1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 15, Number 14
[ Page 10985 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
G. Brewin: I would like all of us to welcome 35 grade 5 students from Margaret Jenkins School who are in the gallery today. It is an excellent school in my riding. With them is Mr. Barclay. Would the Legislature please make them all welcome.
F. Randall: In the gallery this morning are two rank-and-file members of the Canadian Union of Operating Engineers Local 115, Larry Turner and Hans Span. They came over to Victoria today and were speaking to me about their strong support for the fair-wage legislation that has been introduced by the government. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Committee A will take a rest this morning and begin again this afternoon, I understand. With that, I call second reading of Bill 37, which is in the hands of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour.
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND FAIR WAGE ACT
Hon. D. Miller: You didn't say in the skilful hands of the Minister of Skills, but....
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: We'll get to that.
As all members are aware, Bill 37 replaces the existing skills development and fair-wage policy introduced in March 1992. In the introduction of the bill, I indicated that the concept or notion of fair-wage legislation is not new. I'm actually a bit surprised, when I consider our history and the body of policy and legislation that has led us to where we are in our present-day society. It strikes me that we often forget some of the origins of legislation and policy that have guided us very well, in my view, in building a society that is unparalleled in the world in many ways. We've witnessed the changes and changing attitudes that have occurred, I would say, more particularly over the last decade. We've witnessed the rise of the New Right -- if I can use that term -- the Thatcherites and Reaganites who tried to fundamentally alter the course of history by adopting some attitudes that I think are throwbacks to the absolute notion of laissez-faire. In fact, I would say that philosophy was a fundamental guide to the party that governed this province for quite some time and, in my view, that has led to some of our current problems -- in other words, that government's refusal to recognize that as agents of the people of this province, we have a proactive role to play that should be aimed at the betterment of society and the better management of resources, or whichever field you may choose to insert.
I am somewhat heartened by what I think is a return to a recognition of some of the underlying principles of the past. For example, I noted that a U.S. economist, Lester Thurow, made a speech not long ago that contained a bit of a message for North Americans. He said that in this age of global competitiveness, if North Americans aren't prepared to look at what our competitors are doing and at a new way of doing business which looks at the partnerships other countries have developed between government, labour and business to harness the strength of all those organizations in a positive way, then we will be victims of the changes taking place in economies worldwide.
Prior to the turn of the century, in 1891, the British House of Commons passed the first fair-wage act. It is part of our history of parliaments -- in this case, the Mother of Parliaments, as we used to refer to it -- to introduce and pass this kind of legislation. The Canadian House of Commons passed a similar resolution and legislation in 1930. These are people who have gone before us, who represented.... Quite frankly, I don't think my party was well represented in 1930 in the Canadian House of Commons. No doubt there were progressive people. But even then, people recognized the necessity of passing legislation that provided some standards with respect to wages and working conditions. In addition to the federal government, the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick have fair-wage requirements. In the United States, the federal government has had the Davis-Bacon Act in place, I believe, since well back in the thirties, and 33 states have legislated requirements for fair wages. In British Columbia fair-wage legislation was introduced into this Legislature in 1951.
So there's a well-documented history of having legislation that governs how the public's money is being spent on projects. There is a well-documented history that the governments of the day -- and continuing on -- have said: "Where we are spending public money, we are prepared to have legislation that says there should be some wage level which we're prepared to determine."
At the heart of that really are some fundamental views. Again, I try to some degree to draw on history for guidance; that's sometimes a very wise thing to do. There are some -- and I fear, from the comments I've heard, from the members of the opposition -- who simply view labour as a commodity in the marketplace, not in human terms, and say that labour's worth should be valued by the market. If the marketplace dictates that wages....
I see the Leader of the Social Credit Party nodding his head, clearly reaffirming that that's been the underlying vision of the Social Credit Party. We'll wait to see what the members of the Liberal Party opposite have to say, but I suspect we really won't find a difference. So we see the nodding of heads on the other side. We see those people affirming that they simply view labour as a commodity on the marketplace and that the marketplace should determine the value of labour, much the same as the marketplace determines the value of sugar or coffee or some other commodity. That's not a view that respects human rights, human dignity or the human condition, but a view that simply says that labour should take whatever they can get. I want to say that I and members on this side of the House categorically reject that view.
[10:15]
I'm not old enough to have gone through the Depression, but I'm old enough to have gleaned some knowledge from my parents, from people who are somewhat older than me and from reading about that time when there was such a surplus of labour because of the very high unemployment rates that there were those who drove working men and women to their knees in terms of the wages they were prepared to pay. Those people also held the view that labour is simply a commodity in the marketplace and that whatever they could get them -- force them -- to work for was okay, because the marketplace had made that decision. I am looking forward to the speech from the now leader of the
[ Page 10986 ]
Social Credit Party, who continues to nod his head and continues to affirm that he supports that view of life.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan West rises on a point of order.
C. Serwa: The hon. minister is getting carried away with his rhetoric. If he wishes to hear what I have to say, he will in due course hear my entry into the debate. But for the record, he is assuming a great deal.
The Speaker: The hon. member knows full well that that is not the way in which he should gain the floor to respond.
Would the hon. minister please continue.
Hon. D. Miller: It seems that I have touched a nerve. Perhaps there's some sensitivity on that side of the House. Perhaps they don't like to hear the truth with respect to their position. During the Great Depression we saw that kind of activity; we saw employers savagely take advantage of the surplus of labour. Out of that came a renewed sense among some people that this wasn't the way to develop a society and that there had to be some better standards. The great move to unionize in many sectors of the economy also came out of that. Working men and women got together and said: "It's not good enough. We're not chattels. We're not economic slaves. We have rights as citizens, and we're going to band together." Along with industrialization, that induced the tremendous rise of the trade union movement.
At its heart, this type of legislation, which has been a feature of our life since before the turn of the century, exists to say that there should be those fundamental protections. I know those people who oppose this. In fact, I recall that people actually went out and hired some university professors to write a study to give some support to their opposition. They hired some people at UBC who, I'm sorry to say, came out and reinforced what I'm talking about.
They said the state should not regulate or be involved in the business of setting minimum standards. They said to look at some of the states in the United States that have abandoned that approach. They suggested that we do the same not only with respect to fair wage but also to minimum wage. They said the government should not be involved. I looked at the table in that study of those states that have gone away from what we're proposing here today, and who are they? Alabama -- there is no minimum wage in Alabama. Arizona -- there is no minimum wage in Arizona. How about Kansas? The minimum wage is $2.65. Can you tell me how anybody can hope to live or put bread on the table for $2.65 an hour? The answer is: they can't.
R. Chisholm: Is this Alabama or British Columbia?
Hon. D. Miller: Good question. This is British Columbia: that's why we're going to have fair-wage policies; that's why they don't have them in Alabama. As long as this government is in power, British Columbia will never be anything remotely resembling Alabama.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: We hear these fatuous comments from the opposition, who like to appeal to base instincts and say to the taxpayers: "Oh, your money is being frittered away." I get that argument from people who oppose the minimum wage and say that $6 an hour is too high a wage to pay a British Columbian in 1994. It is no different from the argument being made by the members opposite. We reject that approach; we fundamentally reject that philosophy. Labour is not just a commodity in the marketplace; labour is men and women who deserve the opportunity to get a decent wage for a decent day's work. There's nothing fundamentally unsound about that.
If members opposite think we should not be involved in setting minimum standards -- whether it's the minimum wage or government saying where we are spending the taxpayers' money on major projects -- they are mistaken. We are going to establish some conditions with respect to wage levels, and we refuse to say that the marketplace should simply drive wages down to an absolute rock bottom. If the members opposite are fundamentally and philosophically opposed to that, then they should have the courage to stand up and say so. I'm looking forward to those members taking a position on these issues.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: The members opposite disgust me. They talk about kickbacks; they're quite willing to engage in sleaze -- sleaze without facts. They sit in their seats smugly, with no facts. They make charges. They impugn the integrity of British Columbians -- as in their vicious attack on the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries -- and they've been proven wrong. Vicious attacks on British Columbians are the best that they can do.
Men and women in this country want to work. They want decent, well-paying jobs. What happens when we don't have the kind of legislation we're talking about today? What happens to those working people who want to work? Read the article in the Globe and Mail of two days ago. Read how contractors are exploiting workers in a high-unemployment situation. They are saying to working people who show up on the job -- carpenters, drywallers -- "I'm sorry, I'm not going to hire you. I'm not going to pay you an hourly wage with your benefits, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. We're not going to do that now." They're saying to ordinary working people: "No, no, you've got to be an individual contractor. You can't have a steady job anymore. We're not going to pay your UI benefits. We're not going to pay those things that other working people take for granted."
As well, what they do is in fact a gigantic tax scam. They're depriving all Canadians through that approach: exploiting working people in times of high unemployment and, in the process, feathering their own nest, filling their own pockets. We reject that philosophy.
An Hon. Member: Remember Nanaimo? Who was feathering...?
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, another member opposite here.... It seems to be characteristic of the Liberals these days that they're quite prepared to make vicious, slanderous, sleazy, underhanded charges, with not one shred of fact. And I see the former leader of the Liberal Party nodding his head. We'll see: eventually, that kind of tactic and that kind of sleaze doesn't work.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Before recognizing the hon. member, I would just like to caution the minister that we are on second reading of the bill. Some of these matters are straying somewhat from what is reasonably tolerable.
[ Page 10987 ]
H. De Jong: On a point of order, I find the comments from the minister very offensive, for one thing. I do not believe the quotes he has been using lead to a debate that can be very beneficial. I think the minister should withdraw some of the quotes he has made.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. While the member's point is valid, I don't intend to ask the minister to withdraw any remarks that I find unparliamentary. But they certainly are not on the topic of the moment. I would ask the hon. member to please proceed.
Hon. D. Miller: If I've offended individual members, particularly that member, who in my opinion has never indulged in the kinds of activities that I'm talking about, I certainly do withdraw any remarks that were offensive.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.
Hon. D. Miller: Nonetheless, even as I speak I note that the kinds of things being said by members from their seats seem to confirm what I've been saying.
To get back to the topic, this kind of legislation has been a feature, at least in the British Parliament, since prior to the turn of the century. We added more in British Columbia.
It's very important to note the skills training aspect of this bill. We have not, in my view, done a very good job with respect to apprenticeship training in this province. I've got to say that the building trades have always been very strong proponents of apprenticeship training. They do have quotas on the jobs that they are engaged in, and they do insist that apprentices be trained. That's all to the good. We're talking about giving young people in this province the opportunity to acquire a skill, and having a highly skilled workforce that makes those very large jobs that we're talking about come in on time and on budget; and that gives individuals pride in their own skills and craft. We need to do more, and that's why a very fundamental feature of this bill is the requirement for apprenticeships and for people to have a valid trade-qualification ticket. It's not the complete answer, but it's certainly one vehicle that we can use to promote, stimulate, foster and, hopefully, increase the number of people who are taken on as apprentices in British Columbia.
I say, in a bit of a personal sense, that my depth of feeling on this is related to my own history, because I am a skilled tradesperson. I have a ticket as a millwright. I understand that this creates the opportunity for young people to become indentured apprentices in the workplace, to learn on the job while receiving a paycheque, to go to school and, at the end of that time, to have the qualification ticket that gives them the opportunity, as individuals, not only to have some personal satisfaction in their work but also to have some economic control in their lives. I can't state strongly enough that that part of the bill is another reason that I would hope to see some support and some recognition from the members opposite that skills development is fundamental in this province.
A decade ago we had 20,000 apprentices annually in this province, and now we're down to about 14,000. I understand the trend with respect to the economy. But is that good enough? Should we simply say that when the economy dips, we stop training people? Should there not be some mechanism we can use to encourage the training of people, even when the economy dips? Of course there should be. Do we not do ourselves a terrible disservice in allowing those huge gaps to exist, in saying that we can't train our own people in British Columbia and that if there are shortages of skilled workers, we have to send for those workers from other countries? Absolute nonsense. In part, this bill will ensure we can do that: that we do have the very best tradespeople on these public construction jobs; and that we do offer those opportunities, not just for young men, but for women and people in minority groups who all too often have been shut out of opportunities when it comes to apprenticeship training.
The government does have a role to play, which is what I've been trying to say with respect to both of these issues. It's not good enough to stand aside. It's not good enough to say that the marketplace will determine our future. The marketplace has its place, but we have a role to play.
From a philosophical and practical point of view, this is fundamentally good legislation. It cheapens the argument somewhat that the attacks on this legislation only talk about cost. People are all too eager to simply say that if we pay a worker X number of dollars an hour.... They get their little pocket calculators out and try to figure out how much more that is going to cost. They do it because they think it's an effective argument, but it's a narrow view. It's the cheapest attack you can make on this type of legislation. Given our history in the field -- going back to the House of Commons, the British Parliament and the United States legislature -- surely we could be more inventive in our criticism of the bill than the folks in Alabama who simply say: "Get rid of minimum standards." Surely there is more depth of understanding and more creativity than what we've heard to date.
[10:30]
I don't plead for understanding, because I fully expect that during this debate.... In fact, I can almost predict the speeches that are going to be made opposite. Every one of them is going to stand up and talk about how much more this is going to cost the taxpayer. That will be the sum and substance of their argument. They will have nothing more creative to say. They will not get into the philosophy; and if they do, I'll be surprised. I would be surprised if they stand up and say: "Yes, we think we should do away with all of these kinds of legislation." They will do what they think is the effective argument. They will appeal to the taxpayers and say: "This is simply going to cost more."
Everything has a cost. When we decide to establish a minimum wage of $6 an hour, it has a cost. We have to determine if there is a benefit. I say there is a benefit in having legislation that establishes these kinds of standards. I say it's part of our philosophy and our society -- a good part, and one that should be continued. If the members opposite disagree, I would really like to hear that.
I want to say a few words of explanation. As members are aware, this issue has been guided by policy. In other words, there has been a skills development and a fair-wage policy. That has proven to be problematic with respect to enforcement. Therefore we are going back to the traditional approach to entrench this policy in legislation. In terms of trying to improve our enforcement -- because there clearly have been violations, and it is somewhat problematic in terms of enforcement of a policy, versus legislation -- in this legislation we have improved the ability to enforce. It will provide for the ability of people in the employment standards branch of my ministry to issue tickets for violations. The quantum -- in other words, the value -- of those tickets will come out in regulations. They must be approved by the courts prior to us publishing them. Hopefully that will improve the enforceability of the legislation.
I will cap my arguments by saying that I hope we will get beyond some of the obvious and, I think, cheap arguments
[ Page 10988 ]
with respect to cost and get into a bit of a debate in this chamber about the fundamental principles behind this legislation. I would be more than pleased if, upon reflection, my critics opposite determine that they have perhaps been wrong in focusing on that. They might start to look at its impact on real British Columbians, real men and women in our society.
Finally, if they fundamentally agree with the philosophy of this type of legislation -- certainly their predecessors did -- then perhaps what we're really arguing about is wage rates. In that sense, what are we talking about? I suppose you're arguing that somebody should make two bucks an hour less. If that's the argument, you can have that any day. I would be pleased, though, if members would reconsider some of the criticism and reconsider what happens in our society without these minimum protections. We start to see a breakdown. We go back to the days when labour was simply a commodity. In times of surplus labour -- and I'm talking about times of high unemployment -- people will force working men and women to their knees. Anybody who is older than I and went through the Depression understands that. Entire factories were told: "We're cutting your wages in half. If you don't like it, get out; we've got a bunch of starving people at the gates who will come in." We shouldn't forget those lessons of history.
Hon. Speaker, I understand that there is a time problem with respect to the Liberal critic's ability to be here. For that reason, there has been a prior agreement that we will adjourn debate on this bill and go to the forest renewal bill, and we will resume second reading debate on this bill when the Liberal critic is more available. I move adjournment of debate on Bill 37.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 34.
FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. A. Petter: Bill 34 is largely intended to improve the administrative efficiency of ministry operations by introducing amendments in three areas, and I will briefly outline them. It is largely a bill that is designed to improve efficiency; it does not alter substantive policy in any way.
The first area addressed by Bill 34 involves minor amendments related to tenure administration provisions. These include: amendments to section 50 of the Forest Act, to prevent the circumvention of requirements concerning licence transfers; amendments to part 15 of the act, to allow small and short-term licences to be exempted from proportionate allowable cut reductions, similar to the current exemption powers provided in section 54 of the act; and several minor changes in wording that are simply intended to more clearly specify the legislative intent of various sections and to avoid any potential for misinterpretation.
The second area addressed by Bill 34 is appeals of determinations under the Forest Act and Range Act. These provisions would simplify the ministry's appeals system by replacing the existing regional manager and chief forester appeal hearings with a single administrative review. A person who is not satisfied with the review would be able to appeal the original decision to an independent appeal board. The proposed amendments would also enable the ministry to streamline procedures for conducting an appeal, allow regional managers to extend the time period for a person requesting appeal, and specify in the regulations the procedures and information which must be provided in a request for appeal. They will improve and streamline the appeal mechanisms and make them more efficient and effective.
The third area addressed by Bill 34 is a strengthening of the chief forester's ability to require a tree farm licence holder to provide information needed for the determination of the annual allowable cut of the licence. I may say that these changes have to some extent been directed or informed by recent court decisions. They will help ensure that TFL-holders provide adequate and timely information for the determination of annual allowable cuts. If the information is not adequate or supplied on time, the amendments provide for an interim annual allowable cut to be set until the information is provided and a proper annual allowable cut can be determined. This should ensure that the chief forester has the adequate information necessary from TFL-holders in order to set an accurate annual allowable cut in accordance with the commitments to set the cut rate in a way that will provide for sustainability. These proposed amendments will improve generally the administrative powers under the Forest Act.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today to respond to Bill 34. This is a bill that the opposition will be spending a great deal of time on in committee, I'm sure, because there are a number of technical amendments that will certainly require considerable debate. But since this is a second reading debate in principle, and because so much of the bill refers to tree farm licences in the province.... I think there's a thread running through this bill and this government that tree farm licences in British Columbia are not, in the view of many members opposite, a desirable form of tenure in the province, and that they do not afford governments the opportunity to increase timber supply. I really believe it would be worthwhile for members opposite to gain some additional insights into tree farm licences in British Columbia.
The minister made reference to the court cases on Vancouver Island, which, as we know, involved an appeal by MacMillan Bloedel through the determination of the chief forester. It was obvious, one supposes, that the licence holder possessed more information than the ministry on what annual allowable harvest levels should be in that part of the province.
As I travelled around British Columbia and talked to tree farm licence holders, I was struck by the amount of initiative coming forward from tree farm licence holders. I can recall touring the Northwood tree farm in Prince George, which has a computer system set up to analyze all its activities. It's technology and expertise that I'm convinced does not exist within the ministry. One assumes that under this particular legislation, the licensee will now be required to provide that information to the ministry -- which is fair enough. But I just point it out because there are licence holders in the province who are going beyond the minimum when it comes to acquiring and securing information about the activities on their tree farm licences.
I can use the example of tree farm licence 35 in the Kamloops region, where the minister will well know that an enhanced silviculture regime that would allow for the annual allowable harvest to be increased over time on that tree farm licence has been presented to the ministry. Indeed, in that case the licence features some of the heaviest recreational use of any region in that particular area of British Columbia. There are opportunities to be identified by working with tree farm licence holders. But certainly this
[ Page 10989 ]
particular bill, which is heavy on regulation, really does not seem to inspire confidence that those types of initiatives will come forward from this government.
It strikes me as well that the government has a long-term attitude towards tenure and the forest sector which I consider to be a potentially negative view. There's no doubt on this side of the House that if the government were prepared to offer not just large licensees but smaller licensees the opportunity to manage a forest land tenure over a longer period of time, we could induce the enhanced investment, increased silvicultural component and long-term security that would provide for the kinds of efforts the government has identified for Forest Renewal B.C. There's no doubt in my mind that not just large licensees but regional districts, municipalities, colleges and universities would welcome the opportunity to manage forest land over a long period of time.
[10:45]
Unfortunately, that would require a commitment to tenure and to security of the licence. During the estimates debate on the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks last week, I think we got a glimpse of the government's view of tenure. It was with respect to the back-country recreation policy and the need for long-term tenures in that emerging industry. A cabinet submission, which was circulated at the CORE table in the Kootenays, suggested a licence for a maximum of five years with a 90-day cancellation clause -- as if that would promote the kind of investment this fledgling back-country tourism industry needs at this point.
Fundamentally, the government does not recognize that there is a link between security of tenure and investment. That continues to show through on bills like this. This is a bill which I understand was not the subject of wide consultation with tree farm licence holders in the province. From what I can gather, it has come out of the blue, and it's currently being analyzed out there to determine its content. It's a bill that was not the subject of a normal dialogue. The minister made reference to the court case from which I suspect it emerged: the successful appeal by MacMillan Bloedel of a determination by the chief forester.
There are some aspects of the bill that I think will streamline efficiency, as the minister has indicated. Certainly the rules governing licence transfers are welcomed. However, I would hope that during committee stage in this debate, the minister will make a continued commitment to the system of MLA panels touring various areas of the province to enlist public feedback on licence transfers. I would hope that process, which I think is a positive one, will continue under the terms of this revision of the Forest Act.
With respect to the appeals section, I can understand the desire to streamline the appeals process, but I think we have to be careful. One of the issues that the previous minister addressed when he became minister was the need to separate the chief forester's function from the Ministry of Forests. In an ideal world the chief forester would occupy the same position as the auditor general, with an arm's-length relationship to the ministry when it comes time to determine annual allowable harvest levels and rights of appeal. I notice there seems to be a provision for the chief forester to kick some of those appeals back to the line functions of the ministry. This is certainly an area that the opposition will be focusing on during committee debate, to determine that some of the delegative powers of the chief forester have not been attenuated in any way by this change to the act.
Briefly, this bill does have merit in the sense that it will streamline some of the activities on the forest land base of British Columbia. It does provide additional guidelines for tree farm licence holders in British Columbia. But from a philosophical standpoint -- and that really is the focal point of second reading debate on any bill -- I certainly detect a thread of the government's distrust and disbelief that tree farms in the province have worked particularly well and that they are a form of tenure in which opportunities can be identified for the government to work with licence holders. There is going to be a requirement that all information now be shared, with the threat of serious administrative penalties -- the loss of 25 percent of the annual allowable harvest -- if that information isn't shared. I just wonder what impact that might have on the willingness of tree farm licence holders to spend those extra dollars on studies and plans beyond the minimum licence requirements, and whether they will be willing to do that now, knowing that the information will then be shared with the ministry and, I guess, could be available to competitors -- other licence holders.
I would close argument on this bill by urging the minister to spend some time over the summer touring some of the tree farm licences in British Columbia to see how they work. I can certainly think of tree farm licences where the range of activities is not only forest harvesting but also fishing, hunting and snowmobiling, and trails are cut and campsites are maintained. It's a form of tenure that I don't think is well understood in British Columbia, but which I believe offers an opportunity for government if they're only willing to grasp it. I don't see a sense of grasping that opportunity in this bill. While the opposition recognizes that there is a need to streamline the administration of the Forest Act, I again urge the minister and his colleagues to take another look at tree farm licences in British Columbia, to recognize that beyond the narrow definition of the act there are opportunities to pursue -- a whole range of activities with long-term licence holders -- and also to recognize that tenure in the province is not an enemy as long as the government maintains proper control through its licensing system. It's a system that offers opportunities for the Crown. I certainly don't detect much sign of that in this particular bill.
So while from a philosophical standpoint it's not a bill that we on this side of the House are deeply troubled about, I think there are some issues we will have to deal with in committee. I think that in committee stage of this bill we will be closer to realizing the government's true intentions in bringing this bill forward.
R. Neufeld: I won't take too much time, because I know time is of the essence this morning, obviously, by the way we're moving around on different bills here.
We should be talking about the philosophy and principles in second reading. As the previous speaker said, it's a little difficult to comment on all the sections of Bill 34 in philosophy and principles, because most of them are amendments to the Forest Act.
This government has been bringing in all kinds of amendments to the Forest Act, starting in 1992 and 1993, and now in 1994. We talk about trying to get some continuity in our forest industry. We've seen changes in the stumpage rates and royalties. We've seen a new forest practices code and a forest renewal plan introduced, and now some more amendments to the act. As I say, it becomes difficult for industry, after a while, to have any faith in the system or to want to invest the dollars that are needed to continue to provide the jobs that British Columbians need.
The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour spoke earlier about the need for good-paying jobs in the province, and I tend to agree with him in that respect. We do need good-paying jobs, and we want to continue on that road,
[ Page 10990 ]
which British Columbia has enjoyed for a long time. But when we take the industry that is the engine of our economy in British Columbia and in the course of three short years introduce a multitude of amendments to the Forest Act, a forest practices code and forest renewal plans that cost multimillion dollars, and still expect that we're going to have the investment in British Columbia -- and the cloud hangs over all the industry in the reduction of the annual allowable cuts; I understand and appreciate that some of those annual allowable cuts have to be changed; there's no doubt about it -- it does not induce a good feeling out there in the investment community. I hope this Ministry of Forests -- now under the second minister in two and a half years -- will start levelling out and not bring forth changes as they have over the last two and a half years, to bring some continuity to the industry so the industry knows where they stand, how they can invest and where they should invest.
I would like to reserve the right to go into a bit of wide-ranging debate as we go through the bill in committee stage. There are too many issues in the Forest Amendment Act to deal with at this time, but I know that as we go through committee stage there will be many questions that we'll want to ask on different sections. With that I conclude my remarks.
The Speaker: The minister closes debate.
Hon. A. Petter: I listened with interest to the two opposition speakers. I'll just make a very few comments in response, and then we can have a more detailed discussion during committee stage.
First of all, some of these amendments are clearly beneficial to all concerned in the forest sector. The streamlining of appeals, the strengthening of requirements around the transfer of licences -- which the previous government brought in -- and the allocation of portions of tenure to the small business program are strengthened by this act. What really is happening in much of this act is simply a strengthening of some of the components of the Forest Act, which I think all members will support.
I do want to make one brief comment on the issue of tenure. Certainly tenure is important, to provide the necessary security to those licence holders to make investments and to conduct the kind of forest management we all desire. That is true of tree farm licences as much as it is of other forms of tenure.
But with the tenure also goes responsibility. With respect to tree farm licences in particular, the sad fact is that previous governments did not require tree farm licence holders to provide adequate information so the public could be assured that cut rates established for tree farm licences were sustainable. Tree farm licence holders didn't even have to keep information in a form readily comparable to the information kept by the Forest Service. Nor were they required to provide that information in a way that would allow the Forest Service to evaluate it, to ensure that the public responsibility over these public resources was maintained. The responsibility to ensure appropriate balance between the tenure holder's rights and the right of the public to ensure good forest management was not adequately attended to by previous governments.
One of the reasons for this amendment is to strengthen the ability of the chief forester to protect that public interest, to ensure that the tenure holders -- who do and must enjoy the security to make the necessary investments -- also maintain a responsibility through to the public, and through the office of chief forester, provide information that will enable the chief forester to determine a sustainable rate of cut. I hope members are not suggesting that simply because someone has tenure, that means the public ought not to worry itself about issues of sustainability or harvesting practices, because that -- which seems to have been the attitude of the previous government -- has got us into some serious difficulty.
I would very much welcome debate about these provisions. These provisions are altogether responsible. They ensure that the chief forester and the public will have adequate information. For an opposition that constantly complains about there not being adequate access to information for the public with respect to public resources.... I would have thought that the opposition would strongly support these provisions, which ensure that tenure holders -- tree farm licence holders in particular -- will have to provide adequate information on a timely basis, that that kind of provision would accord with their philosophy. I hope they don't have one standard for government and another standard for others who act as stewards of public resources.
With that said, I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 34, Forest Amendment Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[11:00]
Hon. A. Petter: I call second reading of Bill 37.
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND FAIR WAGE ACT
(continued)
G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to thank the Government House Leader for working with us to accommodate this debate this morning. A briefing had been arranged some time ago that wasn't able to be moved. We were able to negotiate an agreement whereby the minister started and we can now resume that debate, and I appreciate that opportunity.
I don't intend to speak for a great deal of time on this bill, because I think that the public has already decided what it's all about. Over the past two years the public has seen that the fair-wage policy brought in by this government is unworkable, that the policy is unfair to the taxpayers and that it doesn't achieve the goals that the government has set for itself.
After the fixed-wage policy had been in place for almost a year, the former Minister of Labour stood up in Victoria and made a speech where he said that the policy had been a unmitigated disaster, that it hadn't achieved anything, and in fact had achieved the worst of both worlds. Everything that the government hoped would happen didn't happen.
That is a good example of what happens when a government gets into an area where it has no business being involved. The government only has so many levers at its disposal, and the government only has so much power in setting policy and in trying to manipulate an open market. What we've seen is that the government has been unable to do what they wanted to do. They wanted to take government contracts that are let for government construction in the public sector and apply an arbitrary pay scale -- not a negotiated pay scale but an arbitrary one -- to a distinct class of employees within the province.
When the government negotiates with their other employees, or when the government sets the pay scales they
[ Page 10991 ]
pay to other people who do work on behalf of the province, in many cases it's done through an open collective bargaining process; in other cases it's done through tendering. It's done through an open process that is somewhat market-oriented. When the government works with the BCGEU or other public sector unions, it really is an open process. For the most part, it's a process whereby those employees have at some time in the past chosen to organize themselves and be represented collectively. They negotiate with the government to determine what pay scale is going to be set for the labour they are offering. There have been glitches, as there are with all processes, but it works relatively well for the most part.
What has happened with the fair-wage policy, however, is that a group of workers in the province have freely chosen to organize themselves collectively into the various trade unions. Those trade unions have negotiated collective agreements with their employers.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I won't even touch that one, hon. Speaker.
The employees have decided, yes or no, in favour of collective agreements that were negotiated on their behalf by representatives of their trade union. In so doing, they made a decision: (1) that they wanted to be represented by a trade union; and (2) that they felt the collective agreement was something that represented their interests well and would allow them to compete for jobs and contracts and keep themselves employed. That's a decision those people are free to make on their own.
But when those collective agreements are such that they price themselves out of a competitive market, there is a problem. People have to understand that there is some accountability and an upwards limit on how much the taxpayers can pay. If the trade unions and workers in those trade unions negotiate themselves collective agreements that price their employer and themselves out of the marketplace, they have a problem. They either have to deal with that collective agreement and those wage rates and moderate their demands -- because the market demands that -- or they are going to miss out on work. They are going to find themselves uncompetitive. In fact, the work is going to go to other employers and employees who have chosen not to be part of that collective agreement, which may well have priced itself out of the market.
We've seen that with job-targeting funds set up by trade unions, whereby employees will actually contribute a certain amount of money into a pot. That pot is used to cut side deals with the union employer to allow them to pay somewhat lower rates in order to target a specific large project and to get the work. They have to adapt somehow to what the market is telling them. The market is saying: "You are charging too much for your labour. People can't afford to pay it; people will not pay it." They have to somehow go around that, and they do it with these job-targeting funds, which everybody knows exist. Then they target these specific projects, go in and bid on them with the hope of getting the work. What's happening is that they end up paying themselves less than the wages in their collective agreement. They have to actually find some way to make themselves competitive without openly stating that their collective agreement itself is uncompetitive. We all know that happens; members in the government caucus know that happens. It's happened historically, and it continues to happen.
Of course, that causes a problem. As legislators, we all know that every time an interest group finds itself in a difficult position advocating on behalf of the interests of their members -- justifiably so, as it's the job that they are supposed to be doing -- they come and ask us to get involved and set laws that don't require them to be competitive and that require us as legislators to put in laws, policies and processes that protect them from their competitors. We get it all the time. Our job as legislators is to look at these things and decide what's in the best interest of the whole province.
In this case we have a group of trade unions who, by their own admission and by their own actions, have priced themselves out of the market in many cases. Now they've come to the government, a sympathetic government, and have asked it to bring in a policy that will protect them and their collective agreements and ensure that they can lobby a sympathetic government and receive protection -- at least as far as the public sector is concerned and the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars a year which the government spends on capital construction.
That happened with the fair-wage policy. The government set a scale of wages which all bidders would have to pay to their workers. It's true that this scale, in many cases, was lower than the scale which was enforced in the collective agreements for those various jobs and trades. In some cases, it was a little higher. It depends on whom you talk to and what you include in the calculations.
Now the government has found that this policy hasn't worked, and it hasn't worked because of market forces. I know the members are going to get up and talk about.... I know the member before got up and said that there are some unscrupulous employers who are exploiting their employees. That's true; there are some. There will always be some. And there are often unscrupulous trade unions which exploit their employees, pension funds and other things.
We hear about these things. They're hard to prove; you can't do it in a court of law. There are processes in place, but the fact is that in both barrels, in business and in labour, there is the odd bad apple, and everyone knows and understands that.
D. Streifel: Name names.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, we can't use members' names in the House, and I wouldn't do that, anyway.
The reality is that both barrels have bad apples. They're small, but there are a few of them, and they discredit themselves. Ultimately, I think that those people who make the decision to exploit their workers pay in the end, because people won't work for them or people won't hire them, or they end up having employees who don't work well because they don't feel any loyalty to the company, and they end up producing products that aren't good, and people refuse to deal with them. That's what takes place. If the government really wants to step in to deal with some of those things, there are ways to do it aside from bringing in a fair-wage policy and fair-wage legislation.
Before us we have a bill that takes this process one step further. As the government knows, there was a court case launched against the fair-wage policy. It was not in compliance with the act that had been in place on the books in the province, in that the act states that the fair wages paid by the government should be market-level wages.
That's just saying that the government will take a lead and say: "We're not going to be one of those exploitive employers. We're not going to do it." In so doing, they're
[ Page 10992 ]
saying they have to pay market rates. What this government has done is determine what those market rates are. They've arbitrarily said: "We're going to ignore the 70 percent of the work that's done by the non-union sector and the wage rates they pay, and we're going to say that the collective agreements in place with some employers, employees and trade unions is the market rate. In fact, we're going to set that rate, or something near it, by law."
The government has taken a policy that they themselves said wasn't working and are about to implement it in the form of legislation. I don't think it's going to work. It won't work any better than it worked under the fair-wage policy. The government should learn the lesson that there's only so much a government can do to a market. There's only so much the government can do in the form of legislation to try to achieve certain policies and results.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
They will find that the same types of things will continue to go on that have gone on before. There will still be the bad apples. There are some things in this bill that will deal with those people, but for the most part they will not achieve the results that they're trying to achieve -- because they're not achievable. The government can't go in and force market rates at a particular point, set them arbitrarily above what the market is dictating and hope to hold them there. It won't work. It doesn't work in other policies, it doesn't work with other legislation, and governments of all political stripes have found that out.
So I understand the pressure that this government is under. I understand that they're under the influence of a very strong, powerful and well-funded lobby. I think it's the duty of governments to stand up to those lobbies and say that they're going to make these decisions for the best interests of the public and the province as a whole, and not for the interests of special groups that come and talk to them. That's something that governments have to do.
The government will stand up -- I'm sure the minister already has, although I caught only portions of his comments -- and say that the fair-wage policy hasn't cost taxpayers one cent and that this legislation, the fair wage act, won't cost this province one cent. Hon. Speaker, all you have to do is look at the estimates that were put in place for projects -- the estimates where government contractors went out, looked at projects and set prebudget estimates for what those projects would cost -- and go down the list to find out how much is allotted for the fair-wage policy.
Those estimators know, and they're the best ones out there right now to tell us how much a project is going to cost us. They're the best people to target how much that project is likely to cost once it goes out to tender. They will tell you that the projects are going to cost more because the government is artificially raising the wage rates above the market level, and as a result you have to allot for that in your estimates.
For every project that this government has done under the fair-wage policy, the cost has been more than what it would have been without it. The government will say that they came in at less than their estimates, that they put out estimates, and that all the bids came in under budget. That may very well be, but perhaps it's just because the market is in a demand position. Those people are looking for work. The government is able to be a price-setter, and construction people are price-takers. That happens in economics, and members know that.
[11:15]
The reality is that if the fair-wage policy weren't in place, those projects would have cost us less. In fact, we have instances. If you look at school districts and talk to them and to just about any secretary-treasurer in the whole province, and look at their cost estimates for the construction of schools in the province, they will tell you that they've had to pay more. They've had to downscale their capital budget and delay, minimize and reduce the projects that they would have had in place.
There are more portables in this province today in school districts because of the fair-wage policy than there would have been without the fair-wage policy. And the government members know that.
So when the Minister of Education goes around the province berating the opposition and blaming the opposition for the fact that they can't build all the schools they want in the province, because the opposition is demanding that they toe the line on deficits.... When he makes those kinds of statements, he should be truly honest with people -- with the parent groups, the teachers and the school districts. He should tell them that one of the reasons many of these schools are being delayed, one of the reasons these projects are being downsized and one of the reasons there are still as many portables in existence in this province today is the fair-wage policy. The minister knows that, and he won't be upfront enough to tell them that.
It's not that the money can't be found to pay for those capital projects and schools that are desperately needed; it's a question of the government making choices between students and fixed wages. That's as simple as it is. The students don't vote and they don't donate to campaigns; trade union members donate to campaigns and they vote -- and that's the difference. All the minster has to do is be honest. If the government wants to set these policies and pass this legislation, that's fine. They have the power to do that because, as the former Minister of Social Services says, when you're in government it means that you get to do what you want to do. I don't think that all the public believes that, but that's certainly what the government believes.
They have the power to impose these types of policies despite the fact that it's going to cost the public, the students and people in hospitals, and despite the fact that it costs the taxpayers in this province every day, either in added costs, reduced capital projects or net value for the costs you're putting out. We're paying for it in one way or another.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'm getting heckled from way back in the corner. I'd like to address his comments for one minute. He says that the Langley School District has told the Minister of Employment and Investment -- I believe he was Finance minister at the time, I don't recall, but he was certainly there -- that the low-bid prospect doesn't always serve the best interests of the school district. They said that it....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, much as one enjoys the interaction, our system does not allow for both sides of the House to be recorded simultaneously. Therefore I would ask members to please allow the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove to continue uninterrupted.
G. Farrell-Collins: I lived right next to the high school in question while it was being constructed. I know what went on there, because I had to live through the dust, the thumping and the pile driving as they tried to
[ Page 10993 ]
set foundations for this school. I know how poorly the first contractor did on that project. There are ways of dealing with that without inflating the wages. You just make sure that the person who's going to be doing the job is qualified to do it.
There are ways of dealing with that without inflating the costs dramatically. If somebody is unqualified to do the work in question, then they're unqualified to do the work in question, and they shouldn't be going out and learning on the job. That can be dealt with. So I think that the issue the member is trying to bring forward is a bit of a red herring. I'm sure that if he checks back with the chair of the Langley School District, she will be glad to inform him of that.
I know that over time this piece of legislation will prove to be a failure, just like the policy was. There's not a lot of difference between the two. There are some things that I'd like to get to in committee stage, certainly. This policy will be no more successful than the last one or the policy previous to that before they rejigged it slightly. The reality is that you can't do it. The government can't step into the market, set the rates well above market rate and hope that that policy or piece of legislation will survive the test of time, because it won't.
I have had time to look through the bill, and there are some things that I'll certainly be bringing up in committee stage and asking questions about. One of them, obviously, is the effect it's going to have on municipalities, the Vancouver Charter and other associations, and the Hospital Act. There are some things in here which beg questions of the minister that we will certainly ask at that time, and we will try to get to the bottom of small changes to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act that we'll be dealing with.
I think the public knows that this policy was a failure and that they have been paying for it. The schools and parents in this province know that they've been paying for it. All I can say, without a lot of fanfare or continuous debate, is that we obviously will not be supporting this bill. It's bad policy being put into bad legislation, and it will prove to be a failure. That's the fact; that's the reality. The ministry and the government know that, but it's something they feel compelled to do because of a high-pressure, well-financed lobby that they deal with.
We've seen it in play on the Island Highway, and we've seen it in play elsewhere. It's a very powerful lobby that has great influence within the caucus, and certainly within cabinet. We know how and why those decisions are made; the public knows, also. Eventually this government will be held accountable for this type of legislation. The public will say no to a second mandate for this government, which has one really big ear for its friends and insiders, and a near-deaf ear for the rest of the people of the province, including students. The public will make that decision and put the verdict on this government in the next election.
D. Schreck: It gives me particular pleasure to go immediately after the Liberal House Leader and Labour critic, because I think this bill speaks very clearly to the people of the province of what would be offered under the would-be government of Liberals, versus what is now being offered by our government of New Democrats.
On our side, we see no difficulty with construction workers, if they are fortunate enough to be able to work a full year, making between $30,000 and $40,000 a year, plus a benefit package. The alternative offered by the Liberal opposition critic is that they should make about $20,000 a year, if they can work a full year, with no benefit package. The issue is as simple as that. Should construction workers be able to make between $30,000 and $40,000 a year, or should they be driven down to $20,000?
Now, $30,000 or $40,000 a year is not living high on the hog. It is very difficult to hold a family together -- as most British Columbians know, because that's the amount of money most British Columbians make -- and pay the bills on $30,000 to $40,000 a year. It is impossible on $20,000 a year, and that is the alternative being advocated and promoted by the Liberal opposition. The issue is as simple as that; there is nothing more than that to it.
It's true that if we drive people's wages down to a poverty level, more projects might be constructed. But let's think of that cycle. If we drive the wages down to the poverty level for everybody in the province, where is the resource base? Where is the tax base of people who could afford to pay to build the schools, roads and bridges? I would say that it's an endless cycle into poverty for our society as a whole, as well as for individual workers. In this province we should be striving to attain a decent standard of living for all, and we do not do that by constantly whittling away at those minimum standards that allow some people to get out of the category of the working poor.
It's particularly interesting that this Liberal opposition is advocating that sort of downward cycle, because it is inconsistent with what we might know as small-l liberalism. It's inconsistent with the history of this country. Many members might not know when Canada had its first fair-wage commissioner and the history of that. The great-grandfather of our caucus research director Mary O'Donoghue was the first fair-wage commissioner in Canada. I am quoting from Faith, Sweat, and Politics by Doris French. Chapter 11 of French's book begins by saying: "When Daniel O'Donoghue was a young Ottawa printer he led his union out on strike because a government printing shop tried to cut prices and hence cut wages to its workmen." When Daniel returned to Ottawa in 1900 it was to head the administration of a new government Department of Labour -- a Department of Labour established in 1900 under a Liberal federal government.
Ninety-four years ago that Liberal federal government established the Department of Labour and made Daniel O'Donoghue the first fair-wage officer in Canada. And 94 years later we have a party that would call itself the Liberal opposition in British Columbia attacking the principle of fair wages, arguing that there should be unfettered competition in a downward spiral. I say it is a shame that those principles have been lost in the past century.
Do we see that commitment to unfettered competition applied by the Liberal opposition in other areas? I remember standing in this House when the Liberal opposition defended the right of physicians to make six-figure incomes. In the pharmacists' publication this past month, I noticed the Liberal Health critic encouraging pharmacists to meet with her to fight against the government on its policy of allowing competition for dispensing fees, thereby maintaining a restricted competition for that element of the health sector.
I note the Liberal opposition is quite willing to interfere in market mechanisms to protect those who are already protected. But there is this particular niche they seem to have carved out for the union-busting construction trades, where their argument is that $30,000 to $40,000 for somebody who is lucky enough to work a full year is too much money, and that we should drive those people down to the $10-an-hour range, where they can't afford to support the family, they are among the working poor and they have no benefit package.
That is the issue before us. It's as simple as that and involves nothing more than that. We are not talking about
[ Page 10994 ]
massive giveaways. We're asking: should a person be able to make $30,000 to $40,000 a year, or do we adopt the Liberal policy of driving it down to $20,000 a year? We're talking about a Liberal opposition that will defend the six-figure-income set, that will recruit a particular industry such as pharmacists and say "we will stop competition to protect you," but is willing to go to bat against construction workers.
In 1900 the federal Liberal government of the day, when it hired Daniel O'Donoghue to be the first fair-wage commissioner in Canada, had it right. I say that loss of small-l liberalism is a loss to Canada, because what we are now dealing with in this Legislature is a massive shift to special interest on the right, represented by that official opposition.
[11:30]
I'm proud to stand here and say that I think there is nothing wrong with having as many people in this province as possible make a good living wage. That's what this issue is about, and that's why I support second reading of this bill.
G. Wilson: It is with considerable pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill 37, the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act. Certain pieces of legislation come before this assembly and provide opportunities for elected members to state where they stand on the issues in principle. It provides an opportunity for people who are reading our words in Hansard or who may be observing our deliberations by way of the televised debates or by way of the report of our statements to know the differences between the political parties that are represented here and the philosophies and principles that those political parties adhere to. Bill 37 is just that kind of debate. Bill 37 speaks directly to the principles of the right to organize, the right to negotiate and the right to a fair wage within the organized working communities in the province.
Let me state my position clearly for the record. The comments of the official opposition Labour critic weren't clear as to exactly what their position is vis-a-vis the principles of this bill. I understand that they are opposing the bill on the basis of it not being workable, but I didn't understand whether or not there was a commitment to the principle. On principle let me say that the Alliance supports fair wages. It's important that we make that clear distinction.
I would say that when I was the leader of the Liberal Party and received my mandate from 33 percent of the people, and when I took that party to opposition, that party supported fair wages, and we made that clear. If we can have any faith in what the public has heard and seen with respect to the debate that took place during the last election and which has ensued since that election, the average British Columbian -- that is, the majority of the people in British Columbia -- believes that fair compensation should be paid for labour provided. I believe that that, in principle, is critically important with respect to the maintenance of a just society.
Where I differ with the government, and where the Alliance differs, is with respect to rates. It's important that we make a very clear distinction between the principle of a fair wage and the rate negotiated and established. We might have further deliberation and discussion with respect to the amount of compensation paid and the process by which the negotiation on that rate can take place. I think that fair, open and honest debate can take place so that we can look at the economics of spending taxpayers' money for the construction of schools, hospitals and roads, and other things, with a mind to the ability to pay and the demand those capital constructions may have on the tax base. It would also provide us with an opportunity to look more generally at how wage distribution occurs across the province so that we can start to see who is, we might say, in a fair-wage bracket and who is not, in order to understand the implications for those who are not, with regard to their ability to have a reasonable quality of life -- which I think we would all want for our neighbours and members of our community -- but, more importantly, to understand what that means for the overall viability of an economy that is now facing major continental influences with respect to the free trade agreement and NAFTA, which are going to increasingly demand a decline in wage structures in the province.
We're hearing more and more sentiment about the free market being the determining factor with respect to how those rates are paid, and that's a sad commentary on where we seem to be headed in this province. We have to recognize that we in British Columbia do not live in isolation. We do not live in a small, enclosed community that is not influenced by the decisions taken by a whole series of different political authorities. In the United States of America and Mexico, wage rates have been kept at minimum level -- in some cases, I believe, a subhuman level -- in order for a maximization of profits invested by corporations that seek to exploit, and through that exploitation seek to put products into the market that are not going to be competitive with what we can produce here because of the standard of life that we support. What we have to understand in this fair-wage debate is that it also takes place around the whole concept of the social safety net that we hold dear.
We live in a society that is the envy of all societies, and it is so because we have a strong commitment to look after and protect those who, for reasons totally beyond their control, are unable to look after themselves. We have to recognize that one of the ways we can do that is by injecting investment into communities where the investment can be put back into the economy so that it allows the economy to flourish and grow. The way to stop that investment is to allow wage rates to shrink to the lowest common denominator, determined by a continental economy which drives those wages down because of commitments we have to the free market system in Mexico or the United States. From a strictly economic point of view, that is not what we should be doing.
Let me say that with respect to the fair wage, we have lost the meaning of the intention of its principle. Where the debate can and should take place is with respect to rates, and that's a fair debate. That happens in every negotiated collective agreement that I have ever seen, and I've been a participant in negotiating a number. The trouble is -- and I'm only putting this forward as conjecture -- that perhaps some members of the official opposition have never been involved in a trade union. They have never sat in on a negotiation and have no understanding of how a collective agreement works. As a result, they are putting out information that is simply factually incorrect. Not only does that do a disservice to the proposition of fair, open and honest debate in this chamber, it also does a disservice to the people of British Columbia, who want to know what we are actually putting our teeth into here. They want to know what the real issue is.
We heard allegations, commentary and a lot of verbiage in this chamber with respect to the Island Highway contract and kickbacks on contract negotiations. The official opposition, on that point, was completely off base. They didn't have a clue as to what it was they were talking about. The Leader of the Opposition, who stood up and said there were kickbacks, demonstrated a colossal ignorance of that contract and how contracts have been negotiated and put in place since W.A.C. Bennett's days. All it took was a little
[ Page 10995 ]
research into how those contracts had been negotiated since the construction of the major dams in the 1950s and 1960s. Had that been done, those comments would not have been made, because there would have been understanding of the complexity involved in the proportioning of certain moneys into training and apprenticeship programs and into trust accounts, which are in some cases jointly administered by the employer and the employee and in other cases held by a single trustee. There's nothing new, unique or untoward about that.
Now if you want to go after the government by saying that organized labour supports them, do so -- because they do support them. There is no hidden agenda there; it's clear. The B.C. Federation of Labour has declared that the NDP is their political arm. Just in these last few days, the Canadian Labour Congress had the federal leader of the NDP pleading to keep together that alliance between organized labour and the NDP. So that's fair comment. If we want to talk about special interests financing political parties and the need for disclosure, that's fair debate. But it is not fair debate to construct a massive straw dog that has absolutely no substance in reality, and then beat it down.
My big concern on the principle of Bill 37 is that we are losing what we are talking about, because what really is in question is the cost of government contracts for the construction of capital projects.
With respect to union versus non-union matters, it is quite clear that the intention of this government is, wherever possible, to have union contracts in place. That is the philosophical agenda of this government. We knew that when they were elected to government. Anybody who has followed politics in British Columbia knows that that's what this government is all about. But when we introduce fair-wage legislation, we have to try to transcend the partisan political situation and ask ourselves: in principle, is this a good idea? In principle, should we be trying to establish some kind of fair-wage standards in order to make sure that there is not exploitation of working people? In principle, should we apply this?
Fair wages in the construction industry is one thing. What about fair wages in the many other sectors of employment in this province, where wages are being driven down and people are becoming part of the working poor? That causes me greater concern, quite frankly, than the principles involved in Bill 37. What we have to do is recognize that the division between those that have and those that do not is getting wider, that the ability for people, the average family, to make a living and to live with dignity in our society is becoming more difficult.
We have to recognize that the continental influences in our economy have no truck for what goes on in British Columbia in terms of our society. What they want is the harmonization of our social programs and the harmonization of our economy. They want to have an economic union so that they can access our resource base. That's what it's all about, and the cheaper they can do it, the better. If they can have 80 percent of British Columbians working at flogging McDonald's hamburgers, so much the better, because it means that we have not invested in research and development and that we have not invested in putting in place a secondary industry of both processing and manufacturing sectors that are going to make us strong and viable and an independent entity that can stand on its own.
When I talk about that, I talk about it with some conviction and passion, because it is time that we put the truth to the people of British Columbia. The truth is that we are slowly having the foundation of our province -- indeed, I believe, that of our nation -- eroded from underneath us. Those continental influences are now starting to take advantage of the fact that we have not put a solid enough economic and political structure in place to protect against it. If this is one way that we can commence doing that, then let's debate it on those merits. Let us not create these straw dogs. I would argue that the real issue here is rates. The real issue here is the actual amount of negotiated moneys -- the dollars. The issue is what it is going to cost the taxpayer in order to put on-line those capital construction projects the taxpayers want, and those are our hospitals and our schools. That's what this is all about.
I become so frustrated by the shallow, partisan nature of debate that consistently gets dragged into this chamber. We can't get down to the real hard-core issues that face British Columbians, and they are long-term economic policies that are going to allow us to maintain the kind of political integrity that we have in this province. We cannot and we must not be dragged into partisanship all the time in this chamber so that we avoid those real, hard philosophical debates.
Let me say in closing that I believe that honest mistakes are made in political debate, where people simply don't understand, and because of their ignorance they make statements that perhaps, once educated on issues, they'll regret they made.
I believe there is a subagenda going on here. It has to do with the opportunity to once again drive a wedge between unionized workers and the non-unionized sector, between employees and employers -- a subagenda which is so familiar and so much a part of the political history of this province. Quite frankly, I'm frightened by the rise of what we might say is the ultra-right wing, and concerned when it comes out with simplistic solutions to very complex human problems. I'm even more concerned that those with simplistic economic solutions pretend they can deal with those human problems in a way that is going to provide long-term stability within our economy and society.
[11:45]
I observe and read as much as I can. I can tell you that if we are going to have a strong society that is able to provide us with longevity, as a province and as an equal partner within Canada, then we better start looking toward a just society and talking about how we can help each other. We had better start getting away from the partisan shackles that hold us to ill-founded and often outdated dogma -- dogma the people of British Columbia have tired of and become very cynical about. We have to render ourselves free so we can start talking about what it is that's important and real to British Columbians. Until we do that, and if we fail to do that, we will have failed the electorate that brought us into this Legislative Assembly.
We need to look at fair wages for all British Columbians. We need to make sure all British Columbians are adequately and properly and fairly compensated for work they have done. That is the principle we are dealing with here. We can argue about what those rates are and whether they are fair. We can argue about whether or not we should look at them in a collective agreement in terms of cash compensation or some kind of benefits package. We can argue about all of those kinds of things.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain has said let's discuss, not argue. I would be happy to do that, but sometimes in order to get to a discussion you need to
[ Page 10996 ]
have an argument first. At least, that was my experience as a negotiator.
Let us say that if we can discuss without argument, then that's fair. Let's do that. We simply must get away from the political rhetoric that divides the far right from the left, because I don't believe the average British Columbian even believes in a right and left anymore. They want sensible, articulate and honest debate that will look at and clearly address the issues of how we can reduce the cost of government while at the same time providing the services they need, and how we can start to bring back a democratic system that allows for a direct delegation process so they can have an influence on the legislation they want and at the same time make sure that there is leadership that directs us in a manner that will provide us with opportunities for future generations.
It is important that we start to recognize that there is a time for compassion in this province, and that now is the time. We are seeing far too much being driven against poor people, people who are handicapped for whatever reasons and people who suffer for reasons that are well beyond their control and who are therefore unable to participate and compete. Ours must be a just and fair society in which we reduce the level of the political rhetoric that drives wedges between us and divides us in terms of our ability to make decisions and opportunities.
I hope that as we go through further debate with respect to the principles of the bill, politicians in this chamber will stand up and speak first as British Columbians who are interested in looking at the principle of what is intended and what it means when we talk of a fair wage. We can and we will have a vigorous debate with respect to rates, to costs, to how it is implemented with respect to the collective bargaining process and to union versus non-union workers, and vigorous debate on section 2 on project requirements.
Hon. Speaker, I serve notice that I will be introducing a private member's bill with respect to looking after the interests of British Columbians by way of performance bonds and making sure that subcontractors on lists are indeed used, not simply used in the negotiation and tendering process and then discarded in order for substandard workers to come on site. We have to make sure that we protect against these things.
We will have a vigorous debate with respect to some of the provisions in this bill that I take exception to. There are areas that I take exception to, but I don't know how anybody can argue on principle against the proposition that every British Columbian be fairly compensated for work they have done in a manner that provides an opportunity for everybody in our society to live with dignity and have enough income at their disposal to allow their children an opportunity to live a better life than the life we are living today. Who can argue against that? So in principle we have to say that a fair wage for work provided is a positive in British Columbia.
Only when we get into partisan rankling on one sector, employment in the construction industry between non-union and union workers, do we allow that to create the political dogma of left-versus-right rhetoric that has driven this province for so long. Only when we allow ourselves to try to gain cheap political points by putting out completely fictitious information and a complete misrepresentation of the facts before the people of British Columbia, only when we get into the kind of political manoeuvring that will somehow manage to get us a clip on the G.C. TV news, as it's become known -- and I said G.C. TV as opposed to BCTV news -- and only when we're fed a question for the 6 o'clock news that will make sure we match the clips that were already filmed do we do a real disservice to the people of British Columbia. They want honest debate, where our divisions are clear, and they want those clear divisions to be articulated in a sensible, proper manner. Above all, they want us to reflect the interests of the majority of British Columbians with a view to protecting not only this generation but future generations. They want us to look toward the next generation of British Columbians and not the next election. Sadly, it seems that many members of one particular opposition party are focused toward the next election right now.
The opportunity is now for us to stand and take a position with respect to how we can manage a just society in British Columbia and move toward a new economic paradigm. Now is the time for us to embark on that journey. It will not be easy, and we do have our differences. I clearly have my differences with the government on this question, as do other members of the Alliance. Those differences will be addressed in detail in committee stage.
L. Hanson moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]