1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 15

[ Page 10997 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: It's my privilege today to introduce to the House His Excellency Dr. Udo Moses Williams, acting High Commissioner for Nigeria, as well as Mr. Ahmed Abubakar, consul, Nigeria High Commission. I'd ask all members of the Legislature to make them most welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: In the gallery today is Colleen Bawn, a master's student at the UVic school of public administration. She's spending a day here with the opposition to see how our role fits into the public policy process. I'm sure she's finding it very interesting. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

B. Jones: On behalf of the member for Skeena, I'd like to introduce one of his constituents, Janet Lennox, who is in the House today. She is joined by two friends, Carla Vega and her younger brother Carlos Vega, who are visiting us from Costa Rica. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Introduction of Bills

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Agriculture. [Applause.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Thank you.

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. D. Zirnhelt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor; a bill intituled Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill amends the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which has been in force for 20 years. The amendments will recognize the key role of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission as a partner in local land use planning, to ensure that local plans and bylaws accommodate and indeed encourage farm use of agricultural land. They will create a process requiring referral of community plans by local governments to the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission for comment.

They will clarify that, after these amendments, local land use bylaws that are inconsistent with the ALR designation will have no legal effect. They will provide for limited delegation of decision-making authority regarding change-in-use and subdivision applications, for those local governments that wish to decide these applications. They will prevent exclusion and change-in-use applications from proceeding to the commission -- where local governments have determined by bylaw that the land should be for farm use -- unless they are authorized by local government. They will validate the original designation of the ALR boundaries that have been shown since 1973 on all recognized maps of the commission and local governments. And they will introduce many changes needed to clarify the wording of the act and to provide greater strength for evolving administrative practices of the commission.

I'm pleased to commend this bill to all members and urge its passage.

Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing, Recreation and etc. [Laughter.]

Hon. J. Smallwood: It's called an expanding mandate!

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. J. Smallwood presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I'm pleased to introduce Bill 31. This important amendment to the Municipal Act responds to the needs of two groups in our province: people in need of affordable housing, and tenants living in rental buildings that are not up to municipal maintenance standards.

The purpose of the amendment is twofold. First, the amendment will clarify the authority of local governments to provide land below market value to non-profit housing associations. This will provide municipalities with real options to help provide more affordable housing in their jurisdiction. Second, the amendment will allow governments to develop and enforce standards-of-maintenance bylaws for rental buildings. This amendment will give municipalities real power to deal with buildings that pose fire or other hazards to occupants. Municipal governments will finally be able to ensure that rental buildings meet a specific maintenance standard.

In summary, the amendments support the new partnership between local governments and the province.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

EVASION OF B.C. TRANSIT FARES

D. Symons: When questioned about transit fare cheaters yesterday, the minister said: "We established a flying squad of people to check fares on Transit. We hired another 20 SkyTrain attendants just in the last few months...." Well, last night we saw U.TV do their entire broadcast from a SkyTrain car. They boarded for free, trying their utmost to get kicked off the train, and failed utterly. The minister's own report shows that attendants are reluctant to interrupt conversations to ask for fares. Does the minister still stand on his assertion that he has done an adequate job of preventing fare evasion on SkyTrain, as he bragged only yesterday?

Hon. G. Clark: I suppose we could make cheaters wear pink sweaters or something.

SkyTrain attendants currently check 500,000 passengers per month for proof of fare payments at stations. In addition, approximately 50,000 passengers are checked on-board trains for proof of fare payment each month. This means that one in six passengers is checked for proof of fare payment. The level of fare evasion detected in these checks amounts to a loss of about 3 to 3.5 percent. As I said yesterday, this amounts to a loss of about $600,000 per year.

[ Page 10998 ]

Just to give you a sense of some of the enforcement action we've taken, in March 1994 transfers were redesigned and printed to improve readability by operators. Fare enforcement blitzes, as I said earlier, are regularly conducted on SkyTrain, and the next major enforcement campaign will be taking place in the next couple of weeks in May. A driver retraining program designed to maintain safety standards, which began in the fall of 1993, now includes a component on the issue of fare collection. Further work is being done, as I indicated yesterday. The board will be considering this in the next few months.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Supplemental question, hon. member.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that. I must say that I believe their baseball team should be wearing pink, from what I hear of the last baseball game they played.

Besides that, we find that the minister also said: "Fortunately, in British Columbia most individuals don't choose to attempt to cheat." He estimated that the figure of cheaters was somewhere in the realm of 3 percent, yet last night BCTV showed transit users erasing the dates on their passes so the machine would print them new ones. Based on what we saw on TV last night, will the minister now admit that his 3 percent fare evasion estimate was invented on the spot, and in reality he doesn't have the faintest clue as to how much evasion takes place on his transit system?

Hon. G. Clark: I certainly don't want to criticize the investigative techniques of BCTV -- or U.TV, for that matter. But rather than rely on the anecdotal reporting of two television stations....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: This is not anecdotal. I just finished saying, if the member would listen, that SkyTrain attendants check 500,000 passengers a month. That's not anecdotal; that's empirical evidence that the rate of evasion is about 3 percent. It's not good enough. We're working hard to fix it. Unfortunately, this problem has existed for some time.

I want members to know, however, that no turnstiles.... Exactly the same kind of system that's in SkyTrain exists in Calgary, Edmonton, San Jose, Portland and the two new transit systems being implemented in Los Angeles. This system is cost-effective. It doesn't make sense to spend tens of millions of dollars on what is a very small problem. We're working hard to reduce fare evasion. Unlike the previous government, we've taken action to fix this problem, and we'll be taking more action.

The Speaker: Does the hon. member have a supplemental?

D. Symons: I still find the minister's answer somewhat lacking, because certainly the TV last night and my own experience on B.C. Transit indicates that it's very easy to get away with it. Last night U.TV found a woman who only pays her fare on the way to work. Somehow, between then and coming home, she's changed her mind, and on the way home she doesn't pay. That's a 50 percent fare evasion right there; it happens every day. Yet while the minister admits what is really painfully obvious -- that he has no idea how much fare evasion is taking place -- he is taking no effective action to find out and has no intention of really cleaning this up.

The Speaker: I don't believe the hon. member asked a question.

SUCCESSOR RIGHTS OF FORMER STENA LINE EMPLOYEES

M. de Jong: Prior to the formation of Victoria Line Ltd., the former employees of Stena Line were members of two unions. Incredibly, the minister responsible for the new Crown corporation is quoted as saying that he feels he is under no obligation to deal with the former employees of Stena Line. My question to the minister is: on what basis does he purport to ignore the successorship rights afforded to the former employees of Stena Line? Does he not feel some legal, or at the very least moral, obligation toward those workers who are about to be left high and dry by his government?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Clark: Frankly, I'm staggered by the hypocrisy of the member opposite, to be arguing in here in favour of union successor rights. In a sense, I'm delighted, because maybe there's a new position for the Liberal Party today in that respect.

We've started a new corporation in British Columbia which is a different service than in the past. We gave a commitment to the former employees of the Stena operation, in spite of the fact that this is a dramatically different service, with considerably fewer people and only one ship instead of two. We gave a commitment that we would interview as many people among the former employees as indicated an interest. In fact, out of about 75 jobs, 26 who were hired -- so I believe, going from memory; it's at least in that magnitude -- were former Stena employees.

We've committed no discrimination. Any union that represents those workers....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. G. Clark: It is completely a decision for the workers, and we make no interference in that decision.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

As all hon. members know, questions that are not precise and exacting....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

The tendency has been to allow members to elaborate in order to clarify their point and to allow the same amount of latitude for the response. If members wish the standing orders to be enforced exactly and rigidly, it can be done, but it would effectively eliminate the ability of members to ask or answer questions.

M. de Jong: The minister's response is very telling. It appears clear that he can't conceive of successorship rights unless they apply to a union, and that's simply not the case. It's interesting how times have changed. It wasn't that long ago that this minister was heard saying in this place that "an employer's right to purchase a bankrupt company and start 

[ Page 10999 ]

up again is fettered by collective rights workers have built up over time." Is the minister now saying that that principle only applies to workers who belong to unions that redirect generous amounts of cash to his NDP re-election campaign fund? Is that why he has hired Chris Jones, his friend and a longtime member of the builders' trade union, as manager of Victoria Line?

The Speaker: The minister rises on a point of order.

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously, I ask the member to withdraw the repugnant reference that somehow this money....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: I want....

The Speaker: Would the hon. minister wait for just a moment, please.

While it is true that the standing orders...

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please.

...leave the latitude of whether or not a point of order will be allowed during question period, it would appear that with the way this particular session is developing, we had better try to obtain some order. I would hope that the minister is rising on a matter germane to keeping that order. So please rise, hon. minister, and we will allow an extra two minutes in order to compensate hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd ask the member to withdraw his.... He knows it is inaccurate; he knows it is false. He has made an assertion that somehow there is money flowing back into the NDP or the government as a result of some action by the government. He knows it's not correct. I'd ask him to withdraw the incorrect inference that he made in the preamble to his question.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Matsqui, if in any way there was an inference that there were improper motives on the part of any hon. member, would the hon. member please withdraw it in deference to the request.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it's unclear to me what the hon. minister's motives were. He has clearly misstated what I said in my question.

The Speaker: Hon. member....

M. de Jong: He has misstated it entirely.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

M. de Jong: However, Mr. Speaker, if the minister, in his sensitivity, somehow feels maligned by what I said...

The Speaker: Order, please.

M. de Jong: ...I withdraw it entirely.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Interjection.

The Speaker: No, hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, it's not a question of letting him finish.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order! When the Speaker asks for order, hon. members should respect that -- whether the Speaker is well advised or otherwise. One of the problems in this Legislature is that some members are misunderstanding the purpose of protocol and decorum. I would ask members to please reflect upon the delicate situation we have, because the Speaker cannot impose a will upon members which they do not wish to respect. I would ask for your cooperation in allowing the Speaker to conduct these question periods in the best way that he can.

The hon. member for Matsqui was saying that he would withdraw, but he wished to clarify it. However, it is not customary to allow members to get into reasons or explanations. It is an unequivocal request that the member simply withdraw in deference to the member's request. That is not to say that the member intended an improper motive; it is out of respect for the request that the member does so.

M. de Jong: Point of order, hon. Speaker. It's unclear to me what I was being asked to withdraw.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that may well be the case. But if you are here for any length of time, you will soon realize that members, out of respect for an hon. member who feels that he has been offended, withdraw in deference to the member -- not that they believe they have in fact offended anyone. It is a courtesy, that's all.

The hon. member on the same point of order?

M. de Jong: No, hon. Speaker, I want to clarify that in deference to the position you've taken and what is standard in this House, I withdraw whatever remark it was.

The Speaker: Thank you very much hon. member. I appreciate that. The hon. member had a further....

Before recognizing the hon. member I would say that we will allow an additional three minutes for question period to compensate for this unfortunate lapse of time. Please proceed, hon. member.

M. de Jong: I will try in future to take account of his sensitivities on allegations....

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The fact of the matter is this: if a private company came in and completely ignored the rights of Stena Line's former employees, this minister would be screaming bloody murder. The question is: does a worker have to be in the sack with the NDP to get a fair shake from this government? What do this minister and his cronies at Victoria Line intend to do for the former employees of Stena Line?

Hon. G. Clark: As I understand it, there is a successorship application before the Canadian Labour Relations Board. The appropriate determination of that is a legal one. I certainly have no problem.... I said at the outset that in this country, thank goodness, employees have the right to vote for whomever they wish to represent them; and we as 

[ Page 11000 ]

employers -- as government -- will take absolutely no role with respect to the democratic, free choice those individuals take with respect to who represents them.

PEAT MARWICK REVIEW OF CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION BOARD

R. Neufeld: After that, I hope we can get through this question. My question is to the Attorney General. In 1992 the Peat Marwick review of the Criminal Injury Compensation Board noted that the program is administered by WCB and that the cost of those services is supposed to be fully recovered by WCB. Is the minister aware that Peat Marwick has estimated that the costs repaid to WCB for administration of the criminal injury compensation program are only one-tenth of what they really should be? Can he tell us why employers' premiums to WCB should be used to subsidize the cost of the criminal injury compensation program?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I'm going to have to take that question on notice.

POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR EDUCATION MINISTRY SUPPLIER

L. Stephens: Yesterday the Minister of Education did not know whether the Magic Lantern Communications contract constituted a conflict of interest. The government guidelines in the request for proposal state that prospective proponents are not eligible to submit a proposal if, in the government's opinion, current or past corporate interests give rise to a conflict of interest in connection with a project. To the Minister of Education: does the minister today agree that this contract is a conflict of interest on the part of Magic Lantern Communications?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I took the question on notice yesterday. I have not yet had a detailed briefing on it and will be pleased to respond to the member opposite as soon as I have had that briefing.

The Speaker: The question remains on notice.

The hon. member has a new question?

L. Stephens: I would like to ask the Minister of Education if he would commit to reviewing the ministry's educational service contracts to determine if government conflict-of-interest guidelines have been compromised.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I understood the member's question yesterday, it had to do with whether or not a supplier had a conflict of interest. I commented then that if that were to be the case, the suppliers to that supplier should be asking the question. Quite often suppliers to government, including to this ministry, have a variety of suppliers coming to them. Quite often they are in a situation where they are either selling or attempting to sell a service or product of their own, and also on the behalf of other suppliers. I do not see that in any way being a conflict of interest with respect to government.

L. Stephens: That is precisely the question, minister. In this particular case, the government's guidelines in the request for proposal that went out to Magic Lantern and all the other organizations that applied clearly stated that current or past corporate interests give rise to a conflict of interest. Again, I will ask the minister: will he commit to reviewing the current educational service contracts the ministry has to determine if the government's conflict-of-interest guidelines have been compromised?

[2:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: When I receive the detailed briefing, I will decide whether or not a review of any government process is appropriate. If I determine at that point in time that a review is appropriate, I will do that.

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND CATCH ALLOCATION

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We noticed last week, and again this week, that commercial fishers in this province were taking issue with what they believe have been breaches of the aboriginal fisheries strategy, particularly with respect to the Fraser River runs. In their statements, they've indicated they believe that the province has a role with respect to upstream fisheries management. Can the minister tell us what action he is taking now to make sure that adequate management of that fish habitat and catch is being undertaken, and what avenues he's taking with respect to negotiations with the federal government to protect the commercial fishing industry for the rights of all fishers in this province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's a good question. The federal government has from time to time suggested that there is a dispute over jurisdiction on the river fisheries. The province's position is that the aboriginal fisheries strategy and all that that entails is the responsibility of the federal government, and that we wish to be consulted. At this point we are awaiting details on the federal position on the matter.

G. Wilson: A supplementary question to the minister. The minister will acknowledge, however, in light of the fact that the province is actively involved as a key partner in the treaty negotiations, that the resource component is a key component of those negotiations. As such, the commercial fishers of this province are looking to this government for leadership on the question of making sure that a fair allocation is taking place. Can the minister tell us whether his ministry is now actively working as an advocate for fair allocation? Or are they simply sitting by and letting nothing happen on the provincial level?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The provincial government always advocates for fair allocation. But I have to remind the member that the primary responsibility for fish allocation is the federal government's. The position of this government is that we expect to be consulted whenever they have a plan that affects any provincial jurisdiction. We have limited jurisdiction over the commercial fisheries -- simply the property rights. We do have an interest in conservation of habitat through forest management practices and so on. Where we have jurisdiction over habitat management, we accept our responsibilities.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

Hon. A. Petter: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I didn't want to raise it during question period. I'm aware that the opposition will go to any lengths to pander to the press gallery, but the member for Richmond Centre's suggestion 

[ Page 11001 ]

that somehow the government caucus had made anything less than an honest attempt at succeeding in this week's baseball game against the press gallery impugns the hitting abilities and fielding skills of every member of the government caucus. I ask that member to refrain from those references.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Normally, hon. minister, I would rule you out of order, but it's nice to have a little light humour for a change. Thank you.

REPAYMENT OF INCOME ASSISTANCE BY HOMEOWNER RECIPIENTS

Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise to answer a question taken on notice last week. Last week the Leader of the Third Party -- although he wasn't that then -- asked me two questions: "Can the minister explain why taxpayers should be forced to pay for these welfare recipients' mortgages and taxes, and why repayment is not required when the property is sold? Will the minister agree that welfare should be amended so as to be considered a loan against property rather than a simple payment?"

In reply, I will begin by informing everyone that under the Canada Assistance Plan a principal residence is an allowed exemption. All provinces have chosen to include that primary residence as an exempt asset. Under that same federal-provincial agreement, a lien against a home would force income assistance recipients to pay back a basic benefit and, therefore, violate the CAP agreement and jeopardize the $880 million that British Columbia expects to receive this year under the Canada Assistance Plan.

It also simply does not make sense for people who stay on income assistance for six months, on average, before returning to work to divest themselves of their home in such a short term. It is our ministry's philosophy that we are trying to get people back on their feet, not bring them to their knees.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Let me first advise all members of the House -- I'm sure that they already know -- that the House will not be sitting tomorrow. We will reconvene on Tuesday at 2 p.m. Having said that, I call Committee of Supply -- the Ministry of Social Services estimates in Committee A. And in the House, I call continued second reading debate of Bill 37.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND FAIR WAGE ACT
(continued)

The Speaker: Would the members just like to wait 30 seconds or so to allow members who are going to other meetings to do so.

L. Hanson: Continuing the pleasant exchange of views, as was evidenced by question period, I just have a few remarks. I know that the issue of the fixed-wage policy -- as we tend to call it -- was discussed at some length when it was originally introduced. Most things have already been said about the policy, which is soon to become legislation.

Far be it from me to defend the official opposition, but in his opening remarks the minister suggested that there were some questions of a questionable motivation; I think his description was "sleazy" questions. Sometimes it's convenient to have a short memory, so I'd recommend that the minister go back to Hansard from the days when he occupied this side of the House and look at some of the questions he issued.

The minister who introduced the policy is not holding that position any longer. He gave us to understand, at the time, that the policy was not crafted to cost taxpayers any money and that the motivation was really the public interest, which was what created this government's desire to put the initiative in place. I hear from this government, at any suggestion by members of the opposition that any project, any ministry, is short-funded under its fiscal policies, almost a chorus of "Spend, spend, spend!" -- like you've turned on an automatic switch and that's what comes out of it. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a shortage of money in many areas. There's a shortage of money in health care, education and social services. As a matter of fact, I think if you asked the people of British Columbia, very few specific services are provided that, in the public's opinion, have enough funding.

But it's not the question of funding that we're talking about; it's the question of the government's priorities and where they see taxpayer funding should be spent. We hear the government complaining about treatment by the federal government, and I think with some fair justification. They are capping stabilization payments, and favouritism from the federal tax coffers is being shown to some parts of Canada. When we see funds that are collected from the taxpayer dedicated to a specific and special group or part of our society, that's wrong.

As a general rule, it is difficult for British Columbians to understand why people who are earning somewhere in the average of $20 an hour need to be segregated from the rest of our society to receive this special treatment. The fact is that with the fixed-wage policy, the government has created a super-minimum wage for one special part of our society. Clearly the motivation is not the public interest. Clearly the motivation is that some of the allies of government, seeing their market share, their competitiveness, slipping in their ability to obtain work in the section where they have put this fixed-wage policy into effect.... As a matter of fact, I believe the statistics show that about 70 percent of the work was done by non-union, non-NDP allies. I am sure that the pressure to expand came from people who were very influential with this government; I think the people of British Columbia recognize that. The flag that is commonly used to wrap something in to hide the real intent is very obvious in this piece of legislation. The flag that they are using is the skills training section. I don't think that anyone in British Columbia would argue that a better-trained, larger-skilled workforce in British Columbia would not be beneficial to our province. There is no question that the future needs will be for better and more competitively trained people as time goes on.

There was a serious lack of evidence that skills and training were seriously lacking in this industry. There is certainly all kinds of evidence that the training of skilled people in many other areas is seriously lacking, but not in this particular area. As a matter of fact, the record of both union and non-union contractors was quite excellent in their apprenticeship training and in their dedication to it. But that's not to say that more isn't good. If the motivation were truly what the minister and this government said it was, you could endorse that completely, without any reservation. But I suspect that that really wasn't the motivation.

For a political party that said during electioneering that they were going to be a government that gave special favours 

[ Page 11002 ]

to no one; that it was equal treatment for everyone.... Then they come forward with this piece of legislation, which obviously doesn't meet the test of those standards.

[2:45]

I hope that during the next election -- which will come before not too long; there's a limit to the time that people can continue in authority -- they use the legislation and philosophy of the fair-wage or fixed-wage policy as an election plank in their re-election. If that were the only plank in their campaign, it would be very interesting to see what kind of support it would get. I suspect that it would be limited, and it would probably be the demise of that political party.

Most of the things about the fixed-wage policy have been said -- if not by members of the opposition then, by members of the media and members of the public at large. It's not much of a surprise that I won't be supporting this bill, and I suspect that most British Columbians would not support this bill, either.

H. De Jong: I am pleased to rise in this debate on Bill 37. I suppose it's becoming fairly well known that this government is doing things backwards. They did it with the forestry bill, when the area of forest available for cutting was cut by 6 percent. Then they put all sorts of restrictions on the balance of it.

This bill wouldn't be all that bad if the government had rescinded the previous fair-wage policy that was passed in 1992. That policy costs the public of British Columbia some $250 million a year. I suppose the government is fairly safe, especially in the Ministry of Highways, because not many projects exceed the $250,000 limit, where the fair-wage policy then applies. However, it does apply to many other projects.

This morning the minister in charge said that the opposition should talk about global competitiveness. I'm not sure whether it was because of the minister's vicious attack on the opposition this morning, but the real opposition here today, the Queen's loyal opposition, doesn't seem to be too concerned about this bill. So far I've only heard one member speak on this subject. Maybe they were absolutely scared off by the minister's comments, which would be unfortunate, because I think this bill deserves debate. The minister said this morning that if this government didn't follow what is contained in this bill, we would be victims. I'm not sure what he meant. What would we be victims of? Was he perhaps talking about Mr. Georgetti? Or was he referring to the tax base of this province? We all know who designed and finalized the Island Highway project papers.

Competition is healthy. School and hospital construction projects under B.C. 21 will obviously all comply with the fair-wage policy. They will all be subject to what's contained in this bill. If schools in British Columbia cost more than they do in Alberta, so what? We're not going to move schools back and forth across the border. But why can schools that do not fall within the public school system be built for so much less than schools in the public school system? That is not something that came about last year; it has been going on for a number of years. But it's getting worse and worse. Schools built by a private organization -- normally called independent schools -- cost at least 30 percent less than public schools. There has to be a reason. This bill will add to that problem. Why the government hasn't considered building schools under management contracts is beyond me. That's what the independent schools do. They don't allow one contract for a school; they do it by way of a management contract.

Perhaps I'm getting a little offside in terms of this bill. The minister tried to reconcile what is contained in this bill with a comparison to the Depression years of the early thirties. Surely the minister must have a better way to compare today than to the early-thirties Depression years. Surely he doesn't think that British Columbia, or Canada for that matter, is in a world depression. So I simply could not follow the minister's argument this morning as to why this bill was so essential.

The minister also stated this morning that the opposition would probably see labour as a commodity. He was specifically referring to the previous administration and to those that still represent that party. That's absolutely untrue. That administration never saw labour as a commodity; hence there was labour legislation in those days. The fact of the matter, though, is that this kind of legislation will have an effect upon any commodity available to the public, whether it's produced, processed or manufactured in this province.

The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, during his part in the debate this morning, suggested that a bill of this nature was an act of foresight well beyond the next election. He stated that it was an act of statesmanship. Well, I wish it were true, and I'm sure a lot of British Columbians wish it were true, that it could really be seen as a statesmanlike act. As much as the Minister of Employment and Investment would like us and the people of British Columbia to believe that a new socialist bank funded by the general public will reduce welfare fraud, Bill 37 is a bill of further taxation, through government contracts, on the people of this province. These are hidden taxes -- nothing more, nothing less.

This bill, like many others pushed onto the people of the province, is not a statesmanlike act, as the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale intimated. This bill and others are simply, as I see them, cowardly acts on the part of this government. They do not wish to come through with the facts. We agree that it costs money to train apprentices; we have no problem with that. But why not come out straight with the issue as such and let the people know that it costs money to train people? Let's not hide these efforts and tag it onto an already bad piece of legislation passed two years ago.

Once again the government is showing that it is Ken Georgetti who is the real Premier. The marketplace could develop all the skills and apprenticeships needed if it were not hampered by red tape, overtaxation and union protectionism, which force entry costs for employees that actually dry up the opportunities by pricing them right out of the market. Instead, cutting out a lot of the red tape could be very stimulating in terms of creating new jobs by private enterprise.

I was disgusted to see in the papers today that John Shields was boasting of saving the link between unions and the NDP. Ted Hughes may not find a technical, legal conflict of interest, but this is the granddaddy of all conflicts of interest, by any commonsense standard. This is totally one-sided legislation that gives no protection to employers for problems caused by apprentices' errors. There is no need to pay a fixed wage on one side without providing protection for those who assume the risk of participating in the program -- and those are the contractors. What about potential additional injuries that may come about through the training process? What effect will WCB rates have on that contractor, who may have ten other non-government contracts out there? What about the cost of the liability that they have to cover? There is no mention of that in this bill. It all sounds so good, but it really hasn't been looked into.

[ Page 11003 ]

Perhaps we can say that the government has good intentions, but rose-coloured glasses are impairing its vision again. Employers are forced to fill out more forms and rely on yet more bureaucracy. Economists estimate that new regulations create up to $2 million per year in added costs to Canadian businesses. That hidden cost destroys private sector jobs, while inflating public sector jobs and weakening our international competitive position. Our wonderful standard of living was not created because of government -- simply and surely not because of legislation and regulations -- but in spite of it, often pulling and fighting every inch of the way.

If government is proud of the artificial apprenticeship market that it is creating with other people's money under this act, it should be ashamed of all the invisible losses in the private sector -- the self-sufficient jobs and businesses it has smothered and prevented from being born because of its big-government policies. It should be no less ashamed of the hospitals and schools it will never build because it has been prevailed upon to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars in artificial wages to its union political machine.

Of course I support the expanded apprenticeship program, but not the way this government is proposing it.

F. Randall: I'm certainly proud to stand here and support this bill on skills development and fair wages. There hasn't been any discussion today with regard to how all this came about and what created the problem in the construction industry. I just want to give a little history on that particular matter.

[3:00]

The construction industry had always been very well organized in this province, probably in the 90 to 98 percent range. That covered every kind of construction, whether it was highways, bridges, schools, hospitals or courthouses. The previous government brought in legislation that, in effect, deunionized the construction industry over a period of time. Legislation was introduced that allowed the board to cancel collective agreements after 24 months if nobody was on the payroll. What happened was that employers would bid for a new job under a different name, and they would leave the union company to sit on the shelf with no employees. After 24 months, the collective agreement with that employer and that certification -- the bargaining rights -- were cancelled. There were thousands of collective agreements cancelled in the construction industry because of this legislation, which was supported by the previous speakers from another party. Consequently, they only became union companies because all the union ones had their agreements cancelled.

Then, to make matters worse, organizing those other employers coming into the province was practically impossible, because the Industrial Relations Council recognized what are known as rat unions: unions of convenience, or employer-dominated organizations. If a building-trade union was endeavouring to go out and organize, the employer would pick up the phone and phone one of the rats, and they would come out and sign whatever that employer drafted. I've talked to employers. The employer drafts the agreement; the employees have no say in the matter. I can give you examples that happened last week -- and I might do that. It was impossible. Because there was already a collective agreement signed and in place, the building trades could not organize.

If the building trades were successful in endeavouring to get an application in, the employer would still phone and have one of these unions of convenience, which were recognized by the previous government, come out. The employer would call a meeting of all the employees and have them all sign cards with this employer-dominated organization. Then, of course, the board would order a vote, because you now have two applications in. Needless to say, the results of the vote were always for the employer-dominated organization, because the employer had his employees as captives. In effect, he could talk to them all day long and call meetings with them. The building trades find it very difficult.

The level of unionization has dropped drastically. People are going around bragging about 70 percent of the construction industry being non-union, and that's true. That was created by legislation. That legislation did not affect any other sector of the labour movement anywhere near the degree it did the construction sector. I don't know of a pulp mill that lost a certification because of the legislation; I don't know of a hospital or a school board -- you can name it. They all still have their bargaining rights. But the bargaining rights of the building trades were stripped away.

The building trades don't need a fair wage. They're very capable of negotiating their own collective agreements, but they were stripped of their rights to bargain. Give them back their bargaining rights, and you can throw the fair wage out the window as far as construction goes. They're very capable of negotiating their own agreements. But the standard has been dropped drastically, with people working for sometimes as little as half of the standard rates. Even the fair-wage policy that has been introduced by this government is not up to the standard in the industry for union collective agreements. So that's how it was all created. It's a fact that these unions lost their rights because of legislation passed by this House a number of years ago. It started in 1986 and it gradually deteriorated, as time went on, in the two-year periods. I think it's important to understand what happened there.

The other thing I should mention is that the major reason for this legislation at this time is that the government tried a policy for the last couple of years, and the policy is not working. Everybody is cheating. Employers who are working on fair-wage jobs are not paying fair wages. Industrial relations officers, who are required to go out and check payrolls, can't enforce it. There is absolutely no enforcement. Everybody has accepted that the fair-wage policy that has been in place for two years is not working because people are cheating. This is to eliminate the cheating that goes along with the policy, to make it so that there's some legal right that these people are at least receiving certain minimum standards.

I know that the ICBA and Hochstein want to be able to hire labour as cheaply as they can. I sat on Burnaby Council at the time he appeared before them when they introduced their fair wage about seven years ago, and he made it very clear: "If we can get people to work for $5 an hour, that's our right. We should be able to hire them as cheap as we can." We don't agree with that. Needless to say, he has not been back to Burnaby Council. But the philosophy is to hire them as cheap as they can.

I should also mention that for about 50 years the United States has had the Davis-Bacon Act, which covers all government contracts over $2,000, and they have to pay the prevailing rates. As mentioned by the minister earlier this morning, about 33 of the United States have what they call the mini-Davis-Bacon. That is the same as the Davis-Bacon, only it deals specifically with any state funds that are spent; they also have to comply, on a state basis, with state money.

I know that the Leader of the Official Opposition does not support fair wages. It's common knowledge that.... I think 

[ Page 11004 ]

in his first council meeting in Vancouver the fair wage that was in existence in Vancouver was abolished. So it's not surprising that he does not support that here. It's unfortunate, but I guess he has talked to and associated with people who like to make their own deals with people who have no integrity with regard to the bargaining process.

The other matter of concern that I have is that there have to be some penalties with regard to violations. I don't know what is planned in that particular area, but I certainly would support fines. Anybody who is caught not abiding by the fair wage should be fined, and the fine should be the equivalent of the amount they're caught cheating. If they're caught avoiding payment of $5,000 or $10,000, then the fine should be $5,000 or $10,000. If I had my way, they would not be allowed to bid on a government contract for a couple of years if they are in violation of the legislation.

I know that in Burnaby -- where I spent some time and still spend some time -- the projects that we had problems with related to jobs where fair wages were supposed to be paid. I refer to the Bonsor Recreation Centre, where the bonding company had to come in and finish the job. There were all kinds of liens against the building and lots of problems; the contractor was non-union and was supposedly paying a fair wage. If you look at Station Square in Metrotown, where the roof of Save-On-Foods collapsed.... They had an inquiry with regard to that, and the recommendation of the inquiry was that they need to implement a fair wage for professional engineers. That developer was slashing and playing one group of professionals off against another: "I can get them to do this." Everybody kept slashing and slashing, so you finally get that slash quality of work. It was recommended that the professional engineers should have a fair wage to try to avoid the kind of slashing that takes place on non-union jobs.

I also mentioned that the fair wage is currently below the standards. There should be a fair wage in this industry, at least until matters are straightened out. I am concerned about contracts that are let where people are coming from other provinces, bidding on the work and bringing in workers that are being paid $12, $13 or $14 an hour; that's common. It seems to me that if tax dollars from British Columbia are going to pay for these kinds of projects -- for roads, highways, bridges and buildings -- there should be some level that's paid so that out-of-province contractors can't come in and, in effect, take that work with lower-paid workers, while our construction workers remain on welfare here in B.C. There certainly has to be a level, to at least try to protect those jobs for people in British Columbia.

I should mention briefly that last week.... I'll give an example of a rat. Simon Fraser University has a janitor contract. That company's employees have been up there for a dozen years -- mostly women; I guess practically all women. The wage rates were $10 an hour. It went out to tender again. There was an outfit from the U.S.; their head office is in the U.S. They wanted to bid on the contract. They had no collective agreement in place covering SFU or the employees, nor a provincewide certification. Yet the requirement was that it had to be a union operation there. So what did they do? They bid the job. They had no certification or agreement. Immediately, when they found they had the work, they phoned a rat and signed a deal at 25 percent less -- $7.50 an hour. So guess who's got the contract.

Those people are now working for $7.50 an hour instead of $10 an hour. Most of them who worked for the previous firm and had been there for many years are no longer there. That was a rat organization that came in and signed a deal -- no employees. Employees had absolutely nothing to say about it, because there were no employees. The employees were hired and made to sign a card in that particular union at the time they were employed by the employer.

Those kinds of employer-dominated organizations exist. I think they're evil and should not exist in this province. In Alberta, there have been a couple of decisions of the labour board that these organizations were employer-dominated and were not allowed to organize -- in Alberta, if you can imagine; in Klein country. I really am concerned about how they go about getting agreements and that they are just interested in collecting dues. They provide no service. And it's strictly off the backs of the workers. It's not on their ability to do the job or the kind of materials they're going to use; it's taking it out of the lowest-paid workers' pockets.

The other thing I certainly feel strongly about is the training of journeymen. There should be qualified people on the job. I know that comments were made about who hires apprentices. I've spent three and a half years on the board of governors at BCIT. They let odd contracts there. Let me tell you -- and I know a lot of other contracts -- employers that are non-union were not training apprentices. I raised the issue there and said: "Why are we, as a training facility, awarding contracts to employers who don't even train people? Our job is training." Of course, on that board at that time there was certainly no support for that, and they would award the contracts to people who didn't train. Most non-union employers do not train their people properly. So I want to raise that.

That's why I think the quality of work, whether the job is non-union or union, and having these requirements that they've got to have skills is important, because you can have a fair wage paid on a non-union job, but they're not hiring qualified people. That's why the skills thing is very important: to endeavour to keep the quality of work up, especially for the kind of buildings that we build as government and that are going to be around for many years.

[3:15]

I also want to mention briefly, because it was discussed earlier, the low-bid problem. There have been a lot of complaints with regard to this whole low-bid policy. I totally disagree with it. I might just say that Burnaby does not always accept the low bid. They look at the track record of the contractor. In fact, the House Leader for the Liberal Party, I believe, made the comment that you should be looking at the qualifications of the contractor. I agree with his comments. You have to look at who's going to be in charge of the job, what other jobs they have been in charge of and whether they have built these kinds of facilities before. It might be a swimming pool: have they built pools before, or is this their first pool? I think it's very important that if you're not happy or comfortable with a low-bid contractor, you should not be required to take him. If you're letting a contract for a concrete patio at your house and you phone the Better Business Bureau and find out that your low bidder has had all kinds of complaints, you are not going to give him the job; you're going to go to the next person and check them out.

I have letters from people complaining about the low-bid policy. Even if a contractor has done six lousy jobs in a row and nobody wants him, right now school boards and hospitals are obligated to award the contract to that person even though they don't want to. I think that's a matter that certainly has to be looked at by this government.

Also, the comments by the member for Okanagan-Vernon that he didn't agree with legislation for special groups....

Interjection.

[ Page 11005 ]

F. Randall: That's right; I agree with that too. But that's exactly what they did to the construction industry. They brought in legislation that affected a certain group -- the construction industry -- and now he's saying that we shouldn't do anything to try and solve the problem that that bad legislation caused to that special group. He's right, but he's wrong.

I think I'll wrap up here and say that I strongly support this. I don't want to take long, but I think it's important that people understand the background of how and why it came about. It was because a previous government created this problem through legislation that hammered the construction workers substantially. You can talk to any of them who are very familiar with it.

I would ask all members of the House to strongly support this and forget about partisan politics. I appreciate the comments of the leader of the Alliance party. He made some good comments this morning. He was reasonably understanding of the problem, and he commented that he has been in negotiations and understands a bit about the bargaining process. I found his comments to be very interesting. At least there was an effort to try and understand that there's a problem here that we have to address.

A. Hagen: I too want to speak very briefly to this legislation. When I was first elected to the Legislature, one of my responsibilities was to deal with the issue of training and apprenticeship. I've watched the construction industry in British Columbia literally go down the tube because of the policies of fly-by-night contractors who are paying cheap wages from taxpayers' dollars and taking no responsibility whatsoever for skills training.

We are a society that needs a skilled workforce. This legislation has as two of its purposes -- and I want to read the very clear language -- "(a) to ensure skill development training in the construction industry;" and "(b) to ensure high quality work standards on publicly funded construction projects by requiring that employees hold the appropriate qualifications...." It's a very simple statement, but one that I think is very important in terms of the needs of a growing province that is building roads, schools and hospitals for our growing population.

To have as the first part of this bill.... One of the reasons I rise to support this legislation is the fact that it deals with skills development. But another reason has to do with what I call fair return for the taxes that we all pay in this province. I have heard and seen documentation of the ways in which construction people in this province have exploited workers, which I think is absolutely shocking. This legislation gives us, as government, the teeth and the tools to deal with those measures.

When I hear and find documentation that a contractor has bid maybe 1 percent less than the next-highest bidder, and then is paying workers two-thirds of the wages that would have been offered in that next-highest bid; when I learn that contractors are requiring regular employees to pretend that they are individual contractors without benefits, CPP, unemployment, pay slips -- in fact, they may even be asked to be shareholders in the company at $10 a shot -- and we are paying for that kind of chicanery out of our public tax dollars, then it's time we as legislators take a stand. We believe in good-quality work, fair wages for people who do that work and skills training as part of the construction industry.

This very small, simple bill provides those tools to us, as legislators who are responsible for the letting of contracts. Those who make statements about competition are not being honest. We're talking about a level playing field, a fair playing field, with standards that we as legislators have a right and a responsibility to have in place in this industry. I have seen far too much of the other way of doing business, and I, as a responsible legislator, want to have the kind of legislation that provides us with the tools to say: "You're not going to get away with that kind of exploitation of workers; that kind of avoidance of quality; that kind of irresponsibility in not dealing with training for future workers in the province." It's as simple as that, as vital as that, as moral as that, and as competitive and global as that for us to set those standards in British Columbia.

I'm very pleased and proud that in this simple way and in this simple bill, which any worker can read, he or she will know what rights they have in the workplace, what rights they have to ensure training and what rights they have to be proud of the qualifications they bring to this very important industry in our province. I believe that every single person in this Legislature should strongly and firmly support the legislation that is before us this afternoon.

T. Perry: Our corner of the Legislature seems to be unusually well represented in this debate today. I'm not sure why that is, but it has been interesting. This is one of the unusual days, doing my rota duties sitting in the Legislature, when I've actually found the debate interesting. This morning I listened to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast hold an extremely interesting discussion of the issue. I listened just now to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who had a lot to say from a life of experience in the construction industry. It's one of those times when you think: "Gee, I'm glad that the obsession with conflict of interest doesn't prevent somebody who knows something about the issues from telling us a bit about what he knows." I sent a note up to Len Werden, who is watching the debate from the gallery, saying: "You shouldn't be misled into thinking I always listen so attentively to speakers in the debate. This is one of the few times when I thought I might actually learn something -- by listening, in this case, to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds."

I think it's a good bill for a number of very simple reasons. I was going to make it my fourth reason, but I'll bring this up to number one. I'm referring to the reasons touched on by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who was very sharply and harshly critical of the Liberal Party's position on this issue. That member, the former leader of the Liberal Party, pointed out that the Liberal Party won 33 percent of the vote in 1991 on the basis of policies very different from those that it now espouses. As I listened to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, it took me back two years. In the remarks he made, I could see again why he touched a chord with so many voters in B.C. He did have, and he does have -- perhaps sometimes inarticulate, perhaps sometimes not perfectly thought out -- that small-l liberal vision of some kind of social justice.

He evinced that he had been thinking about the trends in the global economy. I've noticed that before in a number of his speeches. He's one of the few members on the opposition side who actually raises substantive questions in question period and causes me to lift my head from the newspaper I'm reading and listen to the question. He is, in spite of a few of his faults, a thinker.

What he said this morning was that it benefits all of society when people are paid a living wage; that the money circulates through the economy, ensuring happier families, healthier children, healthier spousal relationships and healthier communities in general; and that it's in all of our 

[ Page 11006 ]

interests that people be paid, ultimately, as much as our society can afford to pay them -- not as little as we can get away with paying them.

I was struck because it's not only a social democratic attitude; it has actually been a broad foundation of social policy in North America since the escape from the Industrial Revolution. We went from an era of subsistence economies for the first several hundred thousand years of human existence, into an era of farming for subsistence and beginning to sell a little bit, into a cash economy. Then came the driving of the people off the land in Europe in the nineteenth century and that period of misery of the Industrial Revolution that Dickens described, where people were paid as little as the employer could possibly get away with. That's why we have trade unions now, not just guilds.

If one goes back to E.P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class, one can refresh one's memory. The trade unions started because the ruling ideology of the employers in those days was to suck as much labour as possible out of someone in the most exploitative conditions, maximize profit and concentrate wealth in the smallest possible number of hands. You could live pretty darned well that way. The reason our society has transformed itself so much is that we rejected that philosophy. It was great social thinkers like Charles Dickens and France's Victor Hugo, and then the early socialists, who pointed us away from that. Among those thinkers were the small-l liberals, and even Jeremy Bentham -- the greatest good for the greatest number.

This bill fights the worldwide economic trend of the last few decades to erode that prosperity by again concentrating wealth into as few hands as possible, so that a few people can be very wealthy. It resists that trend and attempts to ensure in one sector what we would like to see in many other sectors -- that people achieve a living wage which brings them beyond subsistence to a position of reasonable comfort, in which their comfort will help spawn greater comfort of other people in society through the recirculation of goods and services in the economy, through something close to full employment and through maximization of the productive means of our society in a way that is environmentally sustainable.

[3:30]

I think the single most important reason for supporting this bill is that it goes, in principle, beyond the construction industry into a vision of society which is not atavistic but which shares some community goals. I don't think you need to be a social democrat or a member of the NDP to support that. I think, as we saw, that you can even be a member of the Progressive Democratic Alliance but be someone who thinks for oneself. Perhaps we will even see that some members of the Liberal Party, the Social Credit Party or even the Reform Party will rethink this point of view, as other people of different political persuasions have done.

There are three other reasons why I think it's a good bill. In the specific area of the construction industry, workers are highly skilled, work very hard and are entitled to a fair living wage. It's important for them that that be achieved.

Training is an issue that I dealt with as the former Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. I could see that excellent apprenticeship training is one of the best preparations for making a meaningful contribution to society and earning as good a living as one can possibly achieve. I see the member for Peace River North looking at me and listening, because he also believes in that and is a staunch advocate of apprenticeship and similar forms of training. The bill not only attempts but will succeed in entrenching practical work-based forms of training, ensuring that they thrive in our province in a way that they have not done nearly as well as they ought to have in the last ten or 20 years.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

The last point is that, as the former minister responsible for a lot of construction at universities and colleges, I used to ask myself: what about value for the taxpayer? As a public official at that time, I asked myself -- and the opposition raised -- that question many times. Are we going to lose value? Will we get less for our money? Having thought that question through many times, I think the answer is no, we will not get less for our money. In the long term we will get more for our money by contracting practices that afford us the highest possible standards of construction, high standards of occupational health and safety, and high standards of training, so that future construction workers practise to the modern standard -- which is constantly changing.

I want to raise a couple of interesting anecdotes for members of the House. I always make a practice of trying to keep my ears open and test hypotheses like that. Maybe it wasn't true; maybe there was evidence that that's not the only way to get good-quality construction. I'm convinced that there are non-union firms which provide a good standard; I know that there are non-union firms which do good training as well. But let me relate a couple of anecdotes.

One would not expect this policy to be tremendously popular in some of the upper-middle-class neighbourhoods in Vancouver, which I represent and in which I live. I went to a party a few months ago where somebody raised the fair-wage policy, and I expected to be immediately under attack. I thought: "No, I'm here for a nice time, not to defend government policy." I began to explain the policy and to my surprise, a very senior scientist told me: "Look, you don't need to explain that to me. My dad was a carpenter; I know the industry. At St. Paul's Hospital we are suffering the effects of a non-union construction project which has run amok. If we could, we would curtail that project. We would not pay the contractor. We would cancel it and get a new company to start again. The one thing that stops us from doing that is that we will lose our research grant, because we have to produce research within the next few months. So we are stuck with a shoddy, lousy job due to contracting at the lowest bid price."

In the view of that scientist, who was the director of the lab, they did not choose a high-quality contractor. They did not choose the people who could do the job best; they chose the simple, lowest bid price, and they got a lousy deal. That wasn't my word; that was the word of a very senior scientist. One of the most distinguished scientists in the country happens to have a little bit more insight than the average person because his dad was a tradesman, so he will recognize good or shoddy work when he sees it.

Another example is a building at the University of British Columbia. I'm not going to identify it for fear of causing problems for the source of my information, but suffice it to say it was a pretty distinguished senior professor at UBC, where another major building.... Those people who helped design the requirements of the building and who were occupying it early on proudly showed me around the building, because it was their new home. When I alluded to what looked like unusual concrete work, they said: "Yes, it's been a nightmare, with a series of problems." That was another non-union construction project where the fair-wage policy was probably not in effect or not enforceable, and 

[ Page 11007 ]

where the highly skilled job required of that situation was not achieved. There will be more maintenance problems in that building. It didn't look very good. They had to bring in special cladding to cover up the concrete. It showed me that there are real benefits to be achieved by this policy, and that's why I'm very pleased to support it. I think it's going to be good for the province.

I see the Whip urging the debate on, and I know that many other people would like to take their place in this debate before we adjourn, so I will sit down.

Deputy Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. G. Clark: The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour asked me to close debate on his behalf, and I'm delighted to do so on this important bill. I won't go into detail and make a long speech. Members of the House have spoken very well.

It is important to get on the record the opposition's opposition to this legislation. I think that's useful, because this kind of legislation sets standards. It's not about union or non-union; it's about whether there is a role for government to encourage apprenticeships in public construction in British Columbia. Is there a role for government to encourage that some minimum standards be applied to workers on projects in public construction? On the government side, the answer is yes. We believe very strongly that in using tax dollars in public construction we should maximize the value to the taxpayers in British Columbia by promoting and training, by promoting apprenticeships for our young people, and by ensuring that people working on these projects are not being ripped off by unscrupulous contractors -- union or non-union. It means that we are taking action to get maximum value, to get quality construction and to achieve other social benefits at the same time we are achieving construction.

In British Columbia this year we have an exciting capital investment strategy which will include about $1 billion in investment in schools, hospitals and correctional facilities. We will have about $300 million in investment in new roads and infrastructure. We will have investment in transit and commuter rail, which we announced a couple of days ago. We'll have investment in ferry capital plans. Capital investment by our Crown corporations -- by government and social capital -- is significant. It's important for government to invest in our infrastructure, which lays the foundation for future growth and for private sector growth. It's important that government makes that kind of investment.

[3:45]

It's very unfortunate that the opposition parties have opposed that capital investment. We think a key part of our investment strategy generally is to work in partnership with the private sector. We also believe that that kind of investment should be done by qualified tradespeople and with a higher percentage of apprenticeships than ever before in history. And we believe that fair wages should be paid. That's what this bill is all about.

So I'm delighted to close the debate on behalf of the government. I recommend that all members rethink their views and support this important piece of legislation. I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 37, Skills Development and Fair Wage Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 4.

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 4; M. Farnworth in the chair.

D. Schreck: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Schreck: Somewhere in the precincts are Anne Becker and Richard Dixon, two of my closest friends from North Vancouver. They're expected in the gallery at any moment. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Section 10, sections 8.5 to 8.9 inclusive approved.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

D. Symons: I have a brief question on offences. It talks about committing an offence. Where are the consequences for that? Will they come in the regulations? Have we any idea what the consequences will be for offences whereby an animal is abused?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The penalties are covered under the Offence Act. A person who is convicted can be fined up to $2,000 and/or imprisoned for up to six months. That's the same penalty established for any other offence under the Offence Act.

Section 14, sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 14, section 16.

D. Symons: I had a problem as to exactly where in the act to ask these questions, but I think under regulations would be as good a place as any, because it doesn't really appear 

[ Page 11008 ]

here. The concern I have is that we seem to be giving the SPCA some expanded powers here -- and that is the intent of the bill, from what the minister said earlier. But I don't see anything in here that matches these expanded powers with the moneys they will receive to carry them out. If we're going to expand the scope of enforcement for the SPCA, I'm rather concerned about how they will be funded. I see nothing in here to indicate that. Does the SPCA receive government money? How is it going to carry out these duties that we seem to be adding on?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For the most part, the SPCA is funded by donations. They presently get $40,000 from the ministry. If there are additional costs, then we're prepared to negotiate a modest increase in costs with the SPCA; but I would emphasize the word "modest." They are very pleased to have these powers. These powers actually help them do their job more efficiently. It's not as though the expansion is going to create a lot more work; it probably allows them to work more efficiently.

D. Symons: I am glad to hear that answer. I was hoping that there would be more work, because I was hoping.... As I have mentioned earlier during other parts of this bill, I think the bill lacks the expansion that it could have. A great number of animals, particularly those involved in the food industry in the province, are excluded from the act. Nevertheless, it's good to hear that if there are added expenses, the government would be willing to speak to them. I'm glad to have that on record.

The other thing that seems to be missing here -- and I'm not quite sure where it fits -- is a method of reporting the actions of the SPCA. Whether they do it funded by the government or not, they are performing a public function, in a sense. I am wondering to whom they report, to whom they are responsible and to whom they are accountable. Do we get an annual report -- as we do from the Attorney General and all the rest -- specifying how many cases have come before them, what the disposition of those cases has been, and so forth? Will that become public knowledge? Do they put out an annual report that would have that sort of information in it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Governance of this organization is through this act, and we will have the powers to approve any changes to their governance by way of bylaw changes. So they are governed through the bylaws. If there is any evidence that they aren't following their bylaws, then the ministry can rescind those bylaws. Officers of the ministry monitor their activities. There is no annual report.

D. Symons: Except for the minister's last few words I had some concerns, because I thought the minister had missed the point. I am concerned that there may not be any accountability to the public or any way that the public can ascertain whether the SPCA is taking care -- particularly the animal rights groups that might want to know how well the SPCA is doing in the functions that are expanded to it here. I would suggest to the minister that he could write into the regulations that there should be a report and that it should be made public. If we are giving them the authority that they seem to be getting in this act, there should also come with that authority to have the powers that they have some responsibility to report back to the public. I would encourage the minister to see that that sort of regulation is brought in, and ask for his commitment to that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm having trouble relating that to this section of the act. This organization is accountable to its membership. It is accountable for activities as regulated by their own bylaws and as approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. For a hundred years they haven't had a problem. We don't anticipate a problem. If there is a problem with the way in which they enforce their powers, then people have redress to the courts. They also have redress to the ministry. If a letter is sent to the minister, we will do an immediate investigation into the problem. If there is any shred of evidence that they're abusing their powers, then their bylaws will be yanked.

D. Symons: I didn't intend to carry this conversation on. It wasn't a suggestion that they might be abusing their powers; it might have been a suggestion that they are not carrying out as much action as may be required to look after the welfare of the animals in the province. If people have those suspicions, I'm not sure how they are going to determine the effectiveness of the SPCA in carrying out the mandate and the powers that we seem to be giving in this bill. I go along with the minister when he said he was not quite sure why he was being asked this in a section that doesn't deal with regulations, but I am not too sure of anywhere else in the bill where it might have been appropriate to ask it. That's why I brought it up here; I thought regulations might be as good a place as any.

Again, I ask for reassurances that somehow they're accountable to somebody other than the membership of the organization itself. We're giving them powers. If you take any other club or organization, you can say they have rules that regulate them. But this one has repercussions outside of that organization. They have powers to go into people's premises and see how they're treating the animals on those premises -- powers outside of their organization. You've given them those powers in this bill. Somehow there should be accountability beyond the SPCA membership itself for those powers. There should be some reporting method outside of that. They shouldn't be a power unto themselves. They should be responsible for giving a report and having that report made public.

Section 14, section 16 approved.

On section 15.

T. Perry: I'd simply like to ask the minister whether he can give us some reassurance on when the act may be brought into force. I've had a communication recently from Mr. Stephen Huddart, the director for education of the B.C. Humane Education Society, wondering when the bill will be enacted. People have waited a long time for it, and they are very thrilled in the SPCA that this legislation is before the House. I wonder if the minister can reassure us that the cabinet plans a prompt implementation of the act by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We hope it will be by the end of the year. We'll work closely with them to develop the bylaws. We'll move as quickly as we can. As soon as this gets through this House, then they'll start to work on the bylaws. We anticipate it will be by the end of the year.

[4:00]

B. Copping: I would like to thank the minister on behalf of the animals of this province, and I ask leave to do that.

The Chair: Well, we're making tail-wagging progress.

[ Page 11009 ]

Section 15 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 4, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 2.

ARCHITECTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

The House in committee on Bill 2; M. Farnworth in the chair.

Sections 1 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 2, Architects Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. G. Clark: First, I'd say that we have a bit of a thin attendance here, but I would like to ask the Speaker, with the House's concurrence, to send best wishes on behalf of members of the House to the member for Okanagan East and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on their wedding this weekend. I know all members wish them the best of luck and best wishes in the future, and I hope the Speaker will convey those messages on the members' behalf.

Deputy Speaker: In carrying on the tradition of special powers invested in the Speaker, it shall be done.

Hon. G. Clark: I would like to also wish all members of the House a very restful four-day weekend. We have much to do and night sittings are coming, so I hope all members can rest for four days and come back and make as much progress in the next few days as we have done today.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:04 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES

On vote 53: minister's office, $392,165.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I present today the 1994-95 budget estimates for the Ministry of Social Services. B.C. has become the engine driving the economy of Canada. Last year this province's economy growth of 5.4 percent outstripped that of every other province. This government is proud of our record of job creation; it is the best in the nation. These facts indicate a confidence and well-being among British Columbians, and on this basis the future looks bright.

But these facts also mask a far less appealing side of B.C. life, the side that my ministry witnesses on a daily basis. They mask a level of poverty which shows itself in the climbing income assistance caseload. Today one in ten British Columbians depends upon income assistance. One in eight of our children depends on an income assistance cheque for their next meal. Last year my ministry received nearly 30,000 allegations of child abuse -- many from families suffering economic hardship and dislocation from their communities. There is a level of despair and hopelessness reflected in the increasing number of children living on our streets and the increasing number of deaths from illicit drugs.

In its programs for income support, family and child services, and community support, my ministry serves those who are not yet benefiting from the buoyant economic growth of the past few years. The question must be asked: why? Why, in this healthy growing economy, are we faced with such challenges? The answers are not simple nor do they lend themselves to short-term solutions.

Canada, as a whole, has been through major economic restructuring and recession in many regions. When Canadians outside B.C. lose their jobs in faltering industries, where do they look? They look, of course, to British Columbia where they have their best chance of getting a job. They come with their families, skills, energies and ideas. Most are successful; most do find work and contribute great vitality and energy to this province. They are among the reasons for our rapid growth.

But some discover some other truths as well. British Columbia's resource-based economy has not been spared the pain of economic restructuring. Many B.C. workers have also been dislocated from jobs and communities, which has created hardship and insecurity for their families and children. Our own population is growing rapidly, and our young people are entering the job market in ever-greater numbers. Many are having difficulty finding employment. Like those who come to us from other provinces, young people are discovering that jobs in the new economy demand ever-greater levels of skill and education.

Over the last decade, and especially since 1989, B.C.'s income assistance rolls have been rising steadily. For the vast majority of people seeking income assistance, the system 

[ Page 11010 ]

works. Most people who collect welfare do so for a very short period of time. Half of all recipients collect benefits for just three months or less before entering or re-entering the workforce.

In any year, one British Columbian in six receives some sort of benefit or service from this ministry. Changing social trends are also affecting the demands on my ministry's services. We are seeing an aging population and a growing number of single-parent families, 70 percent of whom receive income assistance. We're seeing the feminization of poverty; 95 percent of single-parent families on income assistance are headed up by women.

As minister, I find the issue of child poverty most disturbing and quite unbearable. One child out of every eight in our province lives in a welfare family. These children are more likely to suffer ill health, drop out of school, get into trouble with the law and spend their lives struggling on the margins of the economy and society. As a society, we must effectively address these children's needs. In my ministry, we believe that a child's greatest resource is a strong secure family and that a family's greatest resource is a strong functional community. I will be asking you, through the course of this debate, to grant us the resources to help my ministry work with families and communities to protect and provide for our children. The way we treat our children today will affect the quality of life of all British Columbians in the future.

Our first obligation under the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan is to ensure that every resident of British Columbia can meet basic needs for food and shelter. Under CAP and GAIN, we are the place of last resort for those in need when they are unable to help themselves. As managers of public money, we also have an obligation to seek every opportunity to eliminate duplication, waste and abuse. Taxpayers need assurances that the system is well managed and that their money is being spent efficiently, effectively and fairly. They need to know that the tax dollars are providing assistance to those truly in need, and they need to have just as much confidence that those who seek to abuse the system will be caught.

We have introduced a series of reforms to tighten up procedures in the income assistance area, and we will be enhancing others during this session. The initial reforms we announced in January are expected to save British Columbia taxpayers at least $20 million this year.

We have implemented a new agreement that clamps down on people who try to collect benefits both in B.C. and in Alberta. Each month we are exchanging computer lists of income assistance recipients to check that no one is double-dipping. We have also agreed to exchange computer information with the province of Saskatchewan and the corrections branch of the B.C. Attorney General. By providing lists of inmates, the Attorney General is helping us to ensure that income assistance does not go to people who are not entitled to it. We are discussing information exchanges with other provinces and with Revenue Canada toward the goal of reaching agreement with them as well. Together this represents the most comprehensive sharing of income assistance data in Canada.

We have also taken steps to recover payments to people who simultaneously receive unemployment insurance benefits. My ministry is cooperating with the RCMP on procedures surrounding lost and stolen cheques, and we are discussing this issue with other police forces in the province. We have a new procedure to recover security deposits paid on behalf of income assistance recipients. Rather than returning the deposits to tenants, under this new procedure landlords are required to repay the government directly.

We have saved more than $350,000 through a cheque pickup project in February. You may recall that employable singles and childless couples on Vancouver Island and in the lower mainland were asked to collect their cheques in person, rather than have them delivered by mail. Of the 25,000 cheques in question, 843 went unclaimed. We expect some cheques to be returned every month, as clients change address or find work, but the returns during the pilot project were nearly seven times higher than usual. These files have been reviewed by staff. Questionable cases have been referred to ministry investigators. In future, the ministry will be carrying out random cheque pickups for employable singles and for childless couples on an area-by-area basis and will be asking these clients to complete a report card listing their efforts to find work or training that will prepare them for the job market.

Since April 1, single parents have been deemed employable when their youngest child reaches the age of 12 rather than 19. Temporary assistance was designed to be just that -- temporary. Regulations that support a 20-year absence from the labour force are not in the interests of either the individual or the taxpayer. In fact, most people who collect welfare do so for a very short period of time. Over the past five years, one British Columbian in four has accessed the income assistance system, but the turnover is rapid. Half of all recipients collect benefits for three months or less before entering or re-entering the workforce. Many of the employment and training programs that help our clients become independent have moved to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour in this new fiscal year. We are working closely with our colleagues there to ensure a smooth transition and to ensure that employable recipients get the help they need to become independent.

As we examine the family and children's services aspect of our ministry, I bring to the attention of all members that these services are interrelated; too often the connecting theme is financial hardship or poverty. When a family breaks up, for instance, the parent with custody of the children can end up needing financial assistance, but experience and research tell us that good support services could help that family stay together and remain financially independent. Family support services are cost-effective in other areas, too; by helping families stay together, they reduce the demand for other government social services, health care, justice and education, as well as reduce social and economic costs.

Family crisis can often result in children coming into the care of my ministry. We have a statutory obligation to look into every report that a child is being abused or neglected. We get as many as 30,000 reports a year. Typically, one-third require no action beyond the initial investigation; the report turns out to be unfounded or malicious, or the family is already receiving help. The other 20,000 reports warrant a full inquiry by my ministry. If the inquiry finds that the children are not at risk, which happens in about one-third of these cases, no further action is taken.

Half of our inquiries lead to support services for parents having difficulties caring for their children. In any one year, my ministry may provide services directly to 6,000 families and refer another 5,000 to community agencies for help -- community agencies funded by our government.

In many cases, children who come into care do so by parental agreement. Parents enter into short-term custody agreements or special care agreements with the ministry so their children can be looked after while the family works through its problems. The number of children admitted by 

[ Page 11011 ]

parental agreement has been increasing since 1990. We are now seeing about 3,000 children a year entering care this way. We believe the best place for children is in their own strong, secure family. But when a family's problems cannot be easily resolved and the child is at risk, removal is the only alternative. In any year, 2,500 children may be taken into care this way. Some 6,000 children are in care today. Despite a significant growth in the population, the number has dropped by 5.3 percent over the past five years; that is partly due to increased family support services. We expect the number of children in care to remain constant, but increasingly these will be the children who are more difficult and more expensive to care for.

A child's greatest resource is a strong, secure family. The family is the natural and proper environment for the child, and children should not be deprived of their parents. Nor should parents be deprived of their children except as a last resort. Support services help families in crisis to provide safe and adequate care for their children. Demand for these services continues to rise.

We have just tabled a new Child, Family and Community Services Act that increases the emphasis on family support. We are committed to providing pro active, preventive services that empower the people who receive them. We're committed to taking the least intrusive or disruptive measure that would be effective when providing services to assist families or protect children; to including training in family management and life skills among the services available; to involving our first nations in planning and delivering services to assist aboriginal families to protect their children; and to ensuring that programs and policies respect the diversity of cultural values, religious beliefs and linguistic heritages in our province, as well as the importance of the extended family. We have also introduced the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act to ensure that rights and interests of children, youths and their families relating to designated services are protected and advanced, and that their views are heard and considered.

We have a third division, community support services, in our ministry. This government is committed to moving people with mental handicaps out of institutions and into the community, where they can lead fuller and more independent lives. Downsizing began in the early 1980s and is now in the home stretch. Of the 1,541 people who were living in institutions a decade or so ago, fewer than 250 remain to be placed in the community. The process is scheduled to be completed by late 1996. At that time Woodlands and Glendale, the two remaining institutions for people with mental handicaps, will close. Until then, residents of both institutions can be assured of continuing quality care. Deinstitutionalization involves a partnership with the community. As much as possible, we involve the community in planning, developing and delivering resources and services for people with mental handicaps. Partly because of the scheduled closure of Woodlands and Glendale, the Ministry of Social Services will be taking over some of the services for people with mental handicaps currently delivered by the Ministry of Health. This realignment of services follows extensive consultation with the provincial advisory committee, whose purpose is to assist government with issues related to services for those with mental handicaps. We have also had input from the families of people with handicaps and from others who are affected directly or indirectly.

[3:00]

I want to emphasize that this realignment will not in any way affect the quality of service being delivered. My ministry is committed to ensuring continuity of services and case management throughout the transfer process. What we will achieve is a more streamlined system that is easier for people to access and makes the most efficient and effective use of available resources.

Today in British Columbia less than 8 percent of people with mental handicaps live in institutions. Because of the wide range of services that are available, it is possible for families to have someone with a handicap living at home. Services include family support homemakers, opportunities for respite care so the family can have a holiday, infant development programs and day care for children with special needs. We are currently studying the recommendations of a report on special needs day care. The budget for child care, as you know, has been transferred to the Ministry of Women's Equality, but my ministry, serving people with disabilities, is linked with this area.

I want to emphasize that during this time of change in the Ministry of Social Services, our basic values are constant. We will continue to offer the same core services as before, and we remain committed to providing the most effective help to those in need, be they families, children, people with mental handicaps or those suffering financial hardship.

What has changed, and is changing, is how we provide service and the balance between service and effective financial management. In recent years a lot of attention has been paid to how this ministry conducts its business. A number of independent reviews have been conducted, and the results have been made public.

We are also working within the ministry to identify further areas where we can improve. One mechanism is our internal audit program. It ensures that each of our offices is audited once every three to five years. The ministry also audits agencies that deliver services under contract. In addition, our internal audit group is available to investigate emerging problems or allegations of impropriety. Each year about 70 audits are conducted. The program provides an important accountability mechanism. Audits are also a useful tool for identifying problems with ministry policies and practices. In a business as complex and decentralized as ours, we recognize that there is always room for improvement. I am confident that each audit results in changes for the better. In fact, we value the audit program so much that we are expanding the mandate of the group to give it a greater role in policy development.

As a result of this external and internal work, the ministry is in the midst of a major financial management revitalization project. So far 30 high-priority projects have been identified and are in various stages of completion. They include an interministry review and reform of contract management, improvements to financial reporting and control throughout the ministry, changes to the bus pass program to improve service and accountability, and improved controls on cheques and vouchers.

The Premier and I announced seven major initiatives in January to reduce income assistance fraud and to improve management of the system. All have been implemented or are close to implementation. Further measures are being developed, including changes to the appeal system and a review of discretionary expenditures under GAIN. We will be announcing details later in this session.

I know that often it seems to take forever for government to deliver on these promises. Let me assure you that in our case it is not because we are procrastinating. It is difficult to imagine how complex and difficult change can be in an organization as large as the Ministry of Social Services, which has such important and interrelated programs. It's not just that we have 5,000 staff and over 400 offices that need to 

[ Page 11012 ]

understand and implement the changes; it is also our huge client population and the wide scope and variety of our programs, services and circumstances. Our partners, service providers and communities are as diverse as this great province. When we make changes, we do so carefully and deliberately. To do otherwise could produce consequences much worse than the problems we are trying to solve. That doesn't mean we aren't changing, only that we cannot change everything overnight.

On top of our significant financial management improvements, we are involved in fundamental changes in all our service delivery areas. The new Child, Family and Community Service Act will significantly affect the way we help families and protect children. While maintaining our core responsibilities to protect children, the new legislation will recognize that support for families is the best way to prevent problems. This change in emphasis began even before the new legislation was introduced, and we are already implementing its principles.

A major debate is unfolding throughout Canada about the structure of our income security programs. British Columbia is playing a leadership role. Significant changes will be seen over the next few years in the way the social safety net is structured.

Finally, we are close to completing new living arrangements for people with mental handicaps, moving them out of institutions and into the communities. This is another fundamental change which is being effectively managed for the benefit of clients, and their families, and with respect for staff. By the end of 1996, as I've said before, both remaining institutions, Woodlands and Glendale, will close.

In summary, we are in a process of incredible change -- from revitalization of financial management to fundamental changes in how services are provided. We have taken on an ambitious agenda to replace outdated policies and practices that are no longer in line with the needs and aspirations of British Columbians. I don't expect the task to be either short or easy. There are problems, but I am confident that they will be overcome. As a result, the people of British Columbia will be better served.

V. Anderson: I'd like to welcome the staff here with the minister and thank a number of them for the briefings they have been able to give us; these were greatly appreciated. Perhaps the minister would like to introduce the staff; that would be helpful to all of us.

Hon. J. MacPhail: My apologies, hon. member, and my apologies to my staff. On my right I have my deputy minister, Sheila Wynn, and on the left is the assistant deputy minister of operations, Chris Haynes. I have here John Pickering, director of financial planning; I rely on him for everything. And over here is Dan Perrin, the assistant deputy minister responsible for management services. There will also be other staff coming forward. Would you like to have them introduced now, hon. member, or as they come forward?

V. Anderson: Introduce the ones who are here, and then we can take them as they come, if that's okay.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have the assistant deputy minister of family and child services, Bernd Walter; the superintendent of family and child services, Joyce Rigaux; the assistant deputy minister of income support, Lyn Tait; the assistant deputy minister of community support services, Theresa Kerin; Janice Aull, from our policy division; and Garry Curtis, who is executive director of policy, planning and research. Who have I missed back there? We also have Mike Thomas, who is with Garry Curtis's department, policy and planning -- my apologies.

V. Anderson: In our family, when I'm calling the kids, they will often turn to me and say: "Dad, I'm the other one." Now the grandchildren have the same joy of correcting their grandfather, so it's nothing to be ashamed of in any way; at least, I'm not planning to be ashamed of it.

I want to thank the minister for her presentation. She set out the values and concerns that are part of her own personal concern as she undertakes a very monumental task in the area of Social Services. As she has indicated, it's a very complex and broad mandate that has to deal with persons who are in difficulty in their lives and in the process of relating to Social Services because the other support systems, which they have normally relied on, have failed them for reasons, in 99 percent of the cases, beyond their control.

This is particularly true when we come to the rapid change in both rural and urban communities. Nothing is what it was like yesterday, ten or 20 years ago. Yet, for the most part, we're using systems that were created 50 years ago, if not more. Those systems are the heritage that have come to us in the present time and perhaps, at one time, served relatively well in the circumstances of their own day. But they are totally outdated now not only within our own province, but right across the country and, in many ways, right around the world. So we have an influx not only of our inadequacies, which have grown year by year, but also of the troubles and struggles that come to us from around the world through refugees and immigrants, or people who are moving across Canada because their own economy and circumstances have failed to support them.

As we have grown as a community, we are very much in a situation where, for the most part, we are not in close touch with our extended families or the people who support us in normal community life. I have commented many times in the community where I live that the strangers on a particular block are the people who have lived there for 50 or 60 years. At one time they knew everybody on the block. They shared their gardens and lawns, their conversations and their picnics. They also shared their children back and forth as they played with one another, but as the children grew up and moved away, the parents remained. There was often only one left. The new people moving in on their block were strangers with different interests and activities. They were younger and had different cultural backgrounds, so the ones who really felt strange on the block were those who had lived there for 60 years. That's a strangeness that hurts, because you don't expect to be alone. At one time you knew everybody, and suddenly everybody has deserted you. That atmosphere is very much a part of our communities today, in the circumstances we're considering here.

One of the struggles and sympathies I have with the area of social services is that it is dependent upon everything else that happens in government and the community. The Social Services ministry doesn't create the economy or, in large part, the jobs. It doesn't set the framework or the environment into which people come, so a good many of the circumstances that befall people who are brought in touch with social service programs have been outside the Social Services ministry's jurisdiction in the past.

[3:15]

We have also had a whole change in the government that has grown up over the years, until we had come to the point, even prior to this government being in place, of having a process very much like the one I knew in university days. 

[ Page 11013 ]

One department of the university had no clue about what was happening in the other part, and even the people who had worked there for 30 or 40 years did not know each other. As they sat down in the same cafeteria, they were strangers to each other.

More and more each section of government has done its own particular thing. Interaction and support systems have failed to develop within government. That's part of the heritage into which we have come and part of the circumstance in which we find ourselves. I'm very much aware, as we look at the opportunities before us, that we have a heritage of the structure of government, a heritage of the structure of communities, and a heritage of the changing expectations of people and the kind of history out of which we have come.

It's very interesting to listen to the many evaluations as to why we are in this present situation. At this point I think I'm probably the oldest member in the Legislature. I take pride in that, because I'm now in my second childhood; I enjoyed my first childhood so much that I can really go on to enjoy my second childhood. Sometimes I feel there's a lot more freedom, because I don't even have the responsibilities of the intervening years. This does enable one to have a different perspective.

I'm fortunate -- or unfortunate, but I think fortunate -- to have come out of the Depression years of the 1930s. I can remember, to the surprise of my children who were watching a television show one night, a couple in the southern United States who packed up all their belongings in the old truck and trekked off to find a new life, leaving behind everything except what was in the truck.

I remember when my sister and I got into the moving truck and, along with my mother, moved to northern Saskatchewan and left behind our house for taxes. By the way, it's been painted a number of times, but it's still there. I remember -- I was six at the time -- when we drove up in front of this house in Nipawin, Saskatchewan. My father, a barber who had come earlier to establish the business, arrived to show us where we were moving to. We pulled up in front of the house, and my mother said: "I'm not going to live there." My father looked at her and said: "It's going to be kind of cold on the street." Of course we moved in. It was a great house that we'll always remember, because it was home. It's important to go back and remember those days.

When I was in Vancouver at the theological college working with the students in their inner city service project, I learned a great deal about the city. In fact, that's where I first got to know Mike Harcourt. He was one of the law students in the inner city service project, out of which came the legal aid program, the crisis centre and many other things. We learned something from the students, though, because they went down there and they had a motto, which was: "If it's ever been done before, we won't do it. Otherwise, we'll do anything." And they did. The main thing they did was go with no presuppositions, knowledge or experience, and they asked people: "What would you like done? What needs to be done?" Because they came with blank minds, they heard what people were saying, and they responded to them. Out of that came the crisis centre, legal aid, new types of housing and a whole new approach to things that happened in the downtown part of Vancouver, because the students went to listen.

I remember when people talked about the poor conditions in which they had to live, the implication being that these were poor, inadequate people. One day I heard the conversation, and I said: "Just a minute, those are the kinds of conditions I grew up in, and I never considered myself to be a poor, inadequate person."

There's a great deal of difference between the validity of people who cope with inadequate circumstances and people who live in those circumstances, and we always need to make a separation between those two descriptions. I think it's fair to say that we should never talk about poor people; we should talk about people who have to live in poverty. That's a tremendous difference in how we approach it. There is a difference between poor people and people who live in economic poverty.

Fortunately, we have come to learn to appreciate people who have various circumstances in their life. We've called them handicapped; we've called them disabled; we've called them challenged. We keep trying to find more positive descriptive words to describe the realities of people's lives without negating the validity of their lives.

One of the main contribution of the International Year of Disabled Persons -- and I'm not sure it was continued under the United Nations -- was that people with handicaps or disabilities said to the rest of us: "The major difference between you and me is that you can see my disability and you don't think I can see yours." We all have disabilities, and we all have handicaps. One of the difficulties is that we don't recognize some disabilities and some handicaps, and we recognize others. That has been an unfortunate circumstance which has devalued their lives.

We're coming to a different stage in our relationships with each other. We're once again struggling with the reality that people are first and systems are second or third or fourth or something else way down the line. One of the realities the people in the community have taught me is that time and time again it's their feeling and, most of all, their reality and experience that they are expected to serve the system rather than that the system is there to complement and help them with their lives. That's a major focus that got me involved in politics itself. I was out there with them trying to shackle that system in Victoria, and, of course, that system in Victoria, under any government, would not and could not respond or even hear.

I remember when I was in the theological college on the UBC campus. One day I went, as dean of residence, from the college to the other residences on the other side of the campus, and somebody asked what I was doing in this meeting of residence people. I said: "Well, I come from the residence at the theological college." For those of you who don't know, it's a castle type of building that sits on the edge of the campus. Their immediate response was: "How did you get across the moat?" There was a mental image that the theological college, which was one of the oldest buildings on campus with the oldest programs on campus, was somehow not part of campus life.

D. Schreck: The field behind it is a moat.

V. Anderson: That's right. We lived there and played on it.

But it's those kinds of images that have been created, which separate us from one an other. That's the kind of thing we're struggling with together in order to get a new approach to how systems can be altered so that they serve people rather than people serve systems. We have come a long way in one sense, in that we have realized the variety of cultures and circumstances in our communities, but I'm not sure we've come far enough yet.

When I was in the practice of counselling couples before marriage, I would always talk to them about the cultural 

[ Page 11014 ]

background from which they had come. If they happened to be of different ethnic backgrounds, they understood what I was talking about and how they had to work at that. I remember one couple: one had grown up on the west side of Vancouver, and one had grown up on the east side. Having lived on both sides of Vancouver, I realized they came from two distinct cultures. When I grew up in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, I definitely lived on the wrong side of the track. The only trouble is, depending on who you were, you don't know what side of the track I lived on. The wealthy, who lived on one side, said the poor were on the wrong side of the track, and the poor sure didn't want to be like those stuck-up people on the other side. We knew, on each side, who we were.

East side and west side Vancouver are different cultures completely, and one of the difficulties is that we don't realize how different they are or the reality of how we have to work at it together. The systems are made without that reality or that ability in mind. One of the greatest concerns I've heard from people within Social Services, regardless of which side of the desk they sit on, is that they are not respected and treated with dignity. Our role is first of all to respect and treat with dignity every person we meet in every circumstance. One of the difficulties of doing that within the legislative session is that we do not often find that process on the floor of the Legislature itself. A confrontational attitude is built right into the system that we have here, and that's very unfortunate.

When we're looking at the process here, one of the things I want to stress, as the minister has, is that there's a basic cause of poverty. Until we deal with that basic problem, everything else is going to be inadequate and, at the most, band-aids. Until we deal with poverty as a whole, there's still going to be a lack of resources to move ahead. We have to deal with that, and we can't deal with that within one ministry. We have to deal with that in government as a whole and in the community as a whole. I would say quite strongly that whatever adaptations, acts and bills we bring forth within the ministry, they will never have any particular effect until we have taken a look at the cause of poverty and begun to eradicate it. The forties and fifties -- the period right after the war -- were the best times in life for people in Canada. But during the seventies, eighties and nineties, poverty increased. More and more people are falling into poverty, and that's the trend at the present moment. We've got to go back, look at the circumstances there and then ask ourselves what we can do within those circumstances. But if we ignore them or try to put band-aids on them, it will not work.

As we go through this process, I'll be asking how this ministry, within itself and in relationship to other ministries and the community, will be able to undertake a change and a process that will bring that about within the overall context of the economic and political environment in which we live. If we do not get at the basic realities of poverty and all its implications, then we will not solve the problem.

I was listening to a CBC program not long ago, and the minister mentioned the feminization of poverty. I'm not sure I like the phrase, but it does describe what we're talking about. In brief, it indicates that prior to the Second World War, women primarily lived and worked within the home, and that it was a meaningful life with its own good and bad qualities.

[3:30]

During the war women were needed, so they went into the factories and found a whole new way of life. The whole world began to change. After the war they didn't quite settle back into the old customs, so they became part of the community. With the prosperity that came, we began to have better houses, better cars, better possessions and a better quality of life -- at least in the physical sense.

When the Depression came and it was no longer possible to get by with one wage, two wage earners began to work. We maintained our standard of living because families had two wage earners rather than one. That had its pros and cons, and it put other pressures on the family. Out of that came the shift to single-parent families who were not able, with one wage earner, to get the economic necessities in life.

As these changes took place, our systems did not keep up. Now we're rushing and desperately trying to find a way to catch up. Of course, the easy way is to do it piece by piece. I would say validity has come with the two acts brought in by the minister; I commend her for bringing those forward. The difficulty is they're only two pieces of the puzzle -- and very small pieces. Unless we get behind them, they may, without intending to, create more problems than they'll solve. That's a real danger we need to look at very seriously.

These are some of the things I will raise. As we go along, we will try to understand the ministry as it now is, its context, and the values and the system by which it operates. Then we'll move from that general philosophical overview, values overview and the present situation into the more detailed, nitty-gritty, everyday decisions we have to make.

When my caucus asked what we were doing today, I said: "We're going to have a philosophical discussion for a little while." You'll notice that nobody else came. They just grinned and said: "Okay." But I think this is fundamental. We have to be clear about our values and our understandings, and then we can disagree on the processes -- or we can agree.

There's one thing I have to say -- I've said it in the House many times -- because it's a part of this discussion. I come out of a similar philosophical process as the minister and many of the government members. But, if I may agree philosophically, I have trouble with how many of the practical processes are being implemented.

My final comment was made by a farmer one day after a sermon. I gather he didn't agree with what I was saying. He said: "You realize there are more than two sides to the question." Being a dutiful, respectful listener, I said: "Yes, what are they?" "Well," he said, "there's your side, there's my side and there's the right side." To me, it's the right side we're trying to discover and to share with the people of the community or, to put it better, to make sure they share it with us so that we can implement it on their behalf, not on ours.

The Chair: The floor is open for getting into the estimates before us.

V. Anderson: I don't know if the minister wants to respond to what I've said.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Forgive me for learning the rules in this capacity as we go along; I apologize. It's not that I didn't attend estimates as a government caucus member, but....

I rise to thank the hon. member opposite. It is actually refreshing and calming to be able to indulge in our philosophical discussions, to find our common points and to realize that, as temporary elected representatives of the community, we share the same goals. I agree with you that a strong, secure community will be in place only when we eradicate poverty, and we must do everything we possibly can to achieve that goal. I'm sure we will discuss over the 

[ Page 11015 ]

coming days the very great difficulty of achieving it, but agree that it should be our foremost goal.

While we share the same philosophical bent, we also share the same religious background, and I probably will stand in awe of that aspect of you, so bear with me if I do.

I think today we have set out the ground rules for proceeding and for discussing the process and the implementation, the speed and the effects, but I am very glad to know, at least, that we share the same goal.

V. Anderson: Having said that, I want to say that I think the social service system is a tragedy at the moment, in the sense that though it is doing many things for many people, as the minister said.... Maybe it's a question of whether the glass is half-full or half-empty. The tragedy is that for a fair number of people, the system is not able to meet their needs. Not only do we have problems like the one concerning Matthew Vaudreuil, which we've talked about before, but also problems of other families and children and youth and seniors of all ages who come to us regularly in our constituency offices. They have problems that have been compounded again and again by the system or, at the very least, to which the system is not able to respond. It doesn't matter whether it's the cause or the effect. These people are in need; they come to where they have been promised some hope and find no hope there. In order to deal with these problems, I think we always have to consider the worst scenario, because it's the most critical and urgent.

As we work through this, my intention in raising some of these issues is not to put the minister or the ministry down, but to discover what processes and planning are taking place that give rise to these concerns. Perhaps the place to start is with the findings the minister brought forward with a great deal of concern the other day regarding the Matthew Vaudreuil case. It is in the minds of a lot of people, and we need to deal with it.

I'm not trying to pursue that particular case as such, but instead to deal with the reflections on the nature of the ministry that came forth in the review, to see if we can get at why those realities are there and how they are going to be changed. The minister has dealt with some of them. But as I've stressed before, it seems the tendency is to try to change from the top down, and I don't think that will work in our modern day, and I don't find businesses working that way. I find businesses working from the bottom up, as if to say: what is happening on the shop floor and what needs to happen on the shop floor? Then, having decided that, you change the system in order to support it.

The other reality I find is -- I'm not putting other people down in the process of describing this -- that the tendency in our system is that those who are best at their jobs are elevated up the ladder until they come to the top like cream; then sometimes they get skimmed off. Now we have non-fat milk -- 2 percent and 1 percent. The 1 percent milk at home is just like water; I have to learn to live with the 2 percent.

Hon. J. MacPhail: You need homogenized.

V. Anderson: Yes, homogenized. What's that anymore?

For those of us who have come up in a variety of systems, one of the realities is that we tend to do things the way we did them when we were at other levels. If they are a year or two years out of date, we don't realize they don't apply anymore. We can't use our knowledge and expertise because the situation has changed since the time we were there. Because change is so rapid, I think we have to recognize the reality taking place so quickly around us.

We were very aware of this change when our kids were in school; one daughter was in grade 9 and our other daughter was in grade 6. My wife and I couldn't understand which world we were in because our daughters had a completely different world. Different subjects came in, such as new math and languages we didn't understand. We weren't shifting with that.

When we talk about the shift, one of the realities within our community was that we lost our church youth group because there were no adults who could stay young enough to work with the young people. It isn't that the young people didn't want to be part of the youth group; it was simply that there were no adults who could stay young enough to work with them in their changing circumstances.

The Chair: That is a division, and we are required in the other House. So we will take a short recess and come right back when the vote is finished.

The committee recessed at 3:45 p.m.

The committee resumed at 3:52 p.m.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:54 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1994: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada