It is free, as it should be, to attach a letter that I may have written on April 11, 1991, a policy resolution that the NDP may have passed any time since 1933, a view that is held by a Minister of Labour past in British Columbia from this political party, or for example, the views of the Ontario party, which is going through a similar exercise.

Similarly, any individual in society or any group in society is encouraged in our democratic system to get themselves involved in the political process. Getting themselves involved in the political process means working to assist candidates or to assist political parties of their liking to achieve political power. There's nothing wrong with organized labour, for example, choosing to support one political party or to campaign aggressively against another political party. It's no more different than it is for the national business groups to align themselves with one political party or to engage in third party advertising as we saw during the 1988 federal campaign around the free trade deal.

Those are all attributes of a free and democratic society, where political groups try to influence the outcome of elections or try to influence the development of policy within a political party. It's important that those things be done up front, and they are done up-front in terms of the political party that I represent. I'm not too sure with the political party opposite. I don't know where you get your donations from or how you secure support. I still remember quite vividly Murray Pezim coming out of the blue and offering you guys 25 grand during the election campaign. Now that's his prerogative; it's his money. And you can accept it if you wish.

F. Gingell: That's for extras.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, you want another zero added on.

We understand that once you're elected, you have an obligation to be mindful of the position and platform of....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I'm not. I'm trying to give you a wide opening here.

We're mindful of what positions we've taken as a political party. We're also mindful of our responsibilities in the public interest, and we make determinations in the public interest. That obligation comes with you when you're sworn into cabinet, and you have to make these decisions on public interest variables.

Now, in the context of labour law reform, we're very, very concerned about what happened between 1986 and 1991. I understand the psychological scar that was created in terms of the labour relations mind-set in British Columbia as a consequence of what the previous administration did. I don't think it serves the public policy development in this province for that kind of process to be repeated.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

I've made it abundantly clear to you that we intend to allow that panel to proceed with a balanced process in a balanced review. I want the hon. member to understand very clearly that that process is strongly supported by both labour and business, and I want the hon. member to understand that we went to some lengths to make sure that occurred, and I'm personally committed to making sure that process is as comprehensive and as consultative as possible. Now if that doesn't address your concerns, and if that isn't blunt enough, then you're right, we will get into debate around political rhetoric. If you want to do that, you know full well that I can handle myself in here on that end of it as well.

I'm telling you straight up: we want this process to be one that tries to achieve some consensus in a very, very difficult public policy area. If it does, that's great. If it doesn't, then we will respect the areas in which they have come to a consensus, and we'll have to make some decisions in terms of the residual areas. With regard to those residual areas, obviously we're going to consider -- this is not in order of preference -- the ideological values of this administration, no more than they were considered when the previous administration, the Social Credit government, engaged in privatization. At the same time we're going to consider public interest variables. Around public interest considerations, we will try to develop public policy that is in keeping with our goal of arriving at a consensual document. That's what we're committed to; that's what we'll deliver on, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, I'd like to ask for leave to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: We have some students from Latimer Road Elementary School visiting us from Surrey today. On behalf of my colleague the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, who's not here today, I'd like to introduce approximately 24 grade 5 and 6 students, their teacher Ms. Skjonhals and several parents who are in the gallery with them. I wonder if the House could acknowledge them in their visit to our Legislature and our city of Victoria today.

F. Garden: I have a question for the minister. I was very pleased to hear his remarks earlier that some of the increases to his staff are to make sure that people don't have long waits in dealing with their problems under the labour relations section of his portfolio. But there's one portion of his portfolio that I would like to see reviewed; I'm hoping the minister could give me some comfort. That's the WCB and the regulations already in the Workers Compensation Act. If there's one particular body that has become a bureaucratic nightmare as far as I'm concerned, it's the Workers' Compensation Board. 

[ Page 2644 ]

More than any other thing I have to deal with in my office are people coming in with complaints against the Workers' Compensation Board.

Recently the situation was brought to my attention -- it's legislation that needs to be looked at -- where, when a worker successfully wins an award from a review panel, then the employer can appeal it. Because of a change in the legislation, the worker doesn't receive any compensation payments, although he has just won his appeal through the review board and the decision has been made in his or her favour. They then have to wait until the employer's appeal goes through the ramifications. The way the situation is set up now, this could take months. I've seen situations where workers have been humiliated by having to go and look for welfare while their appeal is going through the process.

Many of the union contracts cover a worker in that respect. In some situations they can apply for weekly indemnity while they're applying for workers' compensation. Then if it's ruled in their favour, they can then compensate the board for the moneys. But when people are not covered by a union agreement, they are faced with the financial hardship of trying to get by without being humiliated and going to welfare for funds while this process is taking place.

It's totally unfair, firstly, that the legislation was changed, and, secondly, for the length of time it takes workers to go through this process. I have had people in my office who have had to start selling off assets, because they're being put through the hoops. It seems to me it's slightly slanted in favour of employers, so I'm hoping that the minister can deal with this. If there's anything that needs to be reviewed, it is the Workers' Compensation Board and their practices in dealing with claims.

[2:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: A very good question from a very capable member, and I appreciate the question. Let me say that I agree. I find that kind of situation intolerable. If a board of review has made a decision and finds in favour of an employee, clearly the payments should be made until the matter is overturned or confirmed -- as the case may be -- by a subsequent panel.

It's my understanding that that is the policy of the board. If the hon. member has any specific example of a case where somebody went to the board of review, a decision was made in their favour and then they were subsequently denied benefits because the matter was under appeal, I'd like to know of that case. I can assure the member that we'll make inquiries to determine why that policy was not enforced. That's the way it should be. People ought not to find themselves in poverty because of bureaucratic delays.

Of course, the hon. member appreciates there may be situations where an adjudicator makes a decision and it is appealed to the board of review. In that case, the situation that you outlined would exist. I should say that it's important that the time-frames be as tight as possible to allow for the matter to be heard by the board of review immediately, or as soon as possible, so that there is as little disruption in the stream of income as possible. In that regard, I'm sure the hon. member is aware that the legislation has been amended to fast-track the time periods necessary to allow for the matters to be heard so that interruption in terms of stream of income is limited.

I also want to say to the hon. member that I think it's a reflection of the work he is doing in his riding that he is getting a lot of these cases. I think it's a reflection of the fact that somebody's out there doing constituency work. I think most members in this House have been frustrated with the pace with which workers' compensation matters have been handled. I've certainly experienced that frustration myself when I was allowed to do this type of work. Unfortunately, my constituency office has had to cease doing it since I became minister responsible, and that's not been well received in the riding.

We need to fast-track all of that. There's a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of WCB. The board of governors at WCB was changed very recently, and of course in the last six months I've had several occasions on which to meet with members of the board, both individually and collectively, and also with those who administer the operations of the workers' compensation scheme in British Columbia. I have to let the hon. member know that I have expressed the same kind of frustration that you just articulated, and I am most anxious to see them get on with making sure that the process works much more to the satisfaction of this administration and to the satisfaction of working people. They have persuaded me to hold off from making any significant changes, giving them 18 months from the time that this cabinet was sworn in. I have agreed to do that.

But there is a quid and a quo here. If I'm going to agree to that, the quo is that the thing has got to be cleaned up. I want the hon. member to know that I expect them to fulfil that end of their bargain. If they don't, then we'll have to take a look at other options. I made that clear to the board, and I might as well let you know just as clearly as I let the board know.

I should also let the member know -- because he comes from the Cariboo and from Quesnel -- that it is important to me that injured workers in communities like yours and regions like the one that you live in have access to the operations of the Workers' Compensation Board and advisers and advocates who can do some work for them. That's vitally important in making sure that workers not only have your office to go to, but there's an office that you can go to yourself to make sure that the bureaucracy responds in a far more flexible way than has been the case before. In the past, government has been reluctant to establish workers' advisers elsewhere.

I want to say that the hon. member and the members for Prince George have encouraged this administration to move to the establishment of such offices in the Prince George region. I think that would go a long way to attending to some of the problems that you get in your constituency office. I appreciate that lobbying. I can assure you that an announcement will be forthcoming that will provide you with a measure of satisfaction in that regard, because we are committed to opening 

[ Page 2645 ]

some regional offices in the interior of British Columbia.

I can only ask the member to be somewhat patient. Before the fall is out, I am sure you will find yourself satisfied with the next step that we'll be taking to make sure that your constituents get the kind of service that they deserve and that your office gets the support that it deserves as well.

J. Tyabji: I have to make a comment. The minister is being extremely thorough in his answers, to the point of...

An Hon. Member: Tedium.

J. Tyabji: ...tedium. There's a term called "ad nauseam" that I think you could certainly attribute here.

Going back to the minister's comments after the questions from our member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi with regard to his being mindful of the public interest, developing a consensus and considering the ideological background of his party, I think it's a very dangerous territory that we're getting into here. I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions.

The first one: in the event that being mindful of the public interest would take you in a different direction considering your ideological background -- which would prevail -- would you be prepared to go to the people who have supplied you with the financing to get elected and say: "I'm sorry, but your direction is not the one that is in the public interest"

Also, does the minister not recognize that a party such as the provincial Liberal Party obviously has the best method of dealing with the public interest because we are not in debt to any special interest groups, other than our own personal backgrounds? The minister has made, in my consideration, the best argument for why the Liberal Party should be in the government right now, and he should be joining his lobby groups on the advocacy side of the House. I'd like to hear his answers as to which interest would prevail. Whose consensus would he be dealing with?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's amazing to see that the Liberal Party thinks it has got a monopoly on virtue. That is certainly not the case. If your argument is so compelling, why are you sitting on that side of the House, hon. member? Obviously the public has greater confidence in the ability of this administration and this political party to look after the public interest than they do in yours. I think that that kind of argument is pretty shallow.

To answer your question -- you don't want a long answer -- the answer is no. I don't think that your party, by any stretch of the imagination, is the only party that can look after the public interest. How long have you guys been in the political wilderness? With that said, I think that addresses your question on the second point. On the first point, obviously there have been times in the past when I have advised those who are perceived to have a strong opinion in this party that we would not be proceeding in a direction that they wanted. You make those decisions as you go along; it's part of political life.

J. Tyabji: It's good to have this minister on record as being prepared to make decisions that would make him unpopular with those who are his financial backers. I'd like to point out to the minister that the reason we are on this side of the House.... He asked why we weren't on that side. We'll get to that side. The reason we are on this side, the reason we are the official opposition, is that we didn't owe anybody anything. As for being in the wilderness, that's the very source of our purity. As one of the other members said, it's only through being in the wilderness that you can achieve any kind of clean nature in this business in the first place.

I don't think the minister has been clear enough in his answer as far as being willing to put the public interest first. Whose consensus would it be? This minister was comparing the unions, who back him, to the business groups, who back the free enterprise party. I don't think that's a valid comparison to make. Unions obviously are advocacy workers. It's an advocacy group for a select group of workers. That's why unions were formed. Unions were formed as lobby groups; they were formed to protect the interest of the workers. A lot of business groups are not that way at all. It's a loose consortium of businesses, and a lot of businesses act independently. I don't think you can make that kind of parallel.

Whose consensus would this be? Is this minister going to draw the line, and say that if the interests of the public are different from the interests of the unions and the groups who back him...? Is he willing to make a difficult decision? Will he come out and say that he is definitely prepared to take the public interest into account?

Hon. M. Sihota: This government will always put the public interest forward as the paramount consideration.

F. Randall: I would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour for the excellent job he did with the Hospital Employees' Union. That was a very difficult dispute, and it was very well handled. Also, he has done an excellent job in making changes to the Industrial Relations Council. Those changes were certainly long needed.

I want to ask a few questions. With regard to labour standards I'm wondering what the status of labour standards is and exactly when those changes are going to be looked at. Is there a committee reviewing the standards right now with regard to overtime and that kind of thing? The existing standards have a provision that if you're covered by a collective agreement and you have employer associations, etc., they allow them to work at straight time for 15 or 16 hours a day, and they are excluded from the standards. It's important that that matter be looked at, because the labour standards should apply to all workers in British Columbia, not only some. When is that going to be addressed?

[ Page 2646 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, I thank the member for those comments and also for the excellent question. I'll tell you why that's an excellent question. [Laughter.] Well, at least we're seeing some skill over there in terms of people being able to ask good public policy questions. It's a very important question, and I'm surprised it hasn't come from the members who are now heckling or laughing. It's not a laughing matter, believe you me; it's a very important matter.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is astute enough to realize that that issue cuts across both the union and non-union side. It has tremendous impact on collective agreements executed in British Columbia. Because of the importance of that issue and that question, we've included that matter very specifically in the terms of reference of the industrial relations review that's ongoing, so that they can advise the government on how one can best attend to it.

Inasmuch as we have a review planned of the employment standards legislation and we will be making progress towards developing all the background material that will be going out to the public on that front, I want the hon. member to rest assured that that one issue that he flags is not being put off for that review. We're dealing with it right now in the broader context, because of its broader implications. It's an excellent point, and quite frankly, it's an issue that needs to be addressed, because of the way it impacts on the collective bargaining process. So it's before the panel.

[3:00]

F. Randall: I would also like to ask, with regard to labour legislation, about the review that's going on right now. I think most of us are aware of the problem created by Bill 19 with regard to double-breasting, which allows employers to have a non-union company and a union company. Eventually the union company has no employees for 24 months; then they go to the board and the agreement is cancelled, the certification is cancelled. There are those kinds of major problems, and there's the matter of the IRC recognizing employer-dominated organizations that have been created to try and get around the standard construction agreements.

There's also the matter of the employer vote, which is new. What happens there, for those who aren't aware, is that the employer has a ten-day period in which to run a campaign against the union and create all kinds of unfair labour practices that were previously illegal. The employer is in a position where he can bribe people, offer them $3 an hour to vote against the union, fire people, or have letters go home to the wives saying: "Your husband is going to be out of work because we're going to move to Alberta." Those kinds of things that were all unfair before are all carried out by the employer, and then there's a vote held to see how successful the employer was in his intimidation or bribery or combination of both. That is certainly a major problem.

There's also the matter of the security on site for building-trade unions. I'm not aware of a pulp mill or a hospital that has lost its bargaining rights, but with Bill 19, as you are aware, construction unions have lost their bargaining rights by the hundreds of employers, because of the employer being allowed to double-breast. He bids the new job under a new company, and they have a score of them on the shelf. They can, in effect, deunionize the whole industry, and they've been reasonably successful at that. I know that in the roadbuilding industry alone, it was about 98 or 99 percent organized, and it's probably down to 10 or 15 percent. Those few that are left are not going to exist very much longer.

So I think it's important that the legislation be dealt with as soon as it's available. I don't know what the time-frame or the schedule is, but I would hope that this House would meet as soon as that report is available and deal with that legislation. Maybe the minister has some information on when that might be forthcoming.

The Chair: The Chair would like to take the opportunity to remind all members of the House that the necessity for legislation or matters involving legislation may not be discussed in Committee of Supply. The minister may wish to comment on some of the problems that the member has outlined, but please keep that standing order in mind.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Chair. It's good to see you in that position today.

I'm glad that the hon. member is raising the issues that he's flagged, and I'll tell you why. It's important that there be a good discussion in this chamber about the practical day-to-day problems that are experienced, whether it be what the member for Cariboo North raised on WCB or what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds just raised in relation to organizing. Legislation has to be measured against those types of practical realities and the way to deal with them.

I'm not going to talk about the legislation. As the Chair noted, the necessity of legislation is not a matter that is in order here. The committee has engaged in consultation, and I know that it is hearing about those practical problems in the representations that are made to it. I'm sure that those kinds of representations will influence it to deal in some fashion with the practical concerns that you raise. There are ways outside the legislative framework to deal with some of those issues. The hon. member knows that some of the other initiatives that this administration has taken to date are designed in part to attend to some of the practical problems he speaks of.

I agree with you that these are problems. I'm glad that you raised them. Hopefully other members will have the opportunity to reflect -- as I do and as I'm sure the committee will -- on the need to attend to these matters. We'll look forward to the report. I have no idea when I can expect that report.

F. Randall: I just have a couple of questions relating not to legislation but to policy. There is a fair wage policy in place for part of the construction industry. I'm wondering what the status is with regards to the roadbuilding industry for bridge and highway construction. That matter has not been dealt with yet, 

[ Page 2647 ]

and I'm wondering if and when there are plans to deal with it.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's a good question from the member. It is true that the fair wage policy we introduced covers a subset of occupational groups in society but not all of them. In particular, it does not cover the area he has mentioned. The reason for that, quite honestly, is that there are provisions of the Highway Act that would make it difficult for that policy to apply. This minister is in conversation with other ministries around that subset of workers. Although no final determination has been made in terms of when we will move on that front, I can assure the member that we're very receptive to the arguments that have been made by people in that field of work. In fact -- and I'm sure the hon. member does not realize this -- just yesterday I made arrangements to meet, on an expedited basis, with a number of people involved in that field of endeavour so that I can take better stock of their concerns. It's my understanding that that meeting will proceed next Monday.

F. Randall: Another question relating to the existing fair wage policy is the matter of the percentage. Most of the discussion I've heard is that we want to create a level playing-field so the costs are the same for people bidding on jobs. The existing fair wage policy has 84 percent of the standard construction rates.... To my mind, if 40 percent of a $10 million job is wages, you're looking at about an $840,000 advantage that a non-union contractor would have over a union contractor. An $840,000 advantage going in doesn't really say anything to me about a level playing-field. That's a substantial edge. Are there any thoughts of looking at adjusting that to make it more fair?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are thoughts of looking at adjusting that, so the answer to that question is yes.

We introduced the fair wage policy in a very calculated and, if I may say so, cautious fashion so we could monitor its effect in terms of the overall construction budget in government. We wanted to see how the bids came in after the fair wage policy was put in place. That's why we consciously decided to go the policy route as opposed the legislation route. We will be reviewing that policy now that we've had some three or four months of experience with it, and in looking at adjustments, we will be very mindful of the points that the hon. member has made.

F. Randall: I'd also like to ask the minister for the rationale as to why jobs under $1.5 million were exempted. When looking at bids, I find that many jobs are under that amount. When looking at all the jobs recently awarded in the roadbuilding industry, in particular, I'd say that 90 percent of them, or more, are under that amount. What was the rationale for having an exemption on jobs under that amount?

I know that in the United States they have the Davis-Bacon Act, which has been in effect for over 50 years and requires that prevailing rates be paid. There are about 32 or 33 states.... The United States also has a mini-Davis-Bacon Act that requires that any jobs receiving state money also comply with that act. For over 50 years the exemption there has been on jobs over $2,000. I just wonder what the rationale was for the $1.5 million.

Hon. M. Sihota: It was a policy determination made by government, hon. member. That was actually based upon representations that we had received from both industry and the unions. Like all aspects of the policy, it's open for reconsideration. As I've said, it is my view that we'd like to proceed with the policy in a methodical way and assess its development and impact as it goes. That is an issue -- as well as the other ones you've enumerated -- which I'll be discussing with the affected parties in the weeks to come. I've asked staff to make arrangements for meetings in July with interest groups in the field, and I'll be meeting with them during that month to discuss embellishments to the policy.

It's an excellent point that you raise, and it's an important area of fleshing out the fair wage policy. But, you know, it is true that the government chose to go on a step-by-step basis. So we narrowed the potential field at the beginning to see how the policy would work, and we're trying to sort of iron out the wrinkles as we go. It's been a very successful policy, if I may say so. There really haven't been that many wrinkles to iron. When you've had that success, it's easier to expand the scope as time goes on, as opposed to having a very broad scope at the beginning and then trying to narrow it down to cover some of the problem areas.

I thank the member for that question, and I want to assure him that those matters also will be attended to as we go on. I hope other members will have the opportunity to reflect on the comments made here in the House by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and to recognize the importance of these issues.

F. Randall: I wonder if the minister could advise how the fair wage is being policed. Have additional staff been hired? What's happening with the policing of the fair wage?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think it's gone so well that we really haven't run into any significant problems. We monitor it, and we have someone in our policy branch who oversees the development of that policy. It's been going so well that we really haven't been running into anywhere near the level of problems that we had anticipated. In fact, there's a high level of cooperation with respect to the policy. It's working very well. We haven't really detected any significant problems in that regard. People do phone in with some problems, and we attend to them. We do that on a very regular basis.

F. Randall: There's an agreement called the Western Accord. I don't know if there have been changes in it, but at one time the Western Accord deleted a requirement that a company doing work in British Columbia have an office here. I know there have been cases of hearings at the Industrial Relations Council in which, because there was no requirement 

[ Page 2648 ]

that a company have an office here, you could not have them appear at the board; there was no way you could subpoena them from Alberta. I'm wondering if that has been changed or if it still exists. In effect, if a company's doing business here, there has to be a way to get them to appear before the Industrial Relations Council if there's a hearing. But if they refuse to come and they're stuck in Alberta, how do you deal with that?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, that matter falls within the purview of the Minister of Finance. I've discussed it with the Minister of Finance, and I know that he has had discussions with the various parties in relation to that issue. Because I haven't had the opportunity to talk to him and he's not here today, I cannot report on the status of those discussions or negotiations. I can assure the member that this matter is before the government and with the Minister of Finance, and I can tell him that I have talked to him and a number of the groups that have come to see me. I have flagged that as an issue, and as a consequence, the government has put it on the agenda for discussions that are ongoing with respect to the Western Accord.

[3:15]

F. Randall: A couple of last questions, and I don't know if the minister has the answers, because I don't know whether there have been changes. With regard to bankruptcies, many organizations have welfare plans, pension funds, training funds, where the employer is required to contribute various amounts of money -- it might be $4 or $5 an hour in total in various trust funds -- and both the Liberal government federally and the Conservatives are totally opposed to any kind of protection for those trust funds. The letter I got from the Liberals said that the banks have to come first. I think those are really part of wages, and it seems to me that there has to be some sort of protection. If you negotiate $1 an hour as an increase, then the union allocates so much to welfare -- maybe a quarter to pension, etc. That's really part of the wages. They've taken the position that in bankruptcies that money is not protected at all. It's way at the bottom of the list, and of course, you never collect it. I'm wondering if there is anything that can be done provincially with regard to that matter.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, there is, and again I thank the hon. member for that excellent question, because it deals with another good area of public policy. I'm pleased to see that we're getting some good questions in relation to labour matters in this estimates debate, albeit they're not coming from the Liberals, who are somewhat mesmerized by this good debate. I don't think they're used to seeing such good, constructive public policy debate going on in the House, so I understand their frozen state right now -- they're shocked. I must say I'm not shocked by the hon. member asking those questions. He has a good background in these matters, and it's reflected in the questions that he's posing.

Yes is the answer to the question, and the forum through which this government will deal with that issue is through the review that we'll have on employment standards. On a preliminary basis, we have identified that as an issue that we will be putting out to that consultative process.

F. Randall: There has been a problem with regard to lawyers, I guess. If an accident happens on a job, there's a lawsuit. I can give you a couple of examples.

In Kitimat there was a crane that crossed a bridge. The operator said, "That bridge doesn't look safe," and he was ordered to take the crane across. The bridge collapsed, and of course the operator was named in the lawsuit. Another one was on a tunnel job a couple of years ago where a crane went over the bank. The crane had no insurance on it -- it was a rented crane. The operator was named in a lawsuit because he didn't check to make sure that the employer's crane had insurance on it.

These things never get to court. What happens when a lawsuit takes place is that the lawyers name everybody but the kitchen sink in the claim. I know one person who had to mortgage their house to get enough money to pay a lawyer to prepare a statement of defence. You're at least faced with that, because if you don't put in a statement of defence you're dead meat. Is there any way there can be protection for people who are named in lawsuits while they're working on behalf of the employer, at least to cover the statement of defence? It runs $4,000 to $5,000 to prepare a statement of defence, and most employers will not, in effect, represent or act on behalf of their employee who is named in a suit. If there is some way legislatively to protect workers from being named in those suits when they're performing a job on behalf of the employer, it would certainly help a number of people.

Hon. M. Sihota: Look, I was agreeing with you until you started taking shots at lawyers. I think the member for Parksville-Qualicum may have a few comments to make to you about that question. I see he's sitting next to you. He may give you advice as to why lawyers name everybody in a statement of claim, and I'm sure he'll convince you that there's good legal reason for so doing. In fact, if he doesn't, he may find himself sued for not doing so. There are liabilities within liabilities.

It's an interesting issue that you raise. I really am skeptical about whether or not you should limit, by legislation, an individual's right to sue in that kind of situation, because it may be that the operator himself or herself may have been negligent -- not just the employer. You get into all sorts of vicarious liability issues that can arise. So I must say that I am a little reluctant to begin to legislate in that area of liability law -- or vicarious liabilities, I think it's called. Am I correct on that? The member for Parksville-Qualicum will tell me. We're talking about vicarious liability here, right? Good, I appreciate that advice.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, it's a good thing. He practises more frequently than I do, or at least he went to that lecture at law school when I didn't.

[ Page 2649 ]

It's a good question. I never really thought about it before. We'll look at it, as administration, and if you've got some particulars on the cases you're familiar with, we'll take a look at them. But I don't want to leave you with the impression that there's much that (a) we can do or (b) we'd want to do, because some of the implications of moving in that direction are often unintended, and I think it's pretty hard to guard against them.

I appreciate the point you make, and for the operators represented by collective agreements, I'm sure it will show up as an issue at the bargaining table in terms of providing some assistance through at least a statement of defence, if not further, in terms of drafting the collective agreement to cover off that kind of situation. That might be far more preferable, to my way of thinking, than doing it by way of legislation. Again, we'll look at that, and I'd like to get the particulars from the hon. member. But as I stand here, I really can't think of a clean legislative way to attend to that problem. Remember that there are some problems that legislation just won't solve.

F. Randall: I would just like to say that I appreciate the job that the Minister of Labour is doing. I think he's doing an excellent job, and I'm very happy that he's in the position that he is. He understands labour matters very, very well, and I know, with the burden he has of all the constitutional matters, he's certainly doing an excellent job in the Labour portfolio.

Just one last comment, if I can. In case you're not aware, in 1986 the roadbuilders' association and the unions made a joint brief to the former Minister of Labour with regard to a fair wage in the roadbuilding industry. It was supported by the employers' association and the unions. Again, it was a joint brief supported by management and labour for a fair wage in roadbuilding, and copies are available.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me say that I couldn't agree more with the member with respect to his opening comments. And secondly, I see that the former Minister of Labour is in the House. I'm sure he'll want to comment on some of these issues as well.

I did have the opportunity to speak to the Electrical Contractors' Association of British Columbia about two weeks ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity not just to speak to them but, more importantly, to hear from them their views on how we've been able to deal with the issue of fair wages, the whole matter of building codes and the interrelationship among my ministry, Municipal Affairs and Training and Technology. I think we're moving in the right direction in terms of how we have started to develop policy. I'm sure the members of the opposition would agree with me in that regard as well.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, I've noticed an interesting pattern here. When members of the governing party get up and congratulate the minister on his scintillating performance to date, he responds in a very civil fashion. I too would like to congratulate the minister; however, I haven't yet found anything to congratulate him for. But I would like him to know that when he does accomplish something that is really noteworthy, he will receive praise, platitudes and bouquets from the opposition members of the House as well. I want him to know that. If we can continue this kind of civil dialogue in this committee, I know he will ultimately receive the authority he requires to continue spending for his ministry.

I'd like to go back to a question we were canvassing earlier on the industrial relations review that is taking place in the province by the labour relations panel. I did ask a question of the minister before we got sidetracked that was not answered. The question was, if the minister will recall, if he could indicate to the committee today whether or not the special advisers to the industrial relations review have issued an interim report yet. If an interim report has been issued to the minister, could the minister indicate what the preliminary findings are?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me deal with the introductory comments. I look forward to the day when you will praise me for my scintillating efforts. I know that you do go out of your way to praise people. It's not lost on me that you went out of your way to praise the appointment of Bob Williams and his work in terms of the Crown corporations. I appreciated that. I know that may come back to haunt you a few times. But if you praise me, I can assure you that won't happen.

Let me tell you this. I have not received an interim report at all from the group -- at least nothing written or formal -- nor have I had any substantive discussions with the panel around the content of their report in an interim way. I met with the entire panel once, and I met with the subgroup twice. But that was designed to take stock of where they're at and what kind of progress they're making. They have not commented on any substantive matters to me, nor have I to them, in those two short meetings we've had.

D. Mitchell: With respect to the state of labour relations in the province, there are currently a number of labour disputes. In the young life of this new government we've had a number of labour disputes in the public sector at educational institutions. I don't want to relive all those, but there is a concern. I'm sure the minister has had some trying times to date as well.

If we take a look at the pattern of British Columbia history, the last time there was an NDP government in British Columbia was a time of labour turmoil as well. I hope that is not going to be the case with this administration. I worry about the expectations that exist out there right now -- the high expectations in the public sector in particular -- relating to promises made by the NDP when they were in opposition and which cannot be fulfilled by the taxpayer in British Columbia. If we take a look right now at the current state of labour relations, from June to the end of this calendar year some 234 agreements are going to expire in mining, manufacturing, construction, transportation and communications, trade, finance, insurance, real estate -- it goes on and on -- covering almost 66,000 British Columbians and over 50 percent of all agreements. Could the minister indicate what he or his ministry is doing to 

[ Page 2650 ]

prepare for the possibility of these kinds of labour disputes? Particularly, could he comment on what his ministry is doing to prepare for labour disputes affecting teachers?

[3:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to make a number of comments to the hon. member. It's a good question, actually.

It is true that last year, being an election year and in anticipation of a change in government, a number of collective agreements were not concluded. It had the effect of having a lot of agreements come up this year. Either discussions dragged on through the course of the year, or they were timed so they came up this year. We've inherited a very heavy agenda of unresolved contracts, which -- the member's quite correct -- brings its own set of challenges and difficulties, particularly after an election when there are expectations around those agreements, given the turn of events in the election. That has the potential to increase the number of days lost due to work disruptions. I don't know how we compare with last year or previous years -- not to be gloomy about what's going to come ahead -- but the odds are not good if you look at it from a probability point of view, from a what-may-happen point of view. Who knows? It's a very heavy year for collective agreements for the reasons I've enumerated, so we have a very heavy agenda in that regard.

So far it hasn't been too bad. We've been able to see our way through some very difficult and complex negotiations. Some of them immediately come to you as examples. BCIT is a good example of that. There was a strike out at UBC. There was the HEU dispute, which involved a form of job action. Particularly for the public sector side, I think that the comments you make about expectation are certainly true.

We've been able to resolve those issues and disputes with a minimum amount of disruption, when you look at it in retrospect. Certainly the HEU was the real psychological test, if I can put it that way. We were able to arrive at an agreement that all the parties could live with. I think so far, so good, to be honest about it. We've been able to handle them reasonably well.

There are disputes forthcoming. There's one before us in terms of the CPU situation, and of course there are the BCGEU negotiations, the teachers and others. I can't tell you what's going to happen with the teachers. We'll be watching with great interest to see what happens. Obviously you expect people in whatever sector they negotiate in to be working within the budgets that are laid out or to be dealt with in the context of the fiscal realities that an administration finds itself in. Again, I think the collective agreements that have come down to date have reflected that. It may reflect wage settlements last year to some extent as well. But I think so far, so good.

In terms of dealing with these matters, our ministry has increased the staffing levels on the mediation side to begin to do some preventive and advance work around some of these disputes. There has been a significant increase in the quantum of mediation work that we've been doing ever since the boycott was lifted with respect to Bill 19. We're applying the resources necessary to attend to that. One is hopeful that the mediation work will assist in resolving matters. One is also hopeful that the pattern set by some of the contracts that have been negotiated to date will have an impact on subsequent events.

The member's question is an interesting one, but I want to correct what may be an undercurrent to it. I don't think it was intended, but still I detected it. The role of this ministry is to assist the parties in finding their own -- I want to emphasize "their own" -- resolution to bargaining disputes. We do not take sides in disputes, and we do not intend to dictate to any parties as to how they ought to conduct their negotiations. That's the kind of role that we've taken to date, and it's certainly the role that I think is prudent to take with respect to these matters.

I thank the member for that good question. I want to be upfront about it. I'm well aware of the heavy negotiating agenda for this year and of what consequences may flow from that. But, as I say, I take comfort in what we've been able to do so far, and I'm quite happy with what we've been able to achieve.

D. Mitchell: The minister's good fortune to date will hopefully continue, but the other undercurrent to the question was that, hopefully, there isn't going to be a repeat of history. If you take a look at the history of the former NDP administration, whether it was a coincidence, a freak of nature or an accident of history, the fact is that it was associated with a period of tremendous labour turmoil in British Columbia. It may have precipitated the defeat of that government in 1975. I'm not wishing that necessarily on this government; I hope that if this government dies, it's through a natural death and not through any other circumstances. But in terms of labour turmoil, the conditions are certainly there today for unfortunate and tragic labour turmoil in our province, given where we are today with the pulp industry and several mines on strike and with public sector negotiations with the BCGEU, teachers, etc., on the horizon.

The minister says that he does not take sides in disputes, and I think that's extremely important to understand, because there is a perception otherwise. There is a perception that perhaps a minister who represents a party that is associated or affiliated with organized labour might be having private meetings with union leaders during labour disputes. There is a perception, as a result of this, that there is not independence, that there is not arm's length and that there is perhaps interference in the free collective bargaining process. That perception has existed in some of the labour disputes to date. So I think that the minister's comments are important, and it's important that he's put them on the record in this committee today. I think the perception is there, and if that were to continue it would be unfortunate. It would prevent the ministry from getting on with the work that it is doing.

With respect to the preventive maintenance work that can be done to anticipate labour disputes, and the role of the ministry which the minister has just commented on, if we take a look at the upcoming 

[ Page 2651 ]

BCGEU negotiations, the contract that is about to expire and the teachers, we can anticipate problems there. I know the minister or his officials are probably monitoring those closely. Are there specific actions that the minister's office or the ministry is taking right now to try to prevent any disruptions, work stoppages or reductions of services to the public of British Columbia as a result of contract expirations about to take place?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me say this. Of course, we only get involved when the parties ask us to get involved. Our style so far has been to give the collective bargaining process time to work and let it do its own thing. The general view is that if you just stay out of it and let it do its thing, it tends to work its own magic. So that's how the system works. In that regard, all we do is monitor the disputes.

There are times when we have to get involved in terms of essential service designations, and we do that. We try to do that in advance and in a preventive way. We did that, for example, with the HEU and obviously would with the BCGEU, should the situation require it. I should say, though, that there is obviously more pressure now on the government around mediation services and this preventive work, as a consequence of the lifting of the boycott. We intend to proceed by next week with the hiring of four additional people on the mediation side of the IRC, to beef up those areas that are now rather overburdened. They really hadn't been burdened until that boycott got lifted, and now that it's been lifted we've been seeing a lot more demands on that side.

K. Jones: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, visiting us today is a group of students up in the gallery from Hall's Prairie Elementary School in my riding in Surrey. There are approximately 20 grade 7 students, with their teacher, Ms. Gregg, and several adults. Would the House please join me in acknowledging their visit to this precinct and to beautiful Victoria.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for his comments. The other reference we had there was to the expectations -- maybe overexpectations -- that exist right now. I hope the minister won't think I'm being overly critical when I suggest that perhaps those expectations are part of the problem with the election of an NDP government, that there are expectations precisely because the party that he is a member of has come to government having made the promises it did to many of the associated groups in the organized labour movement, which he is affiliated with. As a result, those expectations are of the government's own making.

One of the sets of expectations relates to the so-called fair wage policy, which I would like to ask the minister a question about. The minister indicated earlier, in response to another member's question, that so far the so-called fair wage policy -- some call it the fixed-wage policy -- has gone very well, and in fact a lot of the problems that were anticipated haven't been realized. Could the minister tell the members of the committee which problems that he anticipated haven't been realized yet?

Hon. M. Sihota: One of the things that we were very determined to look at carefully was addressing the argument put forward by those who are opposed to the sensible, rational policy that we've introduced -- fair wages. [Laughter.] I don't know why you guys laugh at me when I say things like that.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I think you are, actually.

Let me say that I'm glad to see there are students here from Surrey and welcome them to Victoria. We always look forward to seeing students here. As I said earlier, it always brings out the highest level of debate among members, because we all behave ourselves when students come here.

The hon. member should know that when the policy was announced, I stated that I did not expect it to cost the government any additional money, and that was an important consideration. As I said earlier, the policy was methodically developed to achieve that purpose. That was certainly one thing we wanted to watch with care, and I'm pleased to report that that hasn't been the case. That's one of the reasons that you don't see anywhere near the level of vigour from some groups who originally opposed the policy. They've come to learn to live with it. The evidence is very clear.

Let me share that evidence with the members of the House. Simon Fraser University in Burnaby. The estimated cost of that project was $35 million. The lowest bid, and the accepted bid -- which, by the way, was with a non-union company -- came in at $30.5 million. The next lowest bid was $30.7 million, and that was with a unionized company. We came in under budget with the fair wage in there. The Commonwealth Games aquatic centre. The estimated cost was $18 million to $20 million. The low bid came in at $17.9 million. Again, that was a unionized bid and the acceptable bid in that case. The University of Northern British Columbia administration building in Prince George. The estimated cost was $900,000. The low bid, from a unionized company, came in at $900,000. The UNBC laboratory in Prince George. The estimated cost was $2.96 million, and the low bid came in at $2.85 million -- again through a unionized company. The Sooke middle school, which is in my former riding, now represented by the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca. The estimated cost of that construction was $9.97 million. It came in at $9.47 million, some $500,000 below budget, again from a unionized company. The Robson Square courthouse, a major undertaking in the city of Vancouver. The estimated cost of that was $10 million, and the low bid came in at $8.81 million by a unionized company. The provincial government building in Horsefly. The estimated cost of that one was $1.83 million. The low bid came in at $1.53 million, and it was non-unionized.

[3:45]

[ Page 2652 ]

The only one that came in above budget was the library at the University of Northern British Columbia, and it was pretty close. The estimated cost there was $3.24 million, and the low bid, which came in from a unionized company again, was $3.36 million.

You can see that in eight of the nine contracts the bids came in below budget. That was an important consideration for government. I'm pleased to see that we've been able to keep the costs in line with what we thought the projects would cost us.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to discuss this so-called fair wage policy a little further. The figures that the minister is quoting are interesting, but I'm not really sure that I can put them into the context that I'd like to, to ensure that the taxpayers of British Columbia are not paying more for these kinds of projects than they would otherwise.

The minister might recall the supply bill debate earlier in the session -- he may not want to remember -- when the special warrants for his ministry came up very late one night. During those supply bill debates, the member for...

Hon. M. Sihota: It started at 5:15 and ended at 5:30.

D. Mitchell: That was 5:30 in the morning.

I can recall very vividly that the minister looked very crisp that early morning in the House. He wasn't open to answering a lot of questions, but he did take a lot on notice. He did get back to the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove in particular, the official opposition Labour critic, who unfortunately can't be with us here today. In one written response to the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove on the so-called fair wage policy, the minister indicated that the analysis and recommendations leading to the development of the government fair wage and skills development policy were prepared by staff of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services; all materials were prepared in-house. The minister further indicates in this written response that all policy work, including the identification of various hourly wage rates, was undertaken by public servants.

The minister's response to that written question would indicate that there were studies which led to analysis and recommendations. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to table the studies, the analyses and recommendations in this committee today, because I think the public needs to know what information was utilized to justify a fair wage policy of between $24 and $28 per hour.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's right. I wish to thank the member from Prince George for answering the question for me. Having been away from the House, I'm not sure what the status of freedom-of-information legislation is at this point, except to say this: that information will obviously be available when that legislation has secured the endorsement of this House.

You will get that information in due course. The work was done on the basis of analysis done by the ministry in-house. I don't know what you categorize as study and what you categorize as analysis, but there was analytical work done by the ministry in-house, and the material then developed on the basis of that analysis.

No, I don't see the value in terms of making that information available, but I will consider the request and let you know what I think about that request, knowing that in due course, in any event, it will become public information.

D. Mitchell: I take it that the minister is somehow using freedom of information as a reason not to provide information.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, there is a good reason. The reason is this: that information goes to cabinet, and I know that some of the material that goes to cabinet is exempt from the freedom-of-information legislation. I don't know if I have authority -- not from cabinet, but I don't know if constitutionally I have the ability to give you the material that went to cabinet. All of it went to cabinet, and that's the reason why I am hesitant.

D. Mitchell: We look forward to determining whether or not we can receive that information. In the review of these estimates over the last day or so, the minister has referred to the fact that MLAs from his own party, in fact, made representation to him on the so-called fair wage policy. So it would be interesting to know the array of information that went into the decision to proceed with that policy.

In his opening remarks yesterday to this committee, the minister suggested that the so-called fair wage policy would be expanded beyond the construction industry into areas such as highways construction, and I know there was some discussion of that earlier in response to a member's question. Just for the record, can the minister advise whether and when he will be expanding this policy into highways construction in particular?

Hon. M. Sihota: Two points. First of all, with respect to your opening comments, yes, I did receive representations from MLAs on the government side of the House. I also received representations from MLAs on your side of the House, and indeed I invited the public to respond, at least all the interest groups affected by fair wages. I wrote to them in February asking them to respond by some time in March, and I received submissions in that regard as well. So I wouldn't want the hon. member to be left with the impression that only a handful of MLAs from the government side sought to take advantage of the opportunity to provide information. It was far more extensive than that.

The question, I believe, related to highway construction, and that is a matter of future policy. We have a fair bit of work that needs to be done in that regard, and there may be a need for some legislative amendments as well. I'm not in a position at this point to tell you when.

[ Page 2653 ]

L. Fox: Hon. Chair, I just want to touch base on the eight or nine projects that were listed and the successful tenders. I noticed that only one of those successful tenders was a non-union company. Can the minister inform me whether or not non-union companies tendered on all the projects, and if there were a number of them, what the numbers were?

Hon. M. Sihota: We'd have to get that information. By the way, you're wrong; two bids went to non-unionized companies. Sorry if I misled you; I apologize for that. But I don't have that information with me. We could secure that; it would take some work to do that. I'd be very surprised if non-unionized companies did not bid on those projects.

For example, on the Commonwealth Games aquatic centre -- which is a Victoria project, so I'm more familiar with it than most others -- there were clearly a number of non-unionized companies that bid. The practice in the province is usually that there are far more non-unionized than unionized companies that exist, so the odds are that all the way, throughout, non-unionized companies were bidding. I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that non-unionized companies have vacated the field of bidding on contracts for government work. I would be most surprised, given the fact that they know they're going to get paid on those projects, if non-unionized companies, for ideological reasons, would wish to interrupt their cash flow and not bid on government projects.

L. Fox: I would be most interested if that information could be provided. Estimates are estimates, and tenders are tenders, and I would like to understand the full impact and the full process that is happening. I would appreciate it if the minister could make those available.

L. Hanson: Hon. Chair, it's interesting to hear the minister comment on the fair wage policy. He is suggesting that the proof that there is no extra cost to government is based on the amount that is estimated.

I think the real truth and proof of the study that the minister has suggested his ministry is going to do would be to determine what the bid would have been if there had not been a fair wage policy. I think it is more critical to the taxpayers of British Columbia to give them the assurance that there is no added cost as a result of it. Quite frankly, I have some difficulty in accepting that there isn't any added cost. The minister is smiling and can understand that.

For the minister's benefit -- he probably knows of it, knowing the efficient staff he has -- there was a study done in Maryland, I believe, on a wage policy similar to this one and the effects of it....

D. Mitchell: New Jersey.

L. Hanson: I'm being corrected; it was New Jersey.

If the minister is not aware of that study, I suggest he get a copy of it, because there are some measurements used in that study to determine the cost to the taxpayers of the policy. That would be beneficial not only for his information, but he has assured us that he wants to keep the citizens of British Columbia informed as to what the actual cost is, to truly determine if there is or is not an extra cost involved in the policy.

The minister is also responsible for B.C. Hydro. I have evidence to the effect that B.C. Hydro, in one of their estimates or requests for tenders, invoked the fair wage policy as such. Is that a further application of the fair wage policy? It wasn't for the construction of buildings and so on, but it was well within the dollar costs that are the parameters of the fair wage policy. It was a project in Revelstoke for building a tunnel, I believe, and some access roads. The fair wage policy was part of the bid process, or at least part of the request for tenders. I wonder if the minister has applied the policy to the Crown corporations he's responsible for, or how that initiative came about.

[4:00]

Hon. M. Sihota: I just want to deal with the points you raised in relation to fair wages. There are a number of them.

First of all, the bids that were accepted were compared to what government expected the costs to be. The expected costs with respect to those projects were, of course, predicated on life experience, which would cover the period prior to the introduction of the fair wage policy. Therefore those estimates are our best guess of what it would have cost us and were predicated on considerations prior to the implementation of the policy. I think that answers your question in part -- namely, that the estimates reflected what we thought the bid was going to come in at.

If it comes in under that, it shows that the fair wage policy is working, because we also know, secondly, that the history was that non-unionized companies would bid within an eyelash of unionized companies, and then they would pay their workers 20 to 30 percent less and pocket the difference as excess profit. For example, in the case of the Nanaimo courthouse, there really was a 1 percent difference in the bid between union and non-unionized companies prior to the fair wage policy. With the UBC parkade there was a 2.9 percent difference, and at the Jack Davis Building there was a 4 percent difference. The practice was to bid within an eyelash, but it appears that non-union companies were paying their workers 20 to 30 percent less than unionized workers. As I said before, we found it unacceptable to bill the government $25 an hour, pay your worker $21 and take the difference of $4 as excess profit on top of the profit you've built in.

The policy was set at 10 to 14 percent below the union rate, because we wanted to see what effect it would have on costs. Indeed, it's created a level playing-field. Everybody knows now what to bid in terms of wages. We're still finding that we're coming in under budget.

I think it has met the test. What's relevant is what's happened here in British Columbia as opposed to what's happened in New Jersey, Maryland or wherever in the eastern United States you want to use as an example. We're trying to deal with the problems we found here in B.C., and we are dealing with them. If 

[ Page 2654 ]

nothing else, it's taken that element of acrimony out of the bidding process. I think you've got to agree with me, having had the experience that I'm now going through, that it is important to take that acrimony out of the bidding process. To a large extent the process has been well served.

Since the hon. member raised the American example, I'm sure that during his analysis he looked not only at Maryland and New Jersey but at 32 other states which have a fair wage policy in place. We're not unusual or out of step in bringing forward that kind of practice here in British Columbia. Of course, the federal government in the United States and to some extent the federal government in Canada have also looked at fair wage practices and developed such policies, as have a number of other provinces.

We're proceeding, and it's working well so far. I hope that he finds some comfort in the fact that we've done it in a methodical way as opposed to going to a broad policy that I think would have invited some uproar, which we never saw. That is in response to your first question.

I haven't ignored the other point that you made with respect to B.C. Hydro. I know that you asked me the question in the House. You saw me writing a note. I've just sent that down, because I want some information, which I left on my desk, sent up to the House that dealt with Hydro-related matters, because I want to be fully refreshed in my memory in terms of what transpired there. I'll get to that with you eventually.

L. Hanson: Thank you. Mr. Minister. I guess from that we can assume that sometime during your estimates you will have that information and will be able to provide it to us.

I guess I have some differences of opinion with the minister as to some of the suggestions he made just now as a result of those questions. First of all, I was not suggesting that the experience in New Jersey was a pattern that we could follow here in British Columbia; I only suggested that the study did show that there were potentially millions of dollars in savings for the taxpayers if they got rid of the fair wage policy. But I wasn't suggesting that; I was simply suggesting that the minister could maybe use some of the methodology included in that study to determine if British Columbia was paying more as a result of the fair wage policy. As Sergeant Friday used to say on his famous television program, all we're after is the facts. If we could direct the ministry's research into that issue to get us the facts, it would be very helpful, I'm sure, to all British Columbians.

I had some difficulty understanding the minister's reference to acrimony in the bid process, because I hadn't seen the bid process as being terribly difficult in that particular area. But the minister suggested that the bid process was flawed, in that non-union contractors were bidding and putting excess profits in their pockets as a result of a differential wage that they were paying before the fair wage policy. The minister should go back into the records and look at the various bids that were made. In almost every instance, a number of non-union companies were bidding against each other. I'm not sure how they could take into consideration the fact that they had an advantage over union companies, because they really had no advantage over each other, the free market being the competitive place that it is. The profit that the minister suggested was the difference in the wage paid by the non-union contractor and the union contractor, which they pocketed. The competitive factor in those bids certainly offset that possibility and made it almost impossible to accept that as a reason.

In any case, I suppose that the minister has had his staff do some research, and they have probably talked to various experts in the field -- estimators, or whatever their official title may be -- who determine the valuation of projects. The minister would find that most of those estimators are using a different set of figures to determine the estimated cost of a project since the fair wage policy came in, as related to prior to the fair wage policy being instituted. That to me would indicate that people who are very knowledgeable and expert in the field have recognized that there probably is an extra cost. But the minister has assured us that he is going to do an extensive and in-depth study of the difference between what it would have cost and what it is costing under the fair wage policy. With that, I'll accept that the minister eventually is going to table that study for the knowledge of British Columbians.

Hon. M. Sihota: I did not detect a question there, but that's all right. I'll answer it in any event.

I notice that there's another school group here today. I don't know if they're from Surrey or not, but if they are I don't know where all the members from Surrey are to introduce them. If they're not, I apologize for suggesting that they're from Surrey. Hopefully they're enjoying this debate, and hopefully somebody will come in here eventually and introduce them so that we know where they're from. In any event, welcome.

There are a number of points raised by the hon. member that I want to deal with. In terms of research, we first have to wait for enough information to be there to do the studies, and we're at the front end of the policy. In terms of the acrimony, you know and I know -- because you got lobbied on it as much as I got lobbied on it -- that there are interest groups out there which support or don't support fair wages. They've made their respective cases to different administrations, and obviously different administrations have responded in different ways.

You raise an interesting point around competition. It's our view that obviously there should be competition with respect to construction projects, and we welcome that competition. Persons who succeed in securing a construction project should be able to succeed on the basis of the productivity that they can trigger from their workforce, in the way in which they operate their business, through the imagination and ingenuity that they bring to a product and to the project, and in the efficiencies that they show in a project. Good, healthy competition in that regard certainly does keep down the cost of construction, and we welcome that.

We do not think that the way to succeed competitively is just to undercut wages and keep on getting 

[ Page 2655 ]

involved in this incredible race to the bottom, where you drive wages as low as you can. We don't accept the race-to-the-bottom kind of approach, whereas other jurisdictions have accepted it. In Alberta, where they don't have such models as we have here in B.C., I believe that the average construction wage rate has either fallen by $12 or is $12. I can't remember the exact number, but it's fallen significantly, and I don't think that's healthy in any economy.

All we're saying is that when you compete, compete on the basis of your ingenuity, imagination, efficiency and productivity, but not on the basis of just undercutting wages and taking that off the backs of the workers. To some extent that was happening before. We've now said that everyone will pay the same in terms of wages. It's going to be a level playing-field with respect to wages. Quite frankly, it's not the unionized rate; it's 10 to 14 percent below that. But we're going to set the floor with respect to wages. Everybody understands what the wages are going to be, and you bid on the basis of your skills.

I think that's the way it should be. I think that's true competition. It's the kind of competition we're seeing with respect to these projects, which, by the way, were estimated by the professional estimators that we have, many of whom are with BCBC. You and I know that there's a lot of expertise there, so when these bids come in under what had been projected, I think we're doing reasonably well.

We also said -- and I want to emphasize this point, because it gets lost in the shuffle of debate around fair wages -- that if we're going to build our schools and hospitals in British Columbia, we have to make sure that the most qualified trades people are involved. That's important, and through the system we've got of trade qualification certificates.... Not in a one-shot way but in a staged way we're making sure that more and more people have their trade qualifications. We're encouraging people to get them over time so they don't find themselves out of work overnight. But we want qualified tradespeople working on these projects. I think the public is served better in that regard, and, again that should help you in terms of efficiency.

We've also said in terms of that policy that it's essential that we have young people on these projects securing the necessary apprenticeship training that's necessary for them to get jobs. It's so important for young people in British Columbia who want to get involved in the trades to get that experience and that first opportunity to work. For so many young people it's that first job that's so hard to come by. We want to make sure they've got the skills necessary to be able to get that first job and to get them on the job site through proper apprenticeship programs where they are well trained, where they go through a course of instruction and they're well qualified so that they can find their own niche in the marketplace as they go on in life. It's an opportunity for young British Columbians. We take pride in that in terms of making that a component of our fair wage policy. It will help young British Columbians get jobs and develop skills. I think that's good.

At first blush, in terms of the eight or ten contracts that we've had now, we've come in under budget. We're moving towards trade qualifications; we have quality people working on these projects; we are creating opportunities for young British Columbians. It's a triple win. I'm really proud of what we've been able to accomplish, and we've done it in a competitive atmosphere, asking people to compete on the grounds they should honestly compete on. That's where the competition should be.

I'm not sure if I need a lot more studies. I'm very happy with what we've done so far. Based on that success, yes, we will expand the coverage of that policy.

S. O'Neill: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. O'Neill: Today we have 58 grade 7 students visiting from Parkview Elementary School in Sicamous. With them are several parents and their teacher, Mr. McDonald. Will the House please make them welcome.

P. Ramsey: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

P. Ramsey: Joining us in the members' gallery today is Mr. Leo McGrady. Mr. McGrady is an attorney. His principal area of practice is labour law, and so I am very pleased he was able to join us this afternoon and listen to the debate on this minister's estimates. Would the members please make him welcome.

[4:15]

L. Fox: I want a clarification. I think the minister talked about the nine projects and the Jack Davis building coming in under budget.

Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't say that. I said there was a 4 percent difference between the unions....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order please, members.

L. Fox: Then I don't have to ask that. I just want to talk a little about the certification of qualified personnel. I know that during the discussions on that particular bill with Advanced Education.... They now have a process for that to happen, and in fact there was a fee identified. I guess I have some real difficulties with the fact that because an individual can go in and write a very limited test and achieve a paper for a fee to the government all of a sudden now he's more qualified. I have a real concern that it's a process rather than something that's really legitimate. Perhaps the minister might want to comment on that.

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all I want to welcome the students from Sicamous and apologize for even suggesting they may be from Surrey. What a slur! Never will I do that again. I meant that as a joke. I'm sure people in Surrey would understand, many of whom are my friends and occasionally relatives. I want them to 

[ Page 2656 ]

know that they're well served by the member for Shuswap. He's doing a great job in the House, so they should be proud of their representative.

It's not as simple as just going in there, writing an exam and paying a fee. It's not like getting a driver's licence, which is pretty routine stuff these days in British Columbia. I'm glad you're back from checking the yellow pages, by the way. I didn't know you read the yellow pages in your leisure time.

You do have to have the length of time for apprenticeship plus one year. So if the apprenticeship is four years, you put in another year, and you've put in five years. You have to meet those qualifications first. Those are the forerunners to securing that certificate.

L. Fox: Well, that concerns me dramatically. I know of many qualified tradespeople who are in their upper years. They've worked all the way through their trades for many years, and now you're going to tell them that they have to go back and serve an apprenticeship.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's a good point. We're very sensitive to that, and we're trying to develop the policy so as not to unduly deny those people employment opportunities. What they have to do is come in and write an exam, and if they require language assistance, they will get language assistance in terms of that examination. That's the way the process works. They have to come with the paper, or evidence, supporting the fact that they've put in time as an individual working in that field of endeavour.

L. Fox: Just one further point on that, hon. Chairman. I am aware of some people who have worked in these trades.... I wouldn't want to say they're illiterate, but they may have extreme difficulties in writing an exam, yet they are excellent carpenters. What kind of provisions have been made for those people to qualify?

Hon. M. Sihota: We're very sensitive to that concern. The Ministry of Advanced Education provides those people with assistance to get through their exams. Many of them have the ability and the skills to read a blueprint, so they're not illiterate. They have picked up sufficient skills over time to read and work their way through some of the problems one would expect they would encounter.

We're very sensitive to that, and we're working closely with the Ministry of Advanced Education. We're not interested in denying those people the opportunity for employment in any way; rather the opposite. We're very interested in seeing them through that experience so as to ensure that they maintain a livelihood for themselves and their families. But they've got to demonstrate that they have the requisite skills to get that certificate. If you are aware of individual cases that are problematic, you should let us know about them.

L. Hanson: I have some sympathy and a fair amount of support for the educational side of the fair wage policy because of the encouragement it gives to educate our young people in the trades. Any encouragement to do that is probably recognized and accepted. But I don't agree with the minister on the cost side of it, and I'm trying to make my point on that issue.

I have that study, and I'll refer to it.

"The secondary objective of this research document was to investigate the intent of the New Jersey State Prevailing Wage Act. Data from contractors surveyed indicates that the act fails to meet its stated intentions. As for protecting their -- the workers' -- efficiency, those surveyed claimed that prevailing wage jobs are less productive and therefore less efficient. What the law really does is not protect against unfair competition but actually creates unfair market practices."

The point I'm trying to make to the minister is that we don't want that to happen in British Columbia. The study that was done in New Jersey is not one we can use here in British Columbia, except for the principles behind the information that was gathered.

Hon. M. Sihota: We wouldn't let that happen in British Columbia.

D. Mitchell: While we're on the fixed-wage policy, the member for Okanagan-Vernon says fair wage.... It's an intrusion on the part of this government into the marketplace; that's what it is. So-called fair wage is fair to whom, I guess, is the debate. I don't want to open up that debate; it's a difficult wound to open.

I do want to refer to the fact that the member for Okanagan-Vernon has raised some good points about the cost to the taxpayers; that's really the crux of the whole debate. The committee is seeking from the minister some assurance that we will receive some information about the cost of the policy to the British Columbia taxpayers, and whether or not the policy is causing an extra burden of taxation.

This minister, as well as other ministers of the Crown, has tried to tell us time and time again that there is no extra cost. It's hard for us to accept that, because they're continually claiming that all of the projects under the fair wage or fixed-wage policy are coming in under budget. We're concerned that this may be simply a clever move to deceive us.

Whether the minister is clever enough to deceive us or even attempt to deceive us, the simple fact is that you can set a budget for whatever level you want. Then you can proudly tell the people of the province that you've come in under budget. But that's meaningless. On the other hand, if you take a look at construction projects that were being bid on at the time of the introduction of the policy, and then you look at the increases that the fair wage policy has led to, you can get a much better and more realistic idea of how the fair wage policy, the fixed-wage policy, will increase the cost of projects.

The minister referred earlier to a number of projects; he listed them. We don't know about the projects, and we look forward to knowing whether or not the minister is going to table studies or information. Surely some studies must have taken place before the policy was brought in. He now says that his ministry is going to be studying the effect of the fair wage/fixed-wage policy after the fact. Studies after the fact are useful. Consultation after the fact may be useful. But surely the government must have brought in some studies before-

[ Page 2657 ]

hand. Respecting what the minister has said about cabinet confidentiality, we look forward to the minister's providing to members of the House and to the public any of the studies he has referred to, either before the policy was introduced or after. Hopefully some were done beforehand as well.

One other question on this policy. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has allocated over $715 million to highway maintenance, rehabilitation and capital construction projects. If the fair wage/fixed-wage policy is applied to those operations, as was suggested by the minister the other day in the House, it will cost somewhere between $36 million and $72 million.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: That would be one estimate, if we accept the New Jersey study, for instance, which says that anywhere between 5 and 10 percent is the cost inflater for legislated construction rates. If you apply that to the highways budget, to use that approach, it's going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia anywhere between $36 million and $72 million. Given that, can the minister really justify expanding this to highway construction?

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish you'd learn.

The Chair: Excuse me, Minister. Could I remind you to address your remarks through the Chair.

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, sorry, hon. Chair. I wish I would learn to address my comments through the Chair.

The hon. member is putting forward the same kind of speculative arguments that they were putting out before the introduction of the fair wage policy. They say: "Look, your costs are going to go up 5 or 10 percent." You're basing this on some study in New Jersey, which I'm sure you haven't read, and I haven't read.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: From cover to cover? It's a study based on some rates that I'm not familiar with, and neither are you. But I remember your Liberal critic, the Labour critic at the time, suggesting that you just take the 5 percent increase in wages and add that on. Well no, that's not the way the competitive world works, and we set out to prove that. What we've come up with, again, is evidence which demonstrates very clearly that that argument, that theory that you put forward, just doesn't work. It's not true that simply by increasing the wages, contracts are going to go up. You may want to speculate. You may want to point to some academic theory done in New Jersey I don't know how many years ago, but I'll point to fact; I'll point to substance; I'll point to reality.

I'm advised that most of these estimates, if not all of them, were developed prior to our fair wage policy coming into place, hon. member. Let me tell you what happened. They estimated that the cost of SFU and Burnaby would be $35 million. I want hon. members in this House to know, and I'll be happy to give you this information as it becomes available, that the lowest bid came in at $30.5 million, almost $4.5 million below budget under a fair wage policy.

[4:30]

At the Commonwealth Games aquatic centre the estimated cost was $18 million to $20 million, and the lowest bid came in at $17.9 million -- again, under budget and with a fair wage policy. I'm sure the member would be most interested in knowing that in that case the successful bidder was a unionized company.

An Hon. Member: The sky is not falling.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's right -- the sky's not falling in, hon. member.

At the University of Northern British Columbia the estimated cost was $9 million, and the low bid came in on budget at $9 million -- again, by a unionized company. As I say, these cost estimates were developed prior to the fair wage policy being introduced. The estimated cost for the laboratory building at the University of Northern British Columbia was $2.96 million, and the low bid came in at $2.85 million -- again, under budget and with a unionized firm. I do this just to make sure that you understand the point.

At Sooke middle school the estimated cost was $9.97 million, and the low bid came in at $9.47 million -- $500,000 below budget, and a unionized company was the successful bidder. The Robson Square courthouse in Vancouver: estimated cost, $10 million; low bid, $8.81 million from a unionized company. These were the estimates made by our professional estimators, by the B.C. Buildings Corporation, before fair wages. The provincial government building in Horsefly: estimated cost, $1.83 million; low bid, $1.53 million. In that case it was a non-unionized company.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

I don't know what you're complaining about, hon. member. Is it the fact that you don't like these bids coming in under budget -- is that what bothers you? Is it the fact that in eight of these nine contracts the bids went to a unionized company -- is that what bothers you? Or does it bother you that working people in those communities -- be it Horsefly, Prince George, Victoria or Burnaby -- are earning good wages? Or does it bother you that those good wages are being spent in those communities to help out all sorts of entrepreneurs? Or does it bother you that this administration was right all along when we said that you could introduce a fair wage policy to pay workers well and still come in under budget? Does it bother you, hon. member, that you were wrong and that we were right?

G. Wilson: Some time ago in this House I mentioned the story about the scientist who plucked the wings from a fly, found out that the fly couldn't take to the air and then determined that when you take the 

[ Page 2658 ]

wings from a fly, it goes deaf. That's about the same situation that we have here with the minister. You can set a budget at anything. But if you have estimators who are so consistently wrong, I would suggest that you might want to find out what's wrong with those who are estimating all these policies.

The minister asked what bothers us. I'll tell him directly what bothers the opposition. We're trying to sort out why, in this particular administration, priority has been given for the introduction of fair wages in one industry when many other people -- union and non-union -- who are working tireless hours in the production of all kinds of necessary services for people in British Columbia do not come anywhere close to what is already an established rate in the construction industry. We're saying that this minister seems to have prioritized one sector in this province and put in place the proposition of a fair wage -- fair by whose standards, by what measure and by what arbitrary determining factor? -- at the same time as many people are unemployed and without a salary or wage, at the same time that people are struggling to come up with a contract that is going to provide them with at least a livable wage. British Columbia still has the working poor. The question is why prioritize, fast-track and bring through fair wage legislation in this session for people who are already making $19-plus? This minister has an obligation and a responsibility to make sure that there is an equitable and fair wage paid to all working women and men in the province and not just to those in one industry. Maybe the minister could explain what has moved him to fast-track this one specific industry on this question.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's nice to see the opposition leader finally rise in debate with respect to Labour estimates.

You talk about priorities. Hon. member, I'll tell you what the priorities of this administration are. They are very straightforward. I don't understand how you could possibly take issue with these priorities. We think that it's a priority to make sure that young people have opportunities for skill development as apprentices in British Columbia in order to get that first job. That's a priority. With this policy we're standing up for young British Columbians and giving them the opportunity to get that first job, which they need. That's our priority. It's reflected in this policy. It's our priority in this policy to make sure that we have the best and most qualified people working to build our schools and hospitals, because that's what the citizens of British Columbia demand. That's a priority, and it's reflected in this legislation.

If you want to know why we're moving in this regard, we want to make sure that construction contracts are won on the basis of good, honest competition and are based on a company's efficiency, imagination and ingenuity and not on the basis of the extent to which they can undercut the wages of working people. We say that it's wrong to bill the government $25 an hour for the wages of a working person, pay that person $21 an hour and pocket the $4 differential as profit. I'm amazed that you're not of the view that that problem should be attended to. Those are our priorities.

It's also our priority to make sure, in the development of this policy, that once projects are successfully tendered and bid, they come in under budget. We have our own people going out there to do the estimates. When the bids come in under budget, we say we're doing a good job. It's a triple win for the taxpayer: these projects come in under budget, it's a win for the workers who get paid a decent wage, and it's a win for the young people of the province who get these opportunities. Quite frankly, it's a quadruple win for the taxpayers, because we make sure that they get buildings that are built by qualified tradespeople.

For the life of me, I don't understand why you would criticize it now when I'm told that at one point you were prepared to accept this policy from some of the representations that were made by the trade unions to your caucus. I believe that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds would love to enter into the debate with a letter that he has in his possession. I'm sure he will put that letter on the record at the appropriate time, and I encourage that. There you go, hon. member. I think this is a policy that goes a long way towards attending to some important social issues.

Let me go further. Other opportunities are available through this policy that we haven't talked about, and one is employment equity. Through dealing with apprenticeship programs and being able to have a say in how apprenticeship programs are being developed, my ministry and the ministries of Advanced Education and Women's Equality are going to be working together to encourage more young women to take advantage of apprenticeship opportunities provided by this policy -- again, another win for British Columbia. All I can say, hon. member, is that you should go to the position I'm told you took in a letter you wrote some time ago in support of this policy, and show your support for it.

I think that your effort to pit construction workers against others.... I don't think it's particularly helpful; more importantly, I don't think it accepts the realities faced by construction workers. Most construction workers in British Columbia are lucky if they work 30 weeks in a year. Remember, you can't compare apples and oranges. You're taking the wages of a construction worker. But remember, they don't work 52 weeks a year; on average, if they're lucky, they work about 30 weeks a year. You have to inject that into the equation and look at their wages with that figure in mind. When you do that, I think you'll find that their earnings are certainly not out of line with those of most ordinary working people in British Columbia.

You do make a good point -- I'll give you credit for that -- in saying that government also has an obligation to the working poor of this province. I know you weren't here yesterday. You were talking to some lawyers about your favourite topic, the constitution, which I'm sure we'll get into at some point. I made the point yesterday, and I'll make it again here today, that we made a fundamental commitment to the working poor in this province to deal with the minimum wage. The first act I engaged in as Minister of Labour was to increase the minimum wage by 50 cents -- it hadn't 

[ Page 2659 ]

been increased for 18 months -- for the working poor in this province. We did that immediately. We took some criticism for it -- not from you or your colleagues -- but we make no apologies for it. We will not betray the interests of the working poor of British Columbia.

The hon. member should know -- I'm sure he'll support it again -- that we will be proceeding with further increases in the minimum wage. Those increases will occur before this year is out. Again, that will attend to the point -- and it's well taken -- you make about the working poor.

We're working on all fronts. We're working to provide young people with apprenticeship opportunities. We're working to make sure that women get equity of access to apprenticeship programs, that the wages of construction workers cannot be unnecessarily cut, that there is true competition in non-wage areas of construction bidding. We're prepared to move on the front of the working poor in terms of looking at increases to the minimum wage. We're an active and vibrant ministry committed to looking after the working people of this province. I think that outline should silence your criticism and provide you with great comfort that we're moving in a direction that should give you and all other members of this House great confidence.

G. Wilson: Let it be very clear that the Liberal opposition believes that there needs to be fair compensation paid to all workers in the province of British Columbia. There's no doubt about that. Whether or not the government should be regulating it in the manner in which this government does is a point that is worthy of debate.

There is a point that we need to address here; it's one that I'm quite curious about. It has to do with the comment the minister made with respect to the proposition of having qualified workers on construction sites -- that this fair wage policy is going to provide for qualified workers on construction sites, and therefore we can rest assured that there will be a greater safety factor and "quality in construction." The minister must be aware that we have electrical inspection by statute in British Columbia -- we have plumbing inspection, we have building inspection. Can the minister tell us whether or not he's of the opinion that in a province without this fair wage policy, the level of construction and the quality of construction was substandard, and therefore there is some reason to be concerned about the level of inspection that's been taking place, and whether or not he thinks that this fair wage policy is going to change that?

[4:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: Good question. I'll deal with it in a number of ways. Certainly there have been complaints on all those fronts that have come to my attention in terms of the quality of the work that's been done, the timeliness of inspections, and certainly they're there to provide some standard of care and quality. In other areas, it is true that by having people with the proper certificates and qualifications, you know that that work gets done; it gets done more efficiently, and gets done properly the first time, without having to place an undue burden in terms of additional remedial work having to be done or additional inspections having to occur. There are some efficiencies gained in that regard.

Certainly there's no substitute for good experience with respect to those kinds of projects. We want to make sure that qualified people are there. I think the hon. member should know that since the early 1980s the construction industry trades have seen a 26 percent decrease in enrolment in apprenticeship programs. We have 5,000 fewer apprentices enrolled in programs than we had a decade ago, and we've lost nearly a generation of apprentices. We intend to address that issue as well, so that people who are coming up through the system know what the standards are, what has to be met and how it's to be done.

So again, in that regard and in that sense, this policy would assist. If you were just to leave it up to inspection, as you suggested, I don't think that would attend to the problem in and of itself. Many other provinces have a better history than British Columbia of placing emphasis on properly qualified tradespeople, and Alberta is an example of that kind of a situation. We want to change that history in British Columbia, and that's why we're moving on this front.

So you're right: there are some safeguards built in. You're also correct -- if you haven't heard -- that evidence has been brought in over time that would suggest that the work is not up to the standard that it should be, or that inspections have caught errors that have to be redone; and of course, there have been stories of buildings that subsequently were proven to be deficient. It's better to make sure that the workers have the skills, so that when the inspections occur, the thing is pursued on a quick and efficient basis. When that happens, the cost of the project is kept in line and kept to a minimum. I think that's a win all around. There's no one answer, as you and I know, in terms of solving these problems. You need to move on all fronts. Some fronts we've moved on in the past; some fronts we're starting to move on now.

G. Wilson: I take it, then, that the ticketing of these workers is the key, not necessarily their wage. The fact that they receive the ticket may be connected to the wage that they can command in the marketplace, but the quality of work is determined by the skill of the worker, not the wage that the worker is paid, even though there may be some correlation between skills and market rate. I think that's what I was getting from the minister. To be clear, the actual wage paid is not the issue; the issue is the skill and qualification of the individual working. I have a question with respect to that, unless the minister wants to answer that particular point.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's not one; it's both. You know that they're interconnected. Let me just give you one example. It's not the only one. If you know that you can undercut wages.... A skilled person is going to charge you the going rate, which is 25 bucks an hour under the fair wage policy. If you're trying to cut corners, you may go to someone who's not as skilled and will accept $20 

[ Page 2660 ]

an hour, so you can save a few dollars; but you're not purchasing the skill level that we would like to have on those projects. So the two are interconnected. If you know that you've got to pay an electrician the rate that we've stipulated in fair wages, then you know what the rate is. You're going to try and find the most qualified person for that rate. You're not going to pay less and get someone who's less qualified, because you might as well go with the going rate and the skills that come with that rate. So the two of them are linked. It's an important linkage, hon. member.

G. Wilson: I would assume that contractors want to have people who are competent to do the work. If they can get them at a market rate that's somewhat different than for someone else, provided they do the work with skill, can pass the inspections, are acceptable, then they would undertake to do that. Given that it's the wage component that seems to be the important one here.... According to a letter of March 24, 1992, from officials at BCBC, workers directly employed by the provincial government receive wages that are currently 10 percent lower on average than those contained in the fair wage schedule. These differences, which include a $6 per hour difference for labourers, mean that the government will be paying its own employees up to 33 percent less than what is established as a fair wage for similar work. I wonder if the minister could explain the apparent inconsistency that exists between the fair wage policy that he's proposing to introduce now and the wage rates that are currently established for government employees.

Hon. M. Sihota: Remember that government employees work the full year. That's a factor to keep in mind. I didn't hear the entire question. Are you saying we should be paying our government employees more? Is that your argument? Or are you suggesting we should be paying those people in the fair wage policy less?

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's fine. It's a fair question. I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from in terms of the question.

An Hon. Member: Have you got an answer?

Hon. M. Sihota: I have the answer. We have set the fair wage....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Do you want to explain further? Go ahead.

G. Wilson: I'll continue to try to work through the Chair so we don't get into a direct dialogue.

The Chair: The Chair would appreciate it if all members kept that in mind. Section 36 is the appropriate standing order, hon. member.

G. Wilson: If in fact you are, through the introduction of this fair wage legislation, introducing a wage rate to employers that is going to be a standard in industry, how do you explain what is an apparent inconsistency with the wage that this employer -- i.e., government -- is paying its own workers? Can we expect that this is step one in a round of increased wages that are about to be paid out to government employees in order to bring in line what the minister seems to feel is a reasonable and acceptable wage in the private sector?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me put it this way. Under its collective agreement some government rates are higher than the scheduled rate and some are lower. Do you follow me so far? For example, including benefits, under the government's collective agreement with the BCGEU, a painter would receive $25.54 per hour compared to $24.79 under the fair wage policy. A BCGEU carpenter would earn $25.54 compared to $25.62, and a BCGEU electrician would earn $27.27 compared to $27.74. So you can see that in some areas it's higher and in some area it's lower. That's just the way the collective agreements have developed over time with the public sector versus the private sector. We set our rates based on the experience of collective agreements across the board. Yes, you're right; it has that effect.

G. Wilson: The curious question that arises out of that is: if the free collective bargaining process -- to which I think most, if not all, are committed -- can work within the public sector, and if we can have an acceptable wage through the established process of negotiation, why would the minister not provide the same kind of flexibility to the private sector in order to have a market-driven process that's accepted through open negotiation? The same kind of process worked to establish a wage in the construction industry. There seems to be a need for legislation on the one hand. On the other hand the minister is suggesting that over time there has been an evolution of wage structures that have been agreed to through some kind of mutually coercive process.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make sure I understand your argument, because I may have missed your point earlier on as I was talking to my officials here. If your question is as to why we don't just apply the BCGEU wage rate for all these construction trades, the short answer is that not all of the occupation fields are covered by the BCGEU agreement. In other words, there will be certain occupational fields in the BCGEU agreement that are fields of endeavour as they are in the private sector. But there is a whole list of fields of activity that are not covered by the BCGEU agreement, so we cannot apply the BCGEU agreement in its entirety to the fair wage policy. A lot of occupational classifications that don't exist in the BCGEU collective agreement exist under the building trades agreement. If that's your question, that's the answer.

[ Page 2661 ]

G. Wilson: Fair enough; I suppose that's a reasonable enough answer.

My next question to the minister flowing from that is: if that is so, there seems to be an inconsistency in the application of this fair wage structure, which I think the minister said is going to promote quality and fairness in terms of the projects. We note that -- the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- the fair wage policy that is currently structured here does not apply to provincial projects under $1.5 million, projects where the direct provincial contribution is $500,000, and social and student housing projects. It seems inconsistent if the minister is saying that a higher quality of construction is desirable. If we want to have fair wages in application of that, why would the minister exempt social and student housing projects, projects under $1.5 million or projects where the government makes a direct cash contribution of more than $500,000?

Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that issue for hon. members. There are a number of reasons why we brought in that $1.5 million floor -- if you want to put it that way -- or that exemption, which are one and the same in most cases actually, when you think them through.

The reasons are as follows. As I said earlier in the debate, we wanted to proceed in a methodical, calculated way and not bite off more than we could chew. So we made a conscious decision, first of all, to deal with an administrative burden that we could handle. Given the quantum of projects that fall below $1.5 million versus those that are in excess of $1.5 million, we thought that there were enough of those above $1.5 million -- that there was enough work being done and that we could handle it in terms of enforcement, monitoring and making sure the policy would work. So for reasons of administrative burden, we decided to set aside what were relatively minor capital construction projects for the time being, see how the policy worked, and then take a look at that $1.5 million threshold number. That was the first reason.

The second reason is that there were a number of small entrepreneurs, small contractors, individuals who would do a classroom addition to a school. They can add up. I'm not persuaded that, in their instance, the policy would have worked all that efficiently. I wanted some time to work it out with that sector of the industry -- the really small operator who isn't caught in the larger project, who works in the smaller project. I wanted to think through how the policy would affect them. It seemed to me that we might be placing too much of a burden on them; in terms of our ability to monitor them, it would have been too difficult. I wanted to do some further consultation with that element in society, so that was another reason why we did that.

That was the reason for the $1.5 million threshold. I think it was done for very practical reasons. As we've developed a greater comfort zone with the policy and come to understand how it's worked in the fields that it's so far applied to, it's worked very well, to be honest with you. They have come in under budget, and we haven't had anywhere near the number of wrinkles to iron out that we thought we would. We thought we'd go for that level first and then take a look at those that fell under the $1.5 million threshold. We're awfully close to taking a look at them now.

[5:00]

G. Wilson: I think the minister has to accept the fact that if there's one thing we can establish in these estimates debates, it's that you can set a budget figure based on estimates at any level, and the estimates, if they are consistently high, are going to demonstrate that you are going to come in lower than.... I don't think we necessarily need to celebrate that, if in fact that estimate has been inflated or is seen to be too high. I think what we have to look at is the best and wisest use of the taxpayers' money at all times. We can celebrate if we have construction of a building to proper quality and to proper standards, and we've saved the taxpayer some money in the process. That's great. But I don't think we necessarily want to constantly celebrate the fact that it's under budget, unless we have confidence in the estimate of the budget in the first place.

Having made that point, I come back to suggest that if safety and standards are the issue with respect to the concept of having the apprenticeship program and the qualifications established for these workers.... Surely to goodness the minister has to recognize that if you have a private contractor building one schoolroom that's going to hold 45 children, it's as important to have standards and quality involved in the construction of that schoolroom as it is if the person is building a 45- or 450-room hotel, or whatever the government may be building -- let's say an office tower.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Who knows what BCBC's into.

On the matter of quality, surely the argument falls flat if you're going to say that under $1.5 million we're not worried about these issues, but over $1.5 million we think that this is an issue. I wonder if the minister can explain that.

Hon. M. Sihota: Taking your points in reverse order.... If that's your case, I guess you're arguing that we should eliminate the $1.5 million. [Applause.] As you can see, there's considerable support for that. We may well do that. I'll take those comments under advisement, and I'm sure that you will applaud much as others have when we take away that threshold.

You've got to remember that the number was arrived at, not because we're prepared to in any way sacrifice safety considerations for those smaller projects.... You're right. A school or a classroom built under $1.5 million must be built to the same standards and be as perfect in the event of an earthquake as it would be if it was over $1.5 million. In that regard, I want to assure you that we're not prepared in any way to jeopardize safety.

I'm just saying that in terms of our ability to properly and carefully administer this policy and work it through.... We looked at the experience of other provinces, for example. One of the things that came 

[ Page 2662 ]

through from other provinces was that if you're going to launch this kind of policy, be careful in terms of the galaxy of projects that you've got below the threshold. Make sure you've got the policy thought through and the ability to enforce it for the huge number of projects that fall in that.... We're moving in that regard. Like I say, we're getting to the point where we can eliminate that. To that extent, that should give you comfort in terms of your comments.

That point wasn't made.... In terms of our experience with our other jurisdictions, we wrote to business, labour, municipalities, school boards and other interest groups in the province requesting their input. So that was also a consequence of the input and the consultation that took place. I'm sure you would respect the fact that I have to respect that consultative process as well and pay heed to it in terms of the development of the policy. I'd rather that you criticize me for not going fast enough, which is what you're doing, in effect, than criticize me for having moved too fast and not listened to people. We listened to people; we developed the policy. As a consequence of that consultation, we'll amplify on that policy in a way that allows us to eliminate that threshold. I appreciate your support in that regard.

I said at the outset that I'll take your points in reverse order. The other point that you made was the argument about confidence in the estimates that we rely on. I understand your point. But I want you to understand that those estimates were not tampered with in any way so as to create the impression that the fair wage policy was coming in under budget. Those estimates were made by people that we have confidence in, who are hired by government to do work. They are professionals in their field, most of them with BCBC. I want to emphasize this point, because I want to make sure it's crystal-clear. I am advised that those estimates were developed prior to the introduction of a fair wage policy. That's very important to me in terms of a measuring stick, and it ought to be to you as well. They don't calculate increases as a consequence of a fair wage policy, but rather, predicated on the state of affairs that existed prior to the fair wage policy. Having said that, I think that you'd have to recognize that very important point and how that makes it a very relevant measuring stick. We want a very honest reading on the effect of that policy, because it has to guide us in terms of the future development of that policy, and it has to guide us on the point that you made concerning making sure we're getting the best value for taxpayers' dollars.

We are, no more than you, interested in artificially and unnecessarily increasing the costs of construction. We went through the consultative process and, with some criticism, arrived at a policy that paid within 10 to 14 percent of the going unionized rate. Let's face facts: we took some criticism for that. But we did that because of the concern around getting the best value for taxpayers' dollars. We thought that somewhere around that margin we should not be going above the estimated cost. Clearly we have been coming in below, and clearly that determination was therefore a sensible one. There's some room now for us to look at adjustments, be it on the wage side, on the scope of the policy side or on the $1.5 million side. Now we have some options that we were not able to crystal-ball with accuracy in terms of whether we'd get there.

When you cut through all the rhetoric, the fact of the matter is that the policy has worked quite well. It's come in under budget on an appropriate measuring stick, and given what I've had to say, I would argue that it has provided opportunities and has met the other public policy objective of government. It's a very important public policy objective, which I would hope you would not just simply slough off, and that is.... For the sake of repetition, we think that if you're going to bid on a government project and succeed on it, we want you to do it on true competitive grounds. We want you to do it on your productivity, efficiency, imagination and ingenuity as an entrepreneur. We don't want it on the basis of how much you can undercut wages compared to the next person.

We've developed a policy that says: "Here's what you must pay people. Now come along and bid on those efficiency parameters in the true spirit of competition. It's open to anybody, union or non-union." Both union and non-union companies have been successful in securing the contracts. They're bidding. They're getting those bids, and they're coming in under budget. It provides an element of certainty in the marketplace that wasn't there for a lot of the contractors, and it assists them in making the bids.

It's a win all around, hon. member. Try as you may like, at the end of the day.... I know what your public position on the issue has been, but I think the evidence is pretty good so far. We'll continue to monitor it over time. Sometimes you hit success on the front end and turbulence a little bit later on. We'll monitor the thing through and see how it works. But so far so good.

G. Wilson: If I could just go back to the point made at the beginning with respect to the speed with which the minister is proceeding on this matter, I'm less concerned with whether he's going too slowly or too quickly; it's the direction that he's going in that I have some difficulty with here. Let's be very clear that while you might argue it has worked out well, I think it's very early in the day to be making that assessment. Turbulence may be there. Hopefully the minister will appreciate it when it comes forward.

Hon. M. Sihota: You've got to admit that it has worked so far.

G. Wilson: The minister suggests, Mr. Chairman, that I should admit that it has worked so far. I would suggest that the jury is out. We're going to witness this to see what comes forward.

I wonder if the minister could focus more specifically with respect to the question on the apprenticeship branch comment on ratios of apprentices to journeymen. Is this something that the minister has some concern over, and if so, is this a functional part of what is being attempted in this particular piece of policy direction by this minister in this set of estimates?

[ Page 2663 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't really have any concerns about that aspect of the policy. Basically the way it works is that where there is a collective agreement, then we generally expect that those ratios will be respected, and where there's not, we've indicated that there has to be supervision.

G. Wilson: Will the minister then confirm that essentially the ratio of apprentices to journeymen does not have to be one for one? The reason we have some concern is: how does one maintain those ratios where there are simply not enough qualified journeymen available? I'm not trying to trap the minister; I'm just asking an honest question. It's our understanding from the apprenticeship branch that there is a policy of a ratio of one to one.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll check into that, but that's news to me -- and to my officials, for that matter. We haven't set a policy of one to one. You may want to talk to your researcher on that one.

G. Wilson: I'd prefer to talk to the minister rather than the researcher. The researcher is providing the question that I thought the minister could answer, but since he can't, then I'll accept that he'll get the....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I'd be happy to put my researcher on loan to the minister if that's what he's asking.

The second question is with respect to the requirement for trades qualifications by January 1, 1993. Will it be extended if the Ministry of Advanced Education is unable to dedicate adequate resources to meet this industry's needs? Is there some proposition proposed there?

Hon. M. Sihota: They've assured us that they can meet that time-frame. The hon. member should know that we went through extensive consultation with various parties when we developed the policies. One of the parties we worked with in developing the policy was the Ministry of Advanced Education. We went to them, and they came back to us with various time-frames. To be honest about it, those time-frames were adjusted during the course of those discussions to make sure that those assurances could be fulfilled. We believe that they can be fulfilled, and in the event that they can't, we will obviously look at adjustments.

[5:15]

G. Wilson: As an example, carpentry apprentices who are now attempting to get training in the Okanagan have a one-and-a-half-to-two-year wait to get into their first classes. My question is with respect to this particular direction in policy: if a registered apprentice is unable to obtain the technical training, will the apprentice only receive the first-year-apprenticeship wage rates for the period of waiting, or can that be extended?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but I'm not too sure if whoever prepared those questions understands the distinction. It's subtle but significant, if I can put it that way. There's a difference between those who are trying to secure trade qualifications and those who are in the apprenticeship program. When you asked the question in relation to Advanced Education and their ability to meet the time-frames, the answer I gave you dealt with trade qualifications, because that's what your question was based on. That is distinct from the apprenticeship program and entry into that program.

I go back to my first answer. We have received assurances that we can meet those time-frames. But remember that is distinct from entry into and completing an apprenticeship program.

G. Wilson: At this time I'd like to conclude questions specifically on the matter of fair wage. I understand we are now going to move into the Industrial Relations Council, if that's acceptable.

With respect to the Industrial Relations Council and the proposition that the minister is putting forward in this set of estimates, I wonder if the minister might want to outline exactly where his ministry sees us headed in relation to the IRC, in particular what kind of changes are likely to happen with respect to ministerial staff in the relationship with IRC matters. Are we going to have the minister dedicate people who are going to be working more directly, less directly? What exactly does the minister have in mind with respect to his ministry's connection to or obligation with the IRC and its operation?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm having some difficulty understanding the hon. member's question, because it may not show a thorough understanding of the relationship between the ministry and the Industrial Relations Council.

The Industrial Relations Council is a quasi-judicial body. We treat them as such to let them develop their own policies and practices. We have some practical administrative connection with the body, but they set their own practices and policies, and basically we treat them as a quasi-judicial body should be treated -- with reverence and independence.

G. Wilson: I'm aware of the arm's-length relationship. My question was really more to do specifically with the internal operation within the Ministry of Labour, as to whether there was going to be a shift in the relationship on matters that go through the IRC, and I take it that the answer is no, that you intend to maintain in that way.

I wonder if the minister might want to comment on the appointment of Stan Lanyon as commissioner of the Industrial Relations Council. What was the minister looking for in terms of this appointment? Is there some change of direction expected now in the IRC, perhaps, or does the minister see it functioning precisely as it did previously?

[ Page 2664 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, hopefully it will function a lot more smoothly now than was the case before, to be honest with you. I don't intend to get into.... I'll be happy to talk about Mr. Lanyon, but I'm not going to talk about his predecessor or any personnel issues that arose as a consequence, except to say that we expect things to be smoother now than they were before.

Having said that, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're asking if we will be doing more preventive mediation, for example, as a new focus, the answer is yes. That is obviously an item that I commented on earlier; it is something that I consider to be important. When looking at the selection of Mr. Lanyon, his attitude towards those matters was important when we chose to select him, but on a day-to-day basis I seldom talk to Mr. Lanyon or tell him how he should be doing his preventive mediation work. We don't do that. There are times when we meet with Mr. Lanyon to discuss issues, and they often relate to matters relating to disputes.

Under the legislation, Mr. Lanyon has options. Some of them have public policy implications, and he would want to talk to us and seek our advice. At other times I may want to seek his advice in terms of when he thinks I should be involved in a particular matter. That advice is important, because they, as much as the ministry, try to keep their hand on the pulse of labour relations in British Columbia, and so there are times to caucus. But in terms of administration and the implementation of policies and practices at the board level, I generally don't get involved in those matters.

In terms of what we were looking for when we looked at a replacement for Mr. Peck and why we went with Mr. Lanyon, what we were looking for, first of all, was someone who enjoyed confidence both in business and labour. We certainly talked to both business and labour practitioners in the field in terms of individuals that they thought would fit that bill. As a part of our consultative process, one of the names that kept coming up was Mr. Lanyon.

Mr. Lanyon has tremendous experience in labour relations and is well respected in the labour relations field. As you know, there was some very minor criticism of the government's decision to appoint Mr. Lanyon to that position, and I think it's important to note, in defence, that I didn't say much at all. I remember quite vividly that Peter Gall, who helped draft Bill 19, wrote to the Vancouver Sun commending the government for the choice of Mr. Lanyon.

I think that although there was some criticism -- I can't remember if it came from your party, or exactly where -- it's been well noted that there wasn't a chorus joining in. Generally speaking, that appointment has been well accepted and well received. Certainly the feedback we've had from that day has been very positive. Because of that appointment, we've gone a long way to stabilizing activity at the IRC. It's resulted in the end of the boycott. It has brought in a higher level of adjudication and mediation. It was important to us that we buttress Mr. Lanyon's appointment with a number of other appointments that were seen throughout the labour relations field -- business, labour and practitioners -- as again meeting the standards of quasi-judicial impartiality; Brian Foley, John Hall and some of the other appointments that we made subsequently served to meet that test. I'm not aware of any criticism of those four appointments.

I think we managed to take it where we wanted it. We wanted it to have credibility; I think it's there. We wanted it to have some stability in the operations; I think that's there. I think we wanted it to move towards more preventive work; that's starting to happen. We've ironed out some of the personnel problems that we've inherited. So generally speaking, we're quite pleased with what has happened at the IRC so far, and that's certainly the comment that I get back in terms of feedback on those appointments.

G. Wilson: I did want to underscore that in raising Mr. Lanyon's name, I'm not attempting in any way to suggest that his appointment should or should not have happened. We're not trying to impugn Mr. Lanyon; he's somebody I don't know personally.

But if I can reflect back on and have the minister reflect back on an evening when he and I shared the stage some time before the election, and in fact, sometime before some people in British Columbia -- a few -- thought that we in the Liberal Party might be sitting in the Legislature in any capacity.... We shared the stage in a session with labour practitioners involved in arbitration and mediation, and we talked about the IRC. I come back to some of the comments that I made on behalf of the Liberal Party and some of the comments that the minister made with respect to the establishment of a better mechanism for dispute resolution.

My questions around Mr. Lanyon have little to do with him as a person; as an individual I don't know him. I trust that he is a sound and solid individual and will serve the province well. But he does come from a fairly strong union background, therefore a potentially strong union bias. Personally I have been involved in labour negotiation as a chief negotiator and have been the president of my own association, which is a union, and have been involved in some very difficult bargaining processes, both directly, with respect to my own institution, and provincially. The perception of fairness within the dispute resolution mechanism is extremely important if there is to be trust in the final resolution of a question that comes before both parties. The other thing that I think the minister would also accept and agree with is the proposition of the IRC being a relatively large stick that might eventually be used. The minister also, I think, would have to accept that as a question that's there.

I recall that I indicated at that time that the Liberal Party of British Columbia was interested in coming up with a new and revised dispute resolution mechanism, one that would speed up or streamline the process for final adjudication on matters. I think the minister was also quite anxious to see something similar done on the government side. I wonder if he can tell us at this point, without getting into new legislation, which obviously we can't do and are likely to do next week anyway, or whenever the minister might bring it in.... Could the minister tell us how he envisions this new dispute 

[ Page 2665 ]

resolution mechanism coming forward? Does he have any words of wisdom to share with us on that matter?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll make a number of comments in response to the hon. member's questions in that regard. I'll try to take them in the order that they came up. First of all, I said there were four new appointments. We actually made five. Apart from the two that I mentioned -- Brian Foley and John Hall -- Joan Gordon, Kate Young and Marg Arthur have been appointed, in addition to Mr. Lanyon. Again, I think they have been generally well received.

Secondly, you pointed to Mr. Lanyon's union background. It is true that he's done a lot of work for trade unions in the past. There are no two ways about that; I'm well aware of that fact. One of the things that bothers me in terms of that comment, because I hear it from time to time, is that it's almost an inference that if you have a union background, you can't be fair and impartial; whereas if you have a management background, you can be. I'm glad to see your reaction, and I'm glad that you're not suggesting that.

It's quite possible for someone to have a good strong union background and yet be fair and impartial in the delivery of the IRC. I think we've met that test with the selection of Mr. Lanyon. Let's not forget that others we have appointed to that board have come with strong management backgrounds. Mr. Foley and Mr. Hall are certainly two who fall into that category. So we've looked at the backgrounds as important.

We also went out of our way to make sure that people have the skills necessary to be fair and impartial and give the perception of fairness and the sense of trust that comes with it as an important element -- to give that quality to the IRC -- and we've done that. We've done that very well. If this is a measure, I haven't heard too much criticism from your ranks with respect to those appointments, and I think that's a reflection of where we're going.

[5:30]

You're right. In that evening in October, before you became a famous figure in a debate that the Socreds probably regret they allowed you to enter, we did talk about new dispute resolutions -- mechanisms. I don't want to repeat what I've already said in Hansard during the course of these estimates, but we are doing that work. All of that work is with the review panel, and both the matter of how that is dealt with in legislation and the matter of the Pacific Institute, which is what I talked about as the forerunner to dealing with these issues, are being worked on under that panel.

That component of the work is being done by Graham Leslie, who is a former deputy minister, Ministry of Labour, with four other people: the dean of law at UBC has agreed to serve on the panel; the chancellor from Simon Fraser, Barbara Rae, has agreed to serve on that panel; Marie Decaire, who represents a private sector union; and Cleta Brown, who is seconded from the ombudsman's office and has done the labour relations work there in terms of dealing with labour matters that have been brought to the attention of that office. So we have assembled a fairly good group to do that kind of work.

I'm not going to elaborate any more than that, and just encourage you to read Hansard in terms of what I said yesterday about that aspect of it. We're doing very, very well there. I'm very happy with what we have been able to develop there. We're very committed to not only developing fair and balanced labour laws in British Columbia, but in the long run injecting some stability in trying to deal with the adversarial nature of labour relations in B.C. so as to move us away from the attitudes that have been so prevalent in the province for so long and that have impeded investment in this province, in some minds, for some time. Those are the objectives. We look forward to the work of that panel to guide us through these complex issues. I thank the member for that question; it's a good question. I'm sure I've managed to give him an appropriate level of comfort in terms of knowing that what we talked about prior to the election is now being implemented after the election, as promised by this administration.

G. Wilson: We'll wait and see what comes down next week before we make a final judgment on whether what was promised is in fact being delivered.

Those are the questions I have with respect to the IRC. I don't know if other members have questions. If so, I would yield before going on to workers' compensation.

L. Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I missed part of the minister's description of the IRC and what changes he had made. Everyone is aware of the change at the top, of course; the commissioner was replaced by a new commissioner. He mentioned four names of new panel members who were appointed. Or was it five? Five. Were those extra panel members? Or is it a reduction because of some panel members leaving the IRC?

Hon. M. Sihota: I just want to make sure I have this down right. Mr. Lanyon replaced Mr. Peck, so there was a straight transfer there. We had one vacant position, so we filled that. Marg Arthur replaced Mr. Devine, and Mr. Foley replaced Mr. Benson. Both Mr. Devine and Mr. Benson are there in some capacity now.

L. Hanson: I have some interest in that. There were some members who had appointments that were continuing beyond now who don't seem to be there: Heather McDonald, Joe Crowder and Shelley Nitikman. Have they been replaced?

Hon. M. Sihota: I wanted to make sure I had it down right. Four individuals are leaving by mutual agreement. I forgot to tell you earlier that Mr. Albertini has also been replaced. I gave you four; I didn't give you the fifth one. But a number are leaving by mutual agreement.

L. Hanson: They've been replaced by mutual agreement. I suppose I would ask the minister to comment on the principle of changing people on a judicial council such as the IRC before their term has expired. It would seem to me to make people who are responsible for impartial or neutral decisions when the 

[ Page 2666 ]

issues are raised with them to maybe gaze a little bit over their shoulder as to the length of their term if they're replaced before their term expires.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll put it this way to the hon. member. The new commissioner of the IRC has been assessing all the staff at the IRC since his appointment. I don't think that catches anybody by surprise. He has made the decision with respect to these four changes to the tribunal. I want the hon. member to know, if he is concerned about this point, that my office has had no involvement in this decision. These are decisions that the new commissioner is making on the basis of his mandate and review that he's undertaking. The principle is that having been placed in charge of those responsibilities, he is now making the assessments that he properly should make.

L. Hanson: As I understand the process -- and maybe it has changed -- it is an order-in-council appointment. I have some difficulty understanding how the minister doesn't get involved in the rescinding of appointments by order-in-council, because he does have to sign the bottom of the page.

Hon. M. Sihota: We haven't been asked to rescind anything by way of OIC yet. That's the first point. The second point, with respect to the appointments that we've made, I'm satisfied that they went through a consultative process. When they arrived at my desk, I forwarded them straight to cabinet, because I'm confident in the process that Mr. Lanyon is engaged in. So nothing has been rescinded by OIC yet. You're right that there have been some appointments, and those certainly are vetted through cabinet, under my signature.

L. Hanson: I'm familiar with the process. I suspect that there might be a little vetting going on. But in any case, we'll accept that, Mr. Chairman.

Obviously since the change in chairmen, there has been quite a different workload at the Industrial Relations Council as a result of the removal of the boycott, most particularly by the B.C. Federation of Labour. That might lead someone to think that maybe the legislation was not the difficulty but that the chairman, who originally put the boycott in place, was the difficulty. That would then lead me to think that maybe Bill 19 was not as difficult for labour to accept as has been suggested.

In any case, maybe the minister could comment on the workload at the IRC now: how long it is taking for a hearing to actually be convened and if there is a backlog building up as a result of the removal of the boycott by the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Hon. M. Sihota: That was a very interesting comment you made at the outset in your prefatory comments. I won't comment on personnel, any more than I think you'd like to comment on what I'm sure were efforts on your part to try to bring the boycott to an end earlier so that you could be faced with the problems that I'm faced with as a result of that boycott going: an increased workload.

I think we both appreciate the importance of that boycott being lifted and of having some stability there. We managed to achieve that. I'm not too sure that you should read that as there now being a full measure of confidence in the legislation. I think the panel has heard enough about that. If it is their conclusion after the hearings that no changes are needed to Bill 19, that panel is sufficiently independent-minded to be able to make that kind of recommendation. Somehow, in my heart of hearts, I don't think that's going to happen.

With respect to increased workload, we have not yet really seen many changes on the adjudication side, although that may now change because of all the essential-services work that was done during the HEU dispute. We're monitoring that. Right now there's not a lot of concern there. There is on the mediation side. That's really where, as expected, the work has increased significantly, to the point where we'll be engaging four additional people sometime in the next week or so to deal with the demand.

C. Serwa: We'll go back a few minutes. I'd like to talk a little bit more about the fixed-wage policy the minister brought in. I suppose with a government that is doing so much pork-barrelling, it's probably appropriate that a lot of hogwash has come out of the minister's mouth this afternoon. I'm disappointed in that.

I have a little bit of knowledge with respect to construction. The minister has gone on and told us that there would be no loss in jobs. As a matter of fact, he's quoted all sorts of significant figures: that the actual construction costs are now lower than they were before and that there will be as many projects. Will the minister confirm that those are statements that he recently made?

[5:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: The member only needs to read Hansard to know what I said earlier. I would refer him to the comments I made in Hansard.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much for the good explanation. One of the things that also bothers me -- and I guess it's clearly seen in that particular ministry -- is the politicization of a ministry and the contamination and the corruption that occurs when that happens. The day-to-day business of the matters of the province of British Columbia is a very important issue, and I think that the people of the province have to be well aware of what is transpiring. I lament that very much, but it perhaps fits that minister with his responses.

The minister has talked long and loud about the matter of estimates and the quality of care and attention that has gone into the estimates. Again, I've had a background in heavy construction, so I'm not unfamiliar with various practices. In order to make yourself look good, you can simply pad up the estimates. With an assistant deputy minister such as you've had, I'm certain that instructions have gone out, and the estimates have been increased to take care of the additional costs. There is simply no way that you can increase wages 10 or 20 percent and come down with construction costs that are falling into the ballpark unless the estimates have been padded substantially. Will the minister confirm or deny that those estimates have in 

[ Page 2667 ]

fact been padded, and that there has been a political initiative to increase the size of the estimates?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think it is unfortunate that the hon. member would seek to cast aspersions on staff -- people who are unable to stand up here and defend themselves. In light of his comments about contamination and corruption as a consequence of politics, I must remind the hon. member that the staff in the ministry who are joining me here today in the House worked under the previous administration. They did it with the public interest in mind. They did it to the highest standards and the best traditions of the civil service in British Columbia. They've continued to operate with those traditions under this administration, as they did under the previous administration.

With respect to the comment about padding, I have commented on that point in a very useful and productive exchange with the Leader of the Opposition. I talked to him and explained to him the bases of those estimates: how those estimates were developed, when they were developed, what their relationship was to the fair wage policy -- whether they were done before or after the introduction of the fair wage policy. Those are matters of record. We have a rule here that encourages us not to be tedious and repetitious. I would encourage the hon. member to take the time to read Hansard, and he will find that those matters have been addressed and spoken to in committee by myself.

The Chair: While we are speaking about the customs of the House, I would remind all hon. members that the Chair would like to be recognized from time to time. Remarks addressed through the Chair would certainly be of great assistance in the debate.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I certainly appreciate your comments. It's noteworthy that the hon. minister is so comfortable and competent in his job that he can give the Chair directions on how to run a committee of the House.

While the minister feels that the matter is tedious and repetitious, the fact remains that you can't have it both ways. The reality is that we're going to lose either projects or jobs, or we're going to lose both. There is no other alternative, be it in building construction or in heavy construction. The minister has brought in a policy that is purely a political payoff. It is blatant interference in the marketplace, and I think that the minister recognizes that. Perhaps he protests too much.

The minister went on to say that we're looking for quality work. Quality work in the workplace depends on the end result of the project. As the hon. leader of the official opposition stated, there are all sorts of inspection processes that go on, on a day-to-day basis, as well as final inspection processes. The quality of the work on the project depends on those inspection processes. If the job meets the specifications, regardless of the paper credentials of the individual, the project is approved and accepted by the owner, whether it be the Crown, in this case, or an independent owner. That's a reality.

The minister is also well aware that pieces of paper, whether they go to architects, engineers or lawyers, are simply pieces of paper. There is no guarantee that all lawyers, for example, are of equal competence simply because they have official recognition. That certainly has not been proven. There are obviously lawyers who are outstanding, indifferent or very poor, and the very poor ones are finally disbarred by the system. So when the minister speaks about papers giving credentials that assure quality work, the minister is sadly mistaken with respect to the end result. From every aspect this bill is purely a political pay-off bill.

What I'm concerned about.... I'll ask the minister this and use an example of the IWA, where higher and higher wages has resulted in fewer and fewer jobs. With the extension of this policy in construction -- recognizing that our economy is fundamentally resource-driven -- does the minister not recognize that we are going to lose jobs in the construction industry?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make a number of comments to you. I detect some bitterness in the comments of the hon. member. I think it's unfortunate, in a debate that has been generally very useful, that there be that element of bitterness, for reasons which I am at a loss to understand.

I want the hon. member to understand the following points. First of all, it is my advice that the estimates I have referred to in terms of the estimated costs of these projects were made prior to the introduction of the fair wage policy. It's an important point to articulate, because it demonstrates the costs that we anticipated prior to the introduction of policy. The hon. member, who obviously has not chosen to take heed of my comments to look at Hansard, should hear about the following projects. I'll tell you what the estimated costs were, under the advice that I have received, and what the lowest bids are on the basis of what I've been informed.

All of these are bids that came in after fair wage policy was introduced: Simon Fraser University in Burnaby -- estimated cost $35 million, low bid $30.5 million; Commonwealth Games, Victoria -- estimated bid $18 million to $20 million, low bid $17.9 million; University of Northern British Columbia administration building -- $.9 million low bid, $.9 million; laboratory at University of Northern British Columbia -- estimated cost $2.96 million, low bid $2.85 million; University of Northern British Columbia library, Prince George -- estimated cost $3.24 million, low bid $3.36 million; Sooke middle school -- estimated cost $9.97 million, low bid $9.47 million; Robson Square courthouse -- estimated cost $10 million, low bid $8.81 million; provincial government building, Horsefly -- estimated cost $1.83 million, low bid $1.53 million.

Based on what I said a few minutes ago -- I don't want to repeat -- in terms of when those estimated costs were developed, and based on the fact that those bids were accepted after the introduction of the fair wage policy, the evidence is as follows: eight of the nine bids that have been secured so far under that policy have come in under budget. Eight of those nine bids have gone to unionized firms as opposed to non-unionized firms.

In terms of jobs, those are well-paid jobs in communities -- be it Horsefly, Victoria, Burnaby or Prince 

[ Page 2668 ]

George -- good-paying jobs set at rates that have been established by the policy that the government has developed. Workers benefit when they're paid good wages; their communities benefit when they spend those wages in communities like Kelowna, Prince George and Vancouver. They prosper as a consequence of this policy.

As a consequence of this policy, young people who have not had access to apprenticeship training will now have access to that. In the last decade we've seen a 26 percent decrease in the number of people enrolled in apprenticeship training. We think that young people should have access to apprenticeship; through this policy they will get it. They will have the skills necessary to allow them to get their first jobs. We also intend -- regardless of the comments you make about pieces of paper -- to make sure that people have the skills and the qualifications. You may trivialize the importance of a law degree or a degree in architecture or engineering, or a trades qualification certificate in the trades involved here. We do not trivialize the importance of that learning and that base of knowledge that comes from that experience, and that document is testimony to the fact that people have completed a course of instruction that gives the world some confidence that they've got the skills necessary to produce a quality product. British Columbians, when they have their schools built and their hospitals built, expect quality construction in those projects.

Taxpayers have won, because these bids have come in under budget. Workers have won, because they're working. Jobs will be created because of the size of the capital budget that this government has put out. We have put out a significant increase this year, a remarkable increase in terms of our capital projects in British Columbia. Communities win, because these dollars are being spent. Young people win, because they're getting job employment opportunities they didn't have before. And the process wins, because people have qualifications that they should have so they can become more marketable and more portable in today's economy.

With that said, hon. Chair, I move that we rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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