[ Page 3061 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Miller: Joining us in the House this afternoon are some representatives of the Alliance Pipeline proposal. I'd like to introduce Dennis Cornelson, the president and CEO; Norman Gish, chair and director; and Jack Crawford, vice-president, public relations. I'd ask the House to make them welcome. They're proposing a modest $3.4 billion project, and we'll be talking about it later with them.

C. Hansen: In the gallery today are 17 students from Point Grey Secondary School. They are accompanied by their teachers, Jean Mickelson and Susan Bailey. Will everybody please join me in making them welcome.

J. Kwan: Today visiting us in the gallery are 42 residents of the Strathcona community. Their visit is organized by the seniors and family program coordinator, Mr. Nigel Ma, and Ms. Lily Chan, the family worker with children from low-income families at the Strathcona Community Centre. The seniors group is a very successful group in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant in ensuring that seniors are active and involved in our community. Will the House please make them welcome. I would also like to bring my greetings to the seniors in Cantonese as well.

[Cantonese spoken.]

J. Dalton: Usually I don't get up this early. But this morning it was 4:30, to catch one of two busloads of Handsworth students from my community. I guess we might say it's now a rare field trip that we went on today. I would like to, in particular, acknowledge Jim Adams, the teacher who accompanied the students; Dr. Len Henrickson; and Mary-Sue Atkinson, who many members will know is a very passionate person on urban streams.

Special thanks to the member for Garibaldi, who very kindly came and spoke to the students today, and also to our leader, from the riding of Point Grey. Mr. Adams tells me he used to babysit the leader and his siblings when he was a little bit younger.

As well, if I may, hon. Speaker, I'll make reference to one of the 80 students. I'd better do this, because she is my son's girlfriend: Ms. Jennifer Russell. Please welcome all of them.

V. Anderson: I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming 30 students who are here to study government and history. They are grade 11 students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in my riding. Accompanying them is Ms. Choe, their teacher.

Hon. J. Cashore: I wanted to rise in the House at the first opportunity and tell the House about an event that happened in Toronto yesterday, where Jeremiah Shiang Cashore, my sixth grandchild, arrived. He is 8 pounds 5 ounces.

Oral Questions

FOREST INDUSTRY COSTS AND
INVESTMENT PLANS

We all know that the Minister of Finance has worked long and hard, even if unsuccessfully, to portray deficits as surpluses. But can the Minister of Forests please tell this House why in only five short years the NDP has turned B.C.'s timber holdings from assets into liabilities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I haven't seen the report that the member refers to, but I suspect it is a line by one analyst making a point. There are any number of forest companies that are turning a profit. The profits are up over this quarter last year. We are working with industry very closely to fine-tune the Forest Practices Code to work within the management regime that we have, to make sure that they can continue to invest in the forests of British Columbia.

F. Gingell: Last week, at MacMillan Bloedel's annual meeting in Vancouver, slides were flashed on the screen of new composite mills. They weren't in British Columbia; they were in Ontario and Pennsylvania. The president of MacMillan Bloedel said: "What you are seeing is the future of MacMillan Bloedel." Can the minister tell the House why in only five years his government has driven up forest costs so much that one of the oldest forest firms in British Columbia has now given up on job-creating investment in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't speak for the investment strategy of MacMillan Bloedel, which is a national company, but I do know that in terms of new opportunities, there are opportunities for new fibre to be cut in other parts of the province. In British Columbia, with the MDF plants and with finger-joining plants, we have made better utilization of the fibre. B.C. has recently seen over a billion dollars invested, with the Forest Practices Code in place, in the 1995-96 era -- about 1,000 jobs from new investment -- and we know that many other companies are intending to invest in British Columbia as they fine-tune their investment plans for the year to come.

FOREST RENEWAL PROJECT FUNDING
AND JOB CREATION

Can the Minister of Forests explain why Forest Renewal B.C. is cutting back its commitment to displaced forest workers at a time when the government is claiming a large Forest Renewal B.C. surplus?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It sounds to me like the opposition wants FRBC to spend more and more. What we have said. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, the light has come on, finally. We've been telling the opposition that we have been 

[ Page 3062 ]

asking FRBC to ramp up their expenditures, and I can tell you that in every activity area in every region, there will be more spent next year.

[2:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What we're witnessing here is wish-list budgeting. They are taking wish lists that people would spend if they had unlimited money and. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I would like to answer the question.

They are taking wish lists, and they're working at cutbacks to wish lists. There is going to be more spent in every program, including watershed restoration, in every region in the province.

G. Abbott: When this government created Forest Renewal B.C., watershed restoration was supposed to be one of the showpiece projects. But now, while the NDP is still talking about a surplus in Forest Renewal B.C., FRBC has reduced two-thirds of funding for an approved watershed program in the Bulkley Valley.

Can the Minister of Forests explain how cutting spending on watershed restoration will create jobs or enhance fish-bearing streams and rivers in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have heard from members of the opposition about cutbacks to particular projects. It is true that as we expand the program, as people understand that there is. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, there will be no cuts to any activity area. Every water. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps the opposition should learn the difference between projects and programs. Some projects are going to take a longer time to reach fulfilment -- no question about it. But it's because there are many other watersheds in which there have been projects approved.

G. Abbott: Forest Renewal B.C. is informing licensees in the Bulkley Valley that they may not be able to fund projects approved last year. Not only will watershed restoration and inventory projects be cut, but jobs will be lost, as well.

Given that the minister has stated that FRBC can expect "a sideways shift in funding," will he confirm that these cutbacks are a direct result of off-loading ministry programs onto Forest Renewal B.C.?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I cannot confirm that.

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, this NDP government doesn't know if it's going to rip off Forest Renewal B.C. funds through the front door or if it'll take the funds out the back door by dumping programs onto FRBC. Now we have proof of how confused the NDP are.

An April 25 letter from Forest Renewal B.C. says that one month into the fiscal year, they still don't have a business plan approved by the board of directors or accepted by the Minister of Forests. Could the Minister of Forests explain why Forest Renewal B.C. is operating without a business plan?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Forest Renewal B.C. is operating with investment plans in each region. They're multi-year investment plans, and in the next week or so there will be an announcement as to what the investment plans for FRBC are.

K. Krueger: It's obvious that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does understand the advantage of preparing a business plan prior to each fiscal year. In fact, his proposed Fisheries Renewal Act states: "Before each fiscal year the board must prepare for that fiscal year a business plan that is satisfactory to the minister. . . ."

Can the Minister of Forests explain how he expects to find jobs for 5,500 unemployed forest workers, when Forest Renewal B.C. doesn't even have a business plan yet?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Forest Renewal B.C. does provide about 5,000 person-years of employment -- and since its beginning, upwards of 8,000 person-years of employment.

As I said in the answer to the previous question, the investment plans are multi-year investment plans. They are targets so that people can come to agreements and so there can be a move toward providing long-term sustainable jobs for displaced forest workers and others in the forest communities.

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY GOVERNMENT'S
CONSTITUTIONAL ADVISER

However, it's interesting to note that the project agreement signed between the minister and the member very clearly states: "Public comment with regard to the project before, during or after the project is completed will be mutually agreed to in advance between the minister and the chief adviser." The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was quoted in the Prince George Citizen on Saturday, saying: "Without Quebec there is no Canada, the Canadian constitution is invalid." My question is: given the terms of the project agreement, were these public comments cleared with the minister before they were made?

Hon. A. Petter: They just don't give up over there, do they, hon. Speaker? I think the agreement that the member referred to refers to statements concerning the project, not the member's opinions concerning the constitution, which, of course, as a private member he is free to make. As I said last week, we're looking forward to the advice he provides, through the project, to government and other members of this House.

[ Page 3063 ]

G. Plant: Well, from his repeated public statements, it's clear that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has strong, firmly held views on the constitution, views he's not afraid to express even though they may brand him as a separatist in some quarters.

My question is for the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations. Why do British Columbia taxpayers need to spend $100,000 obtaining reports from the member, when he has clearly already made it known that he has made up his mind on the constitution, and he's perfectly willing to give us his opinions for free?

Hon. A. Petter: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is undertaking a broadly based process in which he is undertaking research papers from others, which were reviewed by many British Columbians. Based upon that broad range of input, he'll be providing information to government.

I really find it perplexing that members over there are so afraid of one member of this House putting aside partisan concerns for a moment, putting concern regarding national unity and the future of this country ahead of those concerns, and trying to serve in that capacity on behalf of British Columbians. Is that so threatening to the members over there? Or are they so mired in their partisan mind-set that they can't accept it?

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION LEGISLATION

On July 23 last year the then Minister of Environment responded to that. This is what he said. He said he was going to make sure that when we reconvened the House in 1997, we would have a piece of legislation to consider and debate.

This week is Safe Drinking Water Week, the government's own proclamation. My question is to the Minister of Environment. For those British Columbians who don't have ready access to safe drinking water, can the minister confirm her intention to fulfil her government's promise? Will she advise the House: are we going to see that legislation now, in the spring, or maybe in the fall in the new session of the House?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. You'll note, I hope, that the red light has gone on. You'll also note that the question, the preamble, was rather long. Therefore I am assuming the answer may respond in kind, quite legitimately.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to answer the member's question. In fact, water quality is a very top priority of this government. Part of the legislative agenda we're dealing with in this session is the fish protection act, which will have measures that deal with water quality and, in particular, water as it relates to guarantees for fish.

However, I would also like to advise the member that we will be releasing a discussion paper this spring on other water quality issues, including discussions around groundwater legislation.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Ministerial Statement

YOUTH WEEK

As Minister Responsible for Youth, I hear from young people from across the province all the time. What I hear most is a deep cynicism about government, the media and society at large. Whether it's young people in a detention centre, university students, youth in isolated and rural areas, or aboriginal youth, I hear the same message again and again: young people want to see a commitment from government. They want to see that someone is working on their behalf, thinking about their future.

During Youth Week we should all reflect back to when we were starting university or our first job. Times have changed since we were youth. The job market has changed; there's no question about it. No one expects to work at the same job for 40 years anymore.

Students today face incredible challenges in getting an education. Across the country, students face higher and higher tuition fees. I know, coming from East Vancouver and from a modest-income family, that I would not be able to go to university today given what young people now face.

That's why we brought in the Guarantee for Youth. In B.C. we froze tuition fees for two years in a row. This year and last we created close to 10,000 new spaces in colleges, universities and technical institutes, so qualified students aren't turned away. We combined this with seven job- and skills-training programs to help prepare young people for the changing economy -- this year, creating about 12,000 jobs for young people.

Hon. Speaker, I also hear a lot of optimism from young people. Youth tell me: "Just give us the tools, and we will build our own futures. Invest in training and education, and let us get some work experience." I'm committed to listening to the voices of young people from across this province.

Today I've released the report from my second Premier's Youth Forum. I encourage all members to join with me in celebrating youth and in working to ensure that they have the opportunities they deserve.

[2:30]

Youth are often given a bad rap, Mr. Speaker. They're stereotyped. They're picked on and blamed for many of today's problems. I believe that, in many ways, today's youth are no different than the youth of a decade ago, 20 years ago or perhaps even 200 years ago. What is clearly different is the environment in which they live.

In British Columbia we're unique in that we're just about the only province where our youth population is increasing. 

[ Page 3064 ]

The rest of Canada is seeing a significant decrease in their youth population. Since 1989 the youth population of British Columbia has increased by 12.6 percent. There are now almost 500,000 young people in our province. Compared to the rest of Canada, this presents British Columbia with a challenge and an opportunity.

Whereas other provinces are seeing the greying of their populations, putting an obvious strain on their health programs and on their ability to fund pension plans in the future, we in British Columbia do not have this problem to the same extent. A young population, provided they are able to find meaningful employment, will be paying the taxes necessary to support the social programs we have all come to rely upon. However, without sufficient employment opportunities, this potential advantage for British Columbia will be lost.

Indeed, all is not well in British Columbia. Youth unemployment is double the rate of those over the age of 25. Youth have an unbelievably high rate of unemployment. Looking back a few years, in 1990 the unemployment rate for students was 9.6 percent. Last year this rate had skyrocketed to over 22 percent. The youth participation rate in the B.C. workforce has traditionally been higher than elsewhere in Canada, but since 1989 the youth participation rate has fallen by 12.7 percent -- more than in any other province. This demonstrates a worrisome trend.

B.C.'s young people are giving up on our economy's ability to create new jobs. During the last election the NDP did in fact promise to create 11,500 jobs, but after the election last summer, there were 8,000 fewer jobs available to students.

Youth need more than empty promises. They need a more focused education. We need to focus on practical job experience, expand our co-op programs and complete that with skills training and private sector partnerships and apprenticeship programs. But above all else, our youth need a government that encourages the private sector to create long-term, meaningful employment. They need jobs that will help them pay their student loans, their rent and their tuition. They need jobs to unleash their potential. Mr. Speaker, youth need more than more empty promises.

Petitions

Orders of the Day

BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
(continued)

On section 14 as amended (continued).

D. Symons: Just as an introduction to the viewers, maybe I should explain that the statements we had earlier on youth and the ribbons that some of us are wearing in the House today are in celebration of youth, for Youth Week in British Columbia.

I'd like to ask some questions and maybe offer some cautions on section 14, which deals with consultation with local governments. Indeed, we see that that was one of the big issues in dealing with the grant cuts that took place this year. A letter regarding that was sent to members of the Legislative Assembly from the city of Richmond, which is my community. In writing that letter, the mayor said: "The first area to which we object is the non-consultative approach of the provincial government used to bring about the changes in the funds that are distributed to local government." That was a real concern, so at least the government seems, in section 14, to be addressing that particular concern. The other concern they had was: "Our second objection is, of course, the ramification of the $3.7 million in provincial cuts to the city of Richmond."

If you put those two things together, where there are cuts occurring and obviously the need for consultation -- and enough prior consultation, I believe. . . . I'm not too sure if it says anything about when that consultation takes place. That, I hope, will come in regulation -- something that will give, let's say, some advance warning to communities so they don't simply find out a short while before what the effects of any further cuts may be.

This is my real concern, because this year the city of Richmond suffered a 66 percent cut in provincial grants, and that 66 percent cut is a considerable change in the funding to Richmond. I believe it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3.7 million, which is not small change to a community.

If we take a look at smaller communities such as Valemount or McBride, even very small cuts can have a devastating effect on them. As a matter of fact, in the Valley Sentinel on October 2, 1996, there was an article that said: "A government plan to review all municipal grants in British Columbia could mean financial hardships for Valemount and McBride. The two villages get at least half of their municipal finances through such grants, and the possibility of money being trimmed from them has councillors and officials worried."

Therefore beforehand knowledge of what is to take place is of great concern to all the communities around British Columbia. In the first round of municipal cuts Richmond was hit rather heavily -- as I said earlier, a 66 percent decrease in funding -- whereas for this particular year Valemount and McBride both had an increase in funding of a small amount. So to them, the devastating effects they were expecting did not occur.

The problem is that when you go back and look at section 13, which we just passed -- at least, the government side passed that section -- it allows the minister to make changes when they want. There does not have to be, as there was before that section replaced a previous section in the act, a limited amount of change -- 2 percent one way or the other, year by year. But here the minister can make no cuts, he can make very large cuts, he can reduce all the grants altogether or he can increase the cuts. It's all up to the government of the day, whichever day they decide what they're going to do, and that is not good enough.

So I guess what I really have is a concern and to ask the minister. . . . The first question is if he might define exactly what he means by consultation. Does consultation simply mean what seemed to occur this last time, where basically the mayors were called in and told what was going to be happen-

[ Page 3065 ]

ing to them? Or, indeed, does consultation mean there's going to be some give-and-take, some meeting with each other and listening to each other and then coming to a decision? Or is the decision going to be made before the mayors and the various councillors are told what the results are going to be?

Secondly, as I asked earlier, is there going to be some time line so that we don't find out the week before the cuts or the changes are about to take place what those changes may be?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess I'll start by saying, for the benefit of viewers at home who are watching this show and wondering if there is something wrong with their TV. . . . Is this a rerun or a repeat of last Thursday's episode? I can assure them that no, it is not a rerun, though they may think it is. It is in fact live, even though the plot seems to be exactly the same as it was on Thursday. So if my answer sounds similar to Thursday's episode, in fact it probably is, because it seems like the questions are the same as Thursday's.

Hon. member, on your question in terms of consultation, I have in fact met with the mayor of the city of Richmond and some of his councillors. We had a very frank and fruitful discussion on a whole variety of topics -- consultation, I think some people might call it.

Anyway, we have signed a protocol with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and this section, section 14, commits us to consulting at least annually with the representatives of the UBCM. But I can tell you that we are in fact consulting more than annually, because the protocol that we signed commits us to developing a process of joint consultation to deal with issues and concerns, be they legislative or financial. In fact, we've had three meetings to date, and they've been very useful and very productive; in fact, we're having a special meeting just on financial issues later on this year.

What we both hope to get to is a situation where we're able to tell them what type of financial commitments we're probably going to be able to make in the coming year. Then we're going to be able to sit down and discuss the allocation of where the resources go. That's what the municipalities have been asking for, and that's what's taking place.

D. Symons: Just one brief, follow-up question. I wonder if the minister might commit, when it comes to financial changes in the grants, to a six-month lead time for the communities so that they'll have time to adjust their budgets accordingly.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What I've committed to is working with the municipalities to look at financial issues on their timetable. Basically, I've committed that when I know what the financial implications for the coming year are going to be, then I will be sitting down with them at the earliest possible opportunity. They're happy with that, and that's where it is right now. That is something that's being achieved through joint consultation -- not me dictating to them, not them dictating to me, but the two of us sitting down at that joint council process and coming to an agreement together.

D. Jarvis: I've been watching for several days, and I don't really think that the minister is being fair when he says it's a show. He himself should know that the citizens out there are people. . . . The track record of this government is such that what they say today doesn't necessarily happen tomorrow.

Madam Chair, I want to tell the minister that I found that section 14 -- he says the only word in there is "consulting" -- really is very highly suspected by people out there, especially the municipalities around this province. It's a little bit hypocritical, as well. You go back to that protocol agreement. . . . And then you go back to Elizabeth Cull's, when she stood up and said that we want to provide long-term sustainability, and it didn't occur. That's why people are suspicious.

[2:45]

Madam Chair, there's been a 30 percent overall reduction of the grants -- that's been mentioned many times -- for municipal funding. But this announcement basically occurred about a week, I guess it was, before the municipal elections. That was the really surprising thing that really bothered me: the fact that throughout this province probably the only party that put up slates was the NDP. But they knew that their chances of getting some of those slates elected, if they had announced a cut to the municipalities in such a fashion as they did, wouldn't be acceptable, so they waited until afterwards.

There again, the show that's on now, which you keep talking about, is basically because the constituents out there and the members of the municipality -- the councillors, the mayor and all the rest of them -- are very suspicious of what this minister intends to do. He's got a debt-ridden government, Madam Chair, and he's passing the buck problems onto the lower taxpayers and the property owners again. They're getting doubly hit again.

Then I heard the minister say a little while ago that the people weren't hurt very much by this, that most of the municipalities were able to overcome this situation of having their grant cut by large amounts. In my own area, the district of North Vancouver, there's an almost 56 percent reduction. In the other area of my riding, which is the city of North Vancouver, they had 50 percent. I notice that the minister's own riding was cut by only 44.8 percent. I don't know how he is able to walk down the main street of his town and not have rocks thrown at him. It's a wonder, you know; it's unbelievable.

Anyway, I do intend to ask a question, and that's why I'm standing here. I'm coming to it. You see, the minister is waiting with bated breath, so I guess. . . .

When the minister says that most of the municipalities were not hurt about this, I find that very surprising. In my own riding -- as I said, the major population area of my riding is the district of North Vancouver -- they lost $1,620,992, a considerable amount -- about 60 percent. The city of North Vancouver lost $961,640, so that was quite a considerable amount. However, the taxes in my area have gone up just over 3 percent, and that's because. . . . It's not because of this government; it's because we have prudent people managing our accounts in the district of North Vancouver.

But at the same time, it wasn't as easy as one might think -- having your taxes go up by 3.6 percent in the district of North Vancouver. We lost on the basis of services that had to be decreased. All the expenditures for other things, even the contingency program. . . . That's probably the worst thing, because a prudent government, unlike the government we have here now, always has a contingency plan. Most businesses have contingency plans, where they put money aside in the event of a bad year.

An Hon. Member: A rainy-day fund.

[ Page 3066 ]

D. Jarvis: For the rainy-day fund.

Now, this government has never done that. Their prudent plan for contingency is just to add more debt; that's their contingency plan. But the North Shore has always had a contingency plan. We've always operated a smart business practice over on the North Shore, but this year we've had to dig into that contingency plan. Fortunately, we have done that, but we've had to cancel next year's contingency plan of putting money aside, because we have been shorted by you.

So you wonder why people are cynical and why you keep hearing this repeated time after time, day after day, about this government. In this section of the bill the only subject in it is consultation, and there is no consultation. You say there's going to be consultation, but your track record shows that it doesn't happen. If it does happen this time, it'll be one of the few times this government has ever followed through with one of their real statements that they're going to do things to help people. Most times it's just adding more taxes on or more service fees. I think we're up to something like $55 billion of service fees that came out of this government in the last little while. These are not taxes, but service fees -- you know, dues and things going out.

Anyways, when the minister says he's intending to consult, I want to ask: would he be in favour of letting my mayor know, because my mayor wanted to know? Are they going to reduce it to zero? Could he give me a definite answer, a promise, that the district of North Vancouver or the city of North Vancouver. . . ?

An Hon. Member: Put it in writing.

D. Jarvis: No. I don't know if he knows how to put things in writing. Or he could be afraid to commit himself that way. I bet he would refuse to. But will he give us a guarantee that next year our operating funds coming from the province will not be zero?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm glad I didn't hold my breath waiting for the member to ask the question, because I'd have expired several minutes ago.

Anyway, I'd like to address the member's remarks -- fascinating as they are -- because I'm very familiar with the mayors and councils of the two communities that make up his constituency. In fact, I met with one of the mayors and councils. We had a really good discussion -- a frank and open discussion -- on the issues concerning him: things that he wants to see done and things that he's asked my ministry to work on. Those things are taking place. I guess you'd call that consultation.

I'm more than willing to meet with his mayor and council at any time that he requests a meeting, and in fact that's been taking place. So I don't think your mayors and councils need to worry about whether I will be willing to meet with them. I will be willing to sit down with them at any time. We're already doing that, and that's going to continue.

On his second point, regarding consultation around grants and next year's program, I want to give him the same answer that I've given every other mayor in this community and every other member on the opposite side across the way, and that is that the joint council process, which we signed on the dotted line -- the protocol -- is in place. We're meeting on a regular basis to discuss the issues of concern to the municipalities themselves. We've held three meetings so far. We've got another one coming up later on this summer, dealing strictly with budgetary matters. The UBCM members will be reporting, I imagine, directly to all the municipalities and letting them know the progress of reports.

So I think the hon. member opposite should have no fear, no concern whatsoever, about (a) whether the municipalities are being consulted -- because they are, through the joint council process -- or (b) whether or not I'm willing to meet with them. As I've told all the mayors I've spoken to, and I'll tell the members opposite, I will meet with any municipality anytime, anyplace, anywhere on any subject.

D. Jarvis: I wasn't going to ask another question, because I assumed that the minister was going to answer my original question. My original question was. . . . That's why we keep asking these questions, because they never answer the questions properly. The question was: can the city of North Vancouver and the district of North Vancouver be assured that the grant next year will not be zero -- dollars, that is?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can't tell the hon. member at this particular time what the grant next year will be. However, what I have committed to is that as soon as I know what financial implications we're likely to be facing next year, as soon as I get an idea of what type of grant program I'm going to be working with, then I will be sitting down with the UBCM at that joint council process, and we'll be talking about the potential size of any grant program that's in place and how it's allocated.

I can assure the hon. member that after that meeting takes place, then every single municipality will know. We committed ourselves to a process of discussing these issues with the joint council. That's what's taking place; that's what's been taking place; and it's going to take place at a special meeting this summer. So you know, hon. member, everything the municipalities have been asking us to do is being done.

D. Jarvis: Well, the minister has really made me nervous. We know that there is such a bad financial position now; they have managed the finances of this province abysmally. We know that we are virtually in the dumpster. Our taxes are going mup; our fees are going up; there is no future for industry to come into this province -- no one's coming in, and our basic resource industries are dying on the vine. And he won't answer a simple question as to how we're going to treat the municipalities. So I guess we can only assume that we had better cross our fingers, because we can't really trust what this Minister of Municipal Affairs will do to the municipalities next year.

I. Chong: I did speak on this subject at length last week, but I actually have a question today for the minister. I know the minister is attempting to stress again today the level of consultation that he is having with local governments. Last week I did indicate that I was not comforted by any promise of consultation that this government provides, because those kinds of promises do lack integrity. However, if I were to believe that the minister has involved himself in consultation with the local government. . . . I have the following question regarding the city of Victoria. I'd like to ask the minister: when did he consult with the city of Victoria about their $2.6 million tax cut?

[ Page 3067 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The changes that were announced for this year's budget were done before I became minister, so I didn't actually have a chance to personally inform the municipalities. That was the previous minister's responsibility.

I. Chong: I suppose that's a good enough answer. However, I would like the minister to be aware that this particular tax cut for the city of Victoria was not similar to other municipalities. In fact, of the $2.6 million tax cut that occurred, $1.1 million of it is directly related to the grant in lieu of property taxes dealing with the legislative precinct and Government House on Rockland. Hon. Chair, $1.2 million was provided last year to the city of Victoria to cover those costs, this grant-in-lieu. It's now been reduced from $1.2 million to $100,000. That's a $1.1 million decrease, which is not common to other municipalities.

I would like to ask the minister whether or not this kind of a unilateral decision can be discussed with the city of Victoria -- if not this year, then whether in fact it would be an issue that could be revisited next year, so that the severe cut they are suffering is not dealt with in the same manner in future years.

Hon. M. Farnworth: First, I want to say that in terms of this particular grant cut, that was taken into account in the overall calculation of how the city of Victoria stacked up in terms of a cumulative impact of cuts, and it fell within the 3 percent guideline that we wanted to ensure that no municipality was impacted by.

[3:00]

L. Reid: Hon. Chair, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: We've been joined in the gallery this afternoon by 86 grade 11 students from Cambie Secondary School in my riding. I would ask this House to please make them welcome.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for the answer. I just want to be certain as to the response that, in fact, the particular cut made to the city of Victoria for grants-in-lieu this year would not be a standard occurrence, that next year we would be able to go back to the original base of $1.2 million and start from there -- in order to determine what possible cutbacks there would be for the following year -- and that we would not be starting from the $100,000 amount established for this year and having that whittled down further.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact, the grant has been eliminated, and I don't anticipate it being reinstated right now. The mayor of Victoria understands that. I've sat down and discussed the issue with him. He obviously has a different opinion on the matter than I do; that's fair. What he's been concerned about is that he be able to talk to me on a regular basis about issues concerning him, projects that he's got going, things that he wants to be done. All that is taking place. The mayor of Victoria and I have got a good working relationship. I don't see any problems with that continuing. If he needs to pick up the phone and talk to me, he can.

I. Chong: I'm somewhat distressed with the kind of answer the minister is providing. The minister is essentially saying that having once established a level of grant -- which, I guess, doesn't fairly evaluate the cost of servicing the precinct and Government House on Rockland Avenue. . . . What was established in the past has now been decreased substantially from $1.2 million to $100,000. That is where the minister will be looking in the future to raise it, as opposed to this being dealt with as a one-time cut.

I do appreciate that the minister is talking with the city of Victoria. I understand there are projects on the go, and my concern is the reluctance of the city of Victoria council to discuss this particular issue in a more forthright way with the minister because of those other projects, for fear that they may be in jeopardy.

So I'm trying to speak on behalf of the constituents of Victoria, on behalf of the council, who may feel threatened by potential projects -- that, in fact, their grants-in-lieu are not going to be dealt with on a consistent basis, in the sense that the $100,000 is now the base. The fact that they have an opportunity and that the minister will look and will consult with them to restore it to a fair level. . . . Because surely he must understand that $100,000 is not sufficient to service the legislative precinct or to service Government House.

P. Reitsma: I really wasn't going to say all that much. But over the weekend I've got better things to do; in fact, I was in a bridge tournament in beautiful Qualicum Beach. In bridge there's a lot of. . . . Like truth in budgeting, you must tell your partner what you have in your hand; otherwise you give out misinformation, and you go down. You simply cannot do that.

My question is coming up. When we go seven spades, surely we know that either I or my partner has the ace of spades, otherwise you can be doubled, be in trouble. This, of course, has been the no-trump advice and commitment that this government has had. It's no wonder I didn't see anybody in the Parksville-Qualicum area trying to explain that that's what they're trying to do with the cutting of the grants in the municipality. I wasn't going to say anything. But during that tournament last weekend I couldn't help but think, in a spare moment, about the very curious and astonishing statement the minister made last week that all those grants, etc., don't really affect the municipalities. That's the conduit to a couple of nice questions, let me assure you. I notice the minister looking puzzled; so would I be if I didn't have the ace of spades and, of course, seven spades. But he might wish to go over Hansard of last week in his spare time.

[ Page 3068 ]

With your permission, Madam Chair -- even without it, for that matter -- the conclusions of the Gary Williams and Associates report to the municipalities, to the UBCM, concluded that:

"The reduction in intergovernmental transfers started with the provincial government reducing funding to municipalities in 1982. Reductions in federal transfers to the province did not start until 1988. In terms of significance, over the 15 years since 1981, the reduction in transfer payments has been greater for municipalities than for the province, no matter which of the three measured methods is used. The notion that municipalities were somehow protected from federal transfer reductions is not supported by the evidence.

"There will be a significant reduction -- 30 percent -- in federal transfers to the province over the next two years -- 1996-97 and 1997-98. This will be matched by a similar reduction -- 30 percent -- in transfers from the province to the municipalities. . . ."

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would like to thank the member for the question and the lesson on bridge-playing. Not being a bridge player, I'm surprised that one in fact gets a spare moment during a bridge game to think about other issues, particularly. . . .

F. Gingell: That's what his partner wanted to know, too.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Exactly. Imagine, I was going to ask him how he did in this bridge game, because if he's thinking about other things instead of thinking about bridge, his partner may have something to say about his playing.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, that's why you came second. Well, that should be a lesson, hon. member.

But back to the topic at hand. . . .

K. Krueger: You should hear what his constituents say.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, he's going to come second in the next election, too. That's what his constituents are going to say.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You gave me the opening, hon. member.

Back to the Gary Williams and Associates report. I'm familiar with the report, and I'm familiar with the argument that he advances. I'd just say this to the hon. member: that's probably a better topic for estimates discussion, where we can have a good and thorough debate on that. We are on section 14, which deals with the process of consultation. In the interests of our viewing audience, who have been following this debate and know that we are on section 14 and dealing with the issue of consultation, the issue that he raised is probably better left for estimates debate.

P. Reitsma: Yes, indeed, I think the audience might like to know a little bit of the background. I'm always very happy to give the minister some opportunities to come up with half a volley -- so that I'm able to give back a full volley, of course. I know the minister will come in second in his election, which is really astonishing because he will be the only one running. But that's another story, I suppose.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Acclamation -- I like that.

P. Reitsma: The only one running coming in second doesn't happen too often.

On the consultation, could I ask the minister: have he and his officials been able to communicate and consult with the council of Qualicum Beach, the council of Parksville and the council of Nanaimo in terms of the reduction of grants?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think I've spoken to the mayors of those communities, and I know we have correspondence with those particular communities. In fact, if I remember correctly, when I spoke to them I said I looked forward to getting up to their communities at the earliest possible convenience to meet with them and their councils -- in the town of Parksville, in the town of Qualicum, in the city of Nanaimo -- to sit down and discuss issues of concern to them, be they local or provincial. I think that was met with enthusiasm. So one of the things I'm looking forward to, probably when the House rises some time later this year, is getting up to those very communities that the member represents to meet with his mayors and councils to discuss issues of local concern.

P. Reitsma: The question really relates to whether the minister -- of course, he wasn't the minister at that time -- knows if the previous minister and/or officials met with officials and/or the mayors of the municipalities before the grants were announced in such an abrasive fashion.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not being the minister when the announcement was made on November 26, I can't comment on things precisely, but I can tell the hon. member that the municipalities that he represents would have been aware of the issue. It was raised at the UBCM in discussions around the signing of the protocol by the then minister -- who had concerns, and I've expressed them to this house before.

But I think what's important -- and what your communities want to know right now -- is: what happens in the future? They're aware of what's happened in the past, and they're concerned about the future. And in that vein, I can give them the same assurance that I've given every other member in this House and every other council throughout this province: we've got the joint council process. It's up and working, we're meeting on a regular basis and we've got a special meeting in the summer that's dealing strictly with financial issues. It is my desire that as soon as I know what we're working with, we will let the joint council know. We'll be able to discuss what's coming down the pike and how we allocate the resources that are available to us -- done through joint consultation. That's what your municipalities have asked for. That's what they pushed for when they asked the province to sign that joint protocol, and that's what's taking place.

P. Reitsma: Leading into the protocol agreement, neither my municipalities nor the councils nor the mayors like what's going on. In fact, just a couple of minutes ago I consulted again with the mayor of Parksville, who was mayor last year. 

[ Page 3069 ]

Let me assure you that he cannot remember any consultation by the ministry. I just consulted him about half a minute ago, and he knows there was no communication between the UBCM and the provincial government.

You know, we're in the springtime, and it's time to plant. And of course for planting you need a lot of fertilizer, whether it's natural or artificial. All kinds of numbers -- 10, 22 and 14 -- indicate the various levels of whatever you use in fertilizer, of course. But three numbers will go down in infamy in the city of Parksville, the town of Qualicum and the city of Nanaimo: 21, 43, 63. It's not football; it's not a passing play from the quarterback to any of his receivers. It is a 21 percent cut in Qualicum Beach, a 43 percent cut in Parksville and a 63 percent cut in Nanaimo. That means that ultimately the local taxpayer will pick it up.

[3:15]

The next question that I have is in terms of the consultation. If consultation, the process. . . I appreciate that it has to be done. It was not done, but at least it's going to be done now, we hope. For that matter, it's too bad we can't legislate that in some way. But if consultation -- the communication -- goes awry and there's no agreement, is there any mediation process? Is there any facilitator, as we have with the setting up of the new program with the regional districts, where if they disagree there's a process for mediation or some other consultation? What happens if the provincial government and the UBCM, with the municipalities, do not agree? Is there a referee? Is there an arbiter? Is there some kind of mediator?

Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points. First, he made the comment about no notification and what took place at the meeting -- that there was no notification or even any indication that grants were going to be cut. So I'd just like to draw his attention to the speech that the minister gave at approximately 2 p.m. It's about halfway through the speech, so I guess he was probably uttering the words somewhere probably around 2:10 or 2:12 in the afternoon.

The particular phrase that was used was: "There are no guarantees at this point about grant levels for next year or even if our system of local government grants will continue in its present form." There were a number of references throughout his remarks, but that's one in particular that I'd just like to draw to the member's attention because he raised some concern about one of his mayors saying that there was nothing said about that. So I want to get that point out of the way.

The second particular point he just raised was concerning the issue of disagreement. Well, the fact is that the joint council, or the protocol, recognizes that disagreements may occur. In fact, at the table at the first meeting it was the UBCM members who said: "We are not going to agree, necessarily, on every issue all of the time. There may well be, in fact, disagreement." And you know what? They said that's a good thing, because they don't think it would be healthy if we agreed on everything all the time.

What they are concerned about is that we meet on a regular basis to discuss issues of common concern, and that we discuss legislative issues and financial issues. And you know what? That's what they want, and that's what's taking place. They don't want it to be that we come in, with us sitting down on our side of the table and them sitting down on their side of the table, that we put an agenda out and that all of us look at it and go: "Yes, I agree"; "yes, we agree." That's not what the exercise is. The exercise is to find solutions. And if we can, that's what we want. But sometimes we may disagree on things. And you know what? Disagreement is healthy as well.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate what the minister is saying, but he's skirting around the issue a little bit, which is that it comes to the point: what happens if there's a fundamental disagreement between the government and the UBCM? Who has the final say? I think I know, because the government can do anything they want to anyway. But I would like the minister to put on record who's got the final say. Or is there an independent arbiter or referee, like there is in labour relations, that might issue a report or a binding recommendation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue may well determine the response. As I just said, we're going to agree on lots of things; some things we're going to disagree on. But we remain open to negotiation.

For example, the grant level is something that is set by government. That is the right of the provincial government and the right of this Legislature. However, what the municipalities have been asking is that we look at the allocation, that we sit down and talk with them about how it's going to be allocated. And you know what? That's going to happen.

I don't want to prejudge the process that we've put in place jointly -- the joint process -- because it's working. I hope that we never get to a situation where there's a huge, fundamental disagreement and that the dire consequences the member seems to talk about take place.

The fact is, the process is working. To date, it's been working very well. Municipalities have been bringing issues forward, as we have. We've been sitting down and discussing them, having working groups deal with the issues with a view to coming up with solutions that are agreeable to everybody. I fully expect that to continue.

P. Reitsma: A question about the last question, just maybe an update. . . . I go back to an article in the Nanaimo Bulletin of Thursday, March 13, in which the mayor of Nanaimo asked a number of questions and referred to the fact that a couple of weeks earlier the Premier had said the B.C. government would be willing to discuss revenue-sharing and traffic fines with the municipalities that fund police detachments. Has anything transpired in terms of that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell him a number of things. First off, I'll say we can get into a full, detailed investigation of that in estimates. But what I can tell him is that I have publicly stated at the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities that this is an issue we have to deal with. It's time we put 

[ Page 3070 ]

issues like this to bed. The Premier has said the same thing: it's time we look at these issues. The same with the Attorney General.

And you know what? At the annual meeting of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities in Powell River, I got up and said: "I can tell you that my commitment to that issue is so strong that it's going to be raised at the next joint council meeting." I was widely applauded for that. And you know what? It was on the agenda at the next meeting of the joint council. They're glad about it, and there's work taking place. We're looking at options, and we're looking at all kinds of things. But the issue is being addressed through the joint council process, where it should be. So the process is working.

M. de Jong: I thought, in reinjecting myself into this debate, that it might be worthwhile to begin by doing this. If you believe the hon. minister, everyone agrees with this, and everyone is happy, and it's working beautifully. But that's not the case.

Bill 2 is universally seen as a betrayal by local government, and no amount of sugarcoating by the minister is going to change that. No amount of sweetness and light from this minister is going to change the fact that his government is reducing, arbitrarily and unilaterally, the amount of money that is going back to the communities from which it was originally taken.

So I just want to start by returning to the roots of the argument, hon. Chair. There's nothing to celebrate here. I understand that the minister is endeavouring to answer the questions. But he will understand that I do not -- and taxpayers across the province do not -- share his apparent enthusiasm for this piece of legislation, for the reasons that we've heard about over the past five or six days.

Having said that, I spent the weekend disappointed in the fact that I had enjoyed so little success in instilling in the minister those same lingering doubts that I have about how section 14 is going to operate -- indeed, how I think it's not going to operate -- in a way that is satisfactory to local government and local taxpayers. I thought to myself -- as I know he did -- through much of the weekend, how we could confront this bill and confront one another in a way that might focus, even more sharply than what took place last week, the debate on what I see as the fundamental issue here.

I thought that perhaps one of the difficulties we ran into last week. . . . As suspicious as I and the UBCM are of where the government is going with this legislation, if I could put myself for a moment in the minister's shoes, perhaps he, being on the receiving end of the questions through much of last week, harbours some suspicion about what my motives and the motives of members on this side of the House were in. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have no suspicions, none whatsoever.

M. de Jong: As difficult as that might be for many people to believe, hon. Chair, I was forced at about 7:30 on Sunday evening to acknowledge the fact that perhaps the minister harbours some of those suspicions. And I want to confront them. I think I've done a lot to allow the minister to leave this place on the weekend with a misunderstanding of what it is that concerns us. Many of the questions that emanated from this side of the House dealt with issues of concern to our local communities -- in my case the city of Abbotsford, the communities in the riding of the member for Shuswap, and so on and so forth.

I thought perhaps if we could bring the debate around and attempt to demonstrate how this legislation might be seen to be operating in ridings represented by members on the government side. . . . The other reason I was very critical of myself in examining how this debate went was that I thought it was unfair of opposition members to, in effect, hog the floor, as we did last week, and not provide government members -- many of whom, I'm sure, are very disappointed about how this legislation is going to affect their communities -- with an opportunity to address questions about how this legislation will operate.

So if I can attempt to particularize some of those queries, I thought I would start with the city of Merritt. All of us have many other duties, and I'm sure those other duties have taken the member for Yale-Lillooet and prevented him from involving himself in this debate. I know that he would want to address the minister on the issue of consultation, particularly in light of what happened and his understanding of what consultation involves.

[3:30]

This is where I get to the point involving section 14, and I hope the minister is able to provide us with some assurance. The member for Yale-Lillooet said that consultation in that instance was inappropriate because the majority of people writing the letters had Liberal backgrounds. Right off the bat, the member for Yale-Lillooet, at least, distinguishes issues on the basis of who is bringing them forward. The member for Yale-Lillooet believes -- apparently believes, based on what he said in his press release -- that consultation is worthwhile if it's a particular class of people or type of person who brings these concerns forward. But if they are people who are tainted by a particular political affiliation that is not consistent with the member's own views, then it's not appropriate.

He went on to particularize that at least two-thirds of the so-called invitations the committee received were from individuals with proven Liberal connections, including Liberal Party members, failed Liberal candidates, failed Liberal nominees, campaign donors and other Liberal supporters. It sounds to me like the member for Yale-Lillooet has the same intelligence network working on this issue as the Finance minister has working on the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

The point is not a flippant one. Apparently the member for Yale-Lillooet believes that the type of consultation the government should engage in depends on who those persons wishing to make the representations are, and that lies, I'm sure, at the heart of the suspicion the council in the city of Merritt has. I think it's incumbent upon the minister, in light of 

[ Page 3071 ]

what his member for Yale-Lillooet had said on this issue, to provide them with more assurance than he has been able to offer to this point that that kind of biased listening, if you want to call it that, won't continue to take place.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: My answer will be considerably shorter. I was going to say that in no way would I consider the hon. member to be hogging the floor or behaving like a piglet, a sow or any other porcine-equivalent in his approach to debate today. I just want to tell. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, hon. member, you gave me the opening. As he said, it's getting very close and maybe "boar" is a term that one may be. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The English translation, because I don't speak Dutch. But anyway, I'm feeling charitable today, hon. member.

I just want to inform him, hon. Chair, that in response to his concern, the very first council I went and met with after becoming minister -- after my own, of course, of Port Coquitlam -- was the city. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I said I was feeling charitable, and I know the municipalities are not looking for charity.

The very first council I went and met with after becoming minister was the city of Kelowna. The city of Kelowna is a council not known to be a bastion of New Democratic Party support in a constituency not known to be a bastion of New Democratic Party support. In fact, I've been meeting with mayors and councils across the province, irrespective of political stripe, and I will continue to do so.

M. de Jong: There is an old saying about the proof being in the pudding. It is one thing for me, for the member for Shuswap or for other members opposite, to say that and to suggest that what we want to examine are this government's deeds and not their words. But that, oddly enough, is the same message one hears across the province. I don't want to leave the minister with the impression that I rely for evidence of this solely on those areas of the province that didn't support the New Democratic Party.

We can go to the government Whip's riding in Port Alberni and indicate what the people in Port Alberni are saying, as reported in the Alberni Valley Times. I think the editorial of March 4 hits it on the head, where it says: ". . .the socialists have programmed the province not to take what they say at face value. In fact, none of what they say has any value. It's what they do that is serious and to be taken as what they meant all along."

The proof is in the pudding. I'm sure that the member for Alberni -- the government Whip -- doesn't like it when his local media and people in his riding emphasize the fact that they can't believe and have no faith in what this government intends to do and what has taken place, but that is unfortunately the sad reality. We talked about Merritt; we talked about the member for Yale-Lillooet. I still harbour some hopes that he will inject himself into this debate, because it's that same. . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I can assure the hon. Government House Leader that the member for Yale-Lillooet does not need me to help him fall asleep in the middle of the day, although I'm happy to provide that service if she feels it has been helpful.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I'm sorry. I again caught a little interference across the way, hon. Chair.

The city of Merritt lost about $62,000 arbitrarily in policing grants -- we're talking about a month or two ago -- having signed an agreement with this provincial government and having been assured that that wouldn't change without -- and there's this magical word again -- consultation.

Yet the police chief and city council wake up one morning to discover that $62,000 is going to be ripped out of their policing budget. The police chief -- the RCMP officer -- says: "It's like cutting the police budget two times, because more policing is needed in '97." The point is that there was an agreement. There was an assurance that there wouldn't be any changes without consultation, and it happened arbitrarily and unilaterally. It happened because this government decided it was going to happen, not because there was anything in the way of meaningful consultation.

We went on at length about what might be done to improve the legislation, to perhaps allay some of the fears of those communities out there wondering when the knife will fall next. I'm obliged to try one last time, insofar as amending this legislation is concerned. I feel obligated for a number of reasons, many of which I set out in numbing detail with the first round of amendments that were tabled. But I also feel obligated to table an amendment because I am concerned that the grounds upon which my last amendment was ruled out of order should not be permitted to stand.

Perhaps what I will do is to move the amendment I have, which reads as follows:

[That the existing section 6 become 6(1), and that section 6(2) be added to read:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities shall be defined as only those officials designated by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and shall include any persons from the city of Merritt so designated by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.]

On the amendment.

M. de Jong: Let me say the following things. It is designed as and reads as a definition section. It is an amendment that defines a term referred to in the previous subsection. In that respect, in my view, it can in no way be taken to impose a charge on the provincial government, on the Crown in right of the province of British Columbia.

We engaged in this debate at some length on a somewhat related point last week, and the point I want to make is this. If the minister stands up and says, "One plus one is three," that 

[ Page 3072 ]

doesn't make it so. One plus one is still two. It doesn't matter what the minister or what the Government House Leader has to say. . . .

An Hon. Member: Or the Minister of Finance, either.

M. de Jong: Although the Minister of Finance is likely the one officer of the cabinet more inclined to employ new mathematical techniques to answer that question in the way I suggested.

But we have to accept these amendments as they are proposed by hon. members. I just want to emphasize that the logic and reasoning we heard from the minister last week wasn't applicable then, in my view, and it certainly isn't applicable to this amendment. The logic employed by the minister was that an amendment that involved imposing a charge on the provincial government was out of order. Well, we have rules that confirm that. In defining, though, how this amendment could possibly be seen to impose a charge on the provincial government, I would suggest that it is not -- as the minister suggested last week -- open to him to say that there would be redrafting costs involved in an amendment, and therefore those are the costs that accrue to the provincial government.

It doesn't work for a number of reasons. The bottom line is this: if that were the test by which amendments were deemed to be acceptable or not, no amendment would be acceptable. Any amendment proposed by a member of this hon. House would involve some redrafting, some reprinting cost. So that is not an argument, in my respectful submission, that is available to the minister. Now, if he has an argument that he wishes to propose, I'm interested in hearing it.

But the amendment says that there will be one set of consultations. It will be with the corporate body, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The people representing the UBCM will be those persons so designated by the UBCM, and may include a representative from the city of Merritt if the UBCM sees fit to designate such a representative. There will be that set of consultations. I defy the minister to explain to this House how that amendment can result in a charge accruing to the Crown in right of the province of British Columbia.

I should say this, hon. Chair. In rendering your decision on this amendment. . . . It is trite for me to say, but the rights of all members of this House hinge upon the decision you will make. If the logic employed by the minister last week is sustained, then we've got a serious problem. So that is the amendment I offer for your consideration, which I seek to introduce and have ruled upon today.

[3:45]

By simply trying to do what the member was unsuccessful in doing last week through a range of creative amendments, he has not solved the basic problem through this amendment. Whether it's done directly or indirectly, as this amendment would have it, by allowing the UBCM to expand and reconstitute itself through creative definitions, including any number of municipalities, it does not get around the basic problem that this amendment does or could require an additional expenditure by the Crown and is therefore out of order.

M. de Jong: On the amendment, let me say this: I'm waiting for the evidence. The minister is offering the same sort of -- and I say this respectfully -- hollow response we got from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. How does this amendment result in a charge being accruing to the Crown? The Finance minister chooses to misread the amendment. I get back to my original point: the minister saying one plus one is three doesn't make it so.

The amendment is clear. It says there shall be one set of consultations. It will be with representatives of the UBCM, and it gives to the UBCM the right to designate who those representatives shall be. It's one set of consultations; one corporate body. Now, presumably the Finance minister, by virtue of what he is saying today, would apparently remove from the UBCM the right to designate who will conduct those deliberations on their behalf. He harbours some suspicion that somehow the UBCM intends to sandbag this whole operation. That's what he is saying, but he becomes very creative.

He is bound, I would submit, by the words that appear in the proposed amendment. He can't import some fanciful interpretation of what these words are. They are presumed to say what they say. If the Finance minister or the Municipal Affairs minister has some evidence. . . . And hon. Chair, I'd ask you to be cognizant of my submissions on this point; I know you're listening out there somewhere. We haven't heard evidence of how this results in additional costs to the Crown. The Finance minister or the Municipal Affairs minister saying, "It does; I think it might; I think it could," doesn't change the fact that we are still contemplating one set of consultations with one corporate body as the act presently reads.

Hon. A. Petter: Bluster doesn't get you past the basic argument here. Either this amendment means something or it doesn't. If it doesn't mean anything, then I'm not sure why it's being proposed. But I will give the member the benefit of the doubt and assume it means something. So it must add something to the words that are currently in the proposed section, which provides that there is to be consultation with representatives of the UBCM. What it's trying to do is empower the UBCM to expand in some way the entities that are to be consulted by taking the ordinary meaning of the UBCM as it will be interpreted by someone reading this section and allowing, through this creative subsection, an extension of that.

Now, if you want an example of what the member is doing that is slightly more exaggerated, it would be like taking an obligation that the government should consult an entity -- say the UBCM -- and saying in a subsection that for the purpose of this section, the UBCM shall be defined as anyone the UBCM designates. The UBCM could then go and designate the entire population of Canada or perhaps the entire population of the United States.

Either this means something or it doesn't. If the UBCM is to engage in consultation in a meaningful way, based on the representatives it wants to, then the current wording allows that to happen. The courts and anyone else will give a reasonable interpretation to the words "representatives of the UBCM."

[ Page 3073 ]

It is the member who's trying to torture that meaning of the UBCM into some new, expanded meaning that will, indeed, if it means anything at all. . . . If the member wants to stand up and say it means nothing, let him engage in that embarrassing exercise. But if it means anything at all, it is saying to this Legislature that the Legislature should empower the UBCM to expand the obligations for consultation beyond those that currently exist. Either it means something or it doesn't.

I and the Chair should give the member the benefit of the doubt. It means something; and if it means something, it means that there's an additional obligation being placed upon the Crown.

M. de Jong: The embarrassment here is the Finance minister's desire to twist the rules of this House in a way that strips away any rights that opposition members have to influence the direction legislation takes as it passes through this chamber. That's the embarrassment.

We can decide by voting whether the amendment is redundant, whether it's ill-considered, whether it's stupid, whether it's meaningless, whether it's right or whether it's wrong. But the question you've got to decide, hon. Chair, is whether it's in order or not.

When the Finance minister retreats to arguments questioning its redundancy, quite frankly, it is irrelevant. What he does is demonstrate by virtue of the submissions he made in this House just two minutes ago that he doesn't trust the UBCM. He doesn't trust the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to conduct themselves in an honourable way. He is the one who is saying that an amendment of this sort will provide them with carte blanche to expand in a way that no one is thinking of and that the amendment doesn't provide for.

If the Finance minister, if the Municipal Affairs minister, if the members of the government side disagree with the amendment, if they disagree with specifying that the city of Merritt should be designated as part of the UBCM negotiating team to participate in that capacity, then vote against it.

But what are they afraid of? What are they afraid of in allowing an amendment that a member of the official opposition has tabled in this House to go forward to a vote? We haven't heard an answer to that, hon. Chair. We haven't heard why they're so afraid to let opposition members and the people of British Columbia speak on Bill 2.

Hon. A. Petter: What we have heard, hon. Chair, is an objection, based upon the rules, that this member not be allowed to do through the back door what he and his colleagues were not allowed to do last week through the front door: namely, make an out-of-order motion that would inappropriately impose an expenditure on the Crown by expanding the range of consultations anticipated, and I would ask you to so rule.

The Chair: Hon. members, the Chair has listened to views from members on both sides of the floor. After listening to those views, I am persuaded that an open-ended power to designate any number of persons from the city of Merritt to consult with the government is a direct negative and would impose an obligation on the Crown.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, the Chair has listened to the views of the members, and I am persuaded that an openended power to designate any number of persons from the city of Merritt to consult with the government is a direct negative and would impose an obligation on the Crown. If there are no other members, I call the question on this section.

M. de Jong: Well, hon. Chair, the rules of this chamber require me to proceed, guided by the decision that the Chair has made. I say with the greatest respect that I find the ruling confusing and unhelpful in terms of. . . .

The Chair: I would ask the member to please take his seat.

I would remind the hon. member that the Chair has ruled, and you are not to question the rulings of the Chair.

M. de Jong: I have only confessed my confusion and disappointment. I don't think I've reflected on the ruling of the Chair in any other way.

I am aware of a letter that the Minister of Municipal Affairs wrote to the people of Campbell River, where he comments -- I'm quoting from the letter earlier in April: "It is a local responsibility to oversee development, to plan for existing and future needs and to identify secure financing for community infrastructure."

As accurate as I think those words are, I cannot help but make the observation that the ability of communities to engage in that exercise is being compromised by this legislation and compromised by an attitude that we have just seen revealed in all its horror from the government benches: their reluctance to entertain debate and amendment, even to allow debate around an amendment to take place.

I think it is lamentable that the Finance minister would cheer a decision which he -- as someone who has sat in this House for many years -- must know has far-reaching implications for the right of opposition members to engage in debate in a meaningful way and to submit amendments for the consideration of the 75 members -- 74 now -- that sit in this place.

[4:00]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm going to respond to some of the comments of my hon. colleague across the way. He seems to think that the government takes delight in making cuts to municipalities. Well, it doesn't. Governments have to respond 

[ Page 3074 ]

to serious financial situations. This is not an attempt to stifle debate or dialogue. We've had a debate around an amendment that was accepted by the government.

This is an attempt to try and change the course of this bill, to not allow it to go through. I understand that, and that's the role of members opposite. But what it won't change is the commitment that this government took on back in September when it signed the protocol: to sit down and consult with municipalities on issues that are concerning them, through a process called a joint council, which consists of the ministers of the executive councils who municipalities deal with on a most regular basis and the table officers of the UBCM.

This approach came from the grass roots in the municipalities themselves. It was local government-driven. The provincial government accepted that and signed that joint protocol back in September. At that time, the province also made it clear to municipalities that there were changes coming in terms of the formula and in terms of grants -- that they were all being reviewed.

What the municipalities wanted and what they have been talking to me about on a regular basis was that we sit down with them and make this joint council process work. I repeat again that it is working. It didn't just come into being overnight; it has taken time to evolve. So far, we've met three times and discussed legislative issues, financial issues, issues of concern to municipalities and issues of concern to the provincial government, just as was envisaged in that joint council process when we signed that protocol. We're resolving issues and finding solutions to problems through a process of consultation that's taking place.

Hon. members opposite are concerned about consultation over fiscal matters, financial matters and grant implications. That's taking place. Time and time again, I hear the criticism: "Talk is cheap. We want to see action." Well, if no meetings had taken place, I would say that, yes, talk is cheap. But the fact of the matter is that those meetings are taking place.

The hon. member talked about the mayor of Port Alberni. She is the head of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and she is the person who chairs meetings with me on an alternate basis. I speak to her probably more than I speak to the mayor of my own community, yet he insists on quoting some editorial as proof that it is not working. Well, the only use I have for editorials is when you run out of toilet paper, which, thank God, isn't too often.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

The members of the UBCM are being served by their organization, because the executive of that organization is making the joint council process work. They've called for consultation, and that's taking place. There's a meeting coming up later this year that deals strictly with financial issues. We accepted a recommendation -- in fact, an amendment from the member for Shuswap. That was accepted in good faith. And do you know what? That meeting is going to take place in the summer. We'll discuss what the financial implications are like for the coming year, we'll discuss what the resources are going to look like, and we'll discuss how we're going to allocate them. When we're at the UBCM convention in September, we'll be able to make a full progress report. We'll be able to say what issues we've been dealing with, what the decisions around them have been and what progress is being made. After a full year, the entire membership of the UBCM will be able to see how the joint council process is progressing and how it's working, and they will get an idea of how it's going to evolve in the future.

They don't want to talk just about financial issues. They want to talk about legislative issues and about changes to the Municipal Act. Those are taking place. The changes to legislation are taking place on the basis of proposals put forward by the UBCM -- not arbitrarily imposed by the province but agreed to jointly.

Changes for next year's legislative program will come about through the same process -- a consultative process. For the hon. members to say that talk is cheap is to ignore the reality of what has been taking place over the last number of months, which is a concerted effort by the province in good faith and a concerted effort by the UBCM in good faith to make the protocol that was signed last September work for the betterment of the province, the municipalities and, ultimately, the people they serve. I don't know what more I can say.

M. Coell: What we're talking about here is meaningful consultation with municipalities on the grants they receive from government. I would like to propose an amendment that I think the minister has already agreed to. Section 6 is being repealed, and the following is substituted: "Consultation with local governments." In the minister's bill, it is annually. I am suggesting the amendment that section 6 read:

[At least quarterly, the minister must consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities regarding the administration of grants under this Act.]

The Chair: Do you have copies for the Chair? Thank you, hon. member.

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand the amendment, it is to quadruple the number of times that the government, through the minister, will be required to consult, as currently required through legislation. Our obligation here is to make sure that the rules of the House are observed and that additional obligations through legislation are not inappropriately placed upon government through amendment. The fact that he has said, as I understand it, that he's going to be meeting quarterly, as a matter of policy, is beside the point. The question is whether this is going to be placed as an obligation through legislation.

Frankly, the members are being mischievous in trying to find creative ways not to advance public policy but to try to get around a ruling that, far from trying to evade and avoid, they should be supporting. That is a ruling of the Chair that has previously been made in respect to these matters: amendments that seek to impose further obligations of this kind upon the Crown are out of order.

[ Page 3075 ]

The Chair: Hon. members, I have reviewed the amendment, and in my view, it does impose an obligation on the administration of the government. On that basis, I therefore rule it out of order.

G. Abbott: The opposition does not propose to belabour this particular section any further, and we are content to rest our case at this point. Regrettably, the constructive suggestions we were proposing to make in our resolutions have not been accepted by the government or by the Chair. As a consequence, we are prepared to move on. I do want to note, though, as we pass this rather consequential section, that I think people in British Columbia appreciate what we on this side of the House have tried to do here.

I was up at the North Central Municipal Association meeting on the weekend in Valemount, and there was certainly an excellent appreciation among the municipal representatives who were assembled there. They very much appreciated what the opposition has tried to do in this House with respect to this bill. We have tried in a number of ways -- one of which was accepted by the government, mercifully -- to try to strengthen the requirement for consultation in this bill. It was inspired, I can assure the Chair, by our concerns about the way in which consultation was by and large not conducted by this government over the past six months or, indeed, two years. We felt it was appropriate to strengthen the consultation provisions, and I'm glad we followed through on that.

We have also tried to preserve what fragments of predictability, stability and certainty we could from the Local Government Grants Act. Regrettably, the whole purpose of this bill is to get rid of those elements of predictability, stability and certainty. The fundamental principle of this bill is to eliminate those key provisions in the Local Government Grants Act. The whole purpose of Bill 2 is to leave the Minister of Municipal Affairs and indeed this whole government completely unfettered in determining the amount of municipal transfers from year to year.

[4:15]

My view, and certainly the view unanimously shared on this side of the House, is that the cuts that were announced by this government on November 26 are unfair and unwarranted, and homeowners, renters and small businesses around this province know that. They know as well that this bill is an ill-conceived and wrong-headed legalization of the cuts that took place on November 26, and as I said earlier in this debate, I think the stench that surrounds this particular bill will stick with government for a long, long time. I think that what they have done in this whole sorry process is something this government will regret for many years to come.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

F. Gingell: I intend to deal with sections 18 through 22 at this one time. I was wondering if perhaps the minister could advise the committee how many vehicles in the province at this time are fuelled by propane, which was free of any fuel tax and will now be subject to a fuel tax?

Hon. A. Petter: First let me just clarify what I think the member probably knows but others may not fully know, and that is that this legislation does not introduce a tax on propane. The introduction of a tax on propane is a function of other legislation that was passed some years ago. Through that legislation, an exemption on propane automatically terminated, and that resulted in the imposition of a tax. What this legislation does is ensure, through consequential amendments, that imposition of that tax through other legislation is not imposed unfairly. So, for example, section 18 ensures that propane will not be taxed more highly than other coloured fuels. I just wanted to clarify that point.

I want to say in advance that while I'm prepared to provide information that is relevant to the discussion of these sections, I hope we do not stray into areas that I think are beyond the scope of this legislation: namely, the question of other legislation whose effect may be contentious in the members' minds, but is legislation that was passed some years ago and is not contained within the four corners of this act.

As I understand it, in response to the member's question, about 35,000 vehicles in this province are currently fuelled by propane.

F. Gingell: I think the minister's response is most interesting, seeing that he has just finished giving us a lecture that you can't do through the back door what you're not allowed to do through the front.

This minister knows perfectly well that this original provision was brought in -- in 1972?

An Hon. Member: In 1982.

F. Gingell: In 1982. It was done in '82, renewed in '87 and renewed in '92. Now we are at 1997, and it isn't being renewed. For the minister to suggest that this House should allow that to happen without a discussion of it, suggesting that we should limit debate on this bill to not include the imposition of a social service tax on propane -- because that is what it is. . . . However you wish to colour it, that is the case. Other members of the official opposition, I believe, will deal with the issue of the propane tax.

So we have 35,000 vehicles converted to propane under the belief that this tax exemption would be carried on every five years, as it has in the past. There was no notice given earlier on to people considering making the fairly substantial investment -- an investment of up to $2,500 these days, I believe -- to convert their vehicles to propane use, which, as we all know, dramatically reduces the emissions from the internal combustion engine that it is used to fuel. We have 35,000 vehicles that are suddenly dropped off, as it were, the edge of the cliff. The minister will mention, I am sure, that this section does keep the renewal going for vehicles that are fuelled by a fuel that's known in the industry as M-85 -- that is, methanol. I was wondering if the minister could advise the committee approximately how many cars are fuelled by M-85.

Hon. A. Petter: As I recall, I think the member gave that information himself a few days ago, so it must be another one of those rhetorical questions he likes to ask in the House. The information I have is: something in the range of 25 to 50.

[ Page 3076 ]

F. Gingell: The minister will now be well primed for the third question, which is, of course, dealing with the fuel E-85, which this government has so generously carried on with. The exemption for E-85 continues; provision was especially put in this act. Perhaps the minister could advise the committee how many vehicles in the province are fuelled by E-85.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate that the member seems to be making the point that one of the critical reasons for extending exemptions for certain fuels, as this legislation does, is to encourage more vehicles to utilize those fuels. Once one has an infrastructure in place and conversion has taken place, then the rationale for the exemption gets called into question. The information I have from staff is that the figure of 25 to 50 -- I apologize to the member -- was intended to include both of those fuels, not just the one.

F. Gingell: To include both of them, I think the number is more like 25. I believe that the number is around 25 vehicles for M-85, and I know what the answer is for E-85: it is one vehicle in the province. Now, this provision has been in place for either five years or ten years, and we have one vehicle. We have 24 vehicles that are fuelled by methanol.

All of these provisions were originally put in because this government and the government before were committed to cleaning up the environment, concerned about the issue of greenhouse gases and concerned that we do not create in British Columbia -- and in the Fraser Valley, particularly, because it has the geography that lends itself to the problem -- another Los Angeles. This government is cancelling the exemption for 35,000 vehicles and continuing it for 25 vehicles. So we can basically state, without fear of contradiction, that the commitment of this government to the environment and to meeting Canada's commitments to reduce greenhouse gases is finished -- no longer on, ended. I would be most interested in the response of the minister to the accusation that I make.

Hon. A. Petter: The member always throws these tempting challenges at me. I do want to just come back to the basic point, and then I'll probably rise to the challenge. But I just want to preserve the context of this debate.

Without this legislation, not only would the propane be subject to social service tax, but so would the other two fuels that the member has specified. Without this legislation, and this particular section 18, the rate of propane in reference to coloured fuels would result in those who are eligible for coloured fuels paying a higher rate for propane than they would otherwise pay. So this particular legislation is entirely on the benefit side in terms of providing exemption or reduction in terms of tax that is imposed through other legislation.

Now, having said that, let me just stray a little bit to answer the member's question. As I understand it, the exemption on propane was introduced in order to recognize that propane might have environmental advantages as a fuel and also, principally, to provide an opportunity for investments to be made to provide the necessary distribution network and infrastructure to provide access to propane. Certainly, as the member's own inquiries have shown, that infrastructure is now manifestly there in the form of a service network that services 35,000 vehicles. The other legislation, which has now come into effect, does impose a social service tax on propane. But the tax rate, by virtue of that legislation -- which we're not debating here -- is still one-quarter, on an energy-equivalent basis, of the tax on other motor fuels -- gasoline, in particular, and other non-exempt motor fuels.

As a result of that legislation, B.C. ends up with 2.2 cents a litre on propane, which places it at the very low end -- in fact, the lowest end -- of provinces. Alberta, our neighbouring jurisdiction, taxes propane at the same rate as gasoline. In fact, the only other province I know of that taxes propane at as low a rate is Quebec, at 2.2 cents a litre. So if we were debating that other legislation -- which we aren't, but we can certainly debate the issue in estimates -- my answer would be that this government's policy well reflects an environmental preference for propane, which has a three-quarters advantage over other fuels in terms of taxation.

I would also point out that the experience in other provinces is that the imposition of a tax, certainly at this level, tends to be a cost that does not find its way to the consumers so much as it gets absorbed within the distribution network. To put it another way, the exemptions, when provided, tend to add to the profits of the distributors, not benefit the consumers.

F. Gingell: I didn't know the minister had such an in-depth knowledge of that that he could stand up and make a definitive statement that the lack of tax adds to the profit of distributors rather than to the benefit of consumers. I think the minister, with due respect, is talking nonsense. I don't think the minister understands. His life in the universities has not. . . .

Interjection.

F. Gingell: No, that is true. That's absolutely true. This is nonsense. There is a 35,000-vehicle market for propane. There is a one-million-vehicle market for gasoline. Of course the cost structures are going to be different. Of course the need to absorb the costs of distribution are going to be different. There's just no question about that.

I was wondering, just as a matter of information, if the minister can advise the committee, from his briefing notes, of an approximate breakdown of the 35,000 vehicles between Vancouver Island, the lower mainland, the interior, the north and the southeast of the province. If you have those numbers, that would be helpful.

[4:30]

But just to add a little to what I said, the indications that I gave were not provided by myself but were provided through examination by staff and others on the experiences of other provinces. If you look at other provinces, most of whom charge either full fuel tax on propane or a much higher rate than is being charged, or will be charged, in this province, the price differential between propane and other fuels is about the same as has been the case in this province with an exemption. This tends to suggest that the benefit of the exemption is not being passed through to the consumer.

In any event, the fundamental point remains the same: there is a huge tax advantage that remains in this province for propane. It doesn't relate to this legislation; it relates to other legislation that the member would like to debate and is really not before us to debate.

F. Gingell: No, please don't spend any time getting the breakdown of the number of vehicles. I can probably get a 

[ Page 3077 ]

good feel for that through my own means. I wouldn't want to require the government to have any further commitments which this minister would rule out of order.

I guess the minister would not accept an amendment proposal by me that I think would have been fairer. I think that it would have been better if the government had given some form of public notice and had said to the motoring public: "We are only going to renew the propane exemption for two more years -- if we're still in office at the end of two more years." That, at least, would have allowed people to recognize that the sun was going to set on this exemption.

I would like to suggest to the minister that it's really not appropriate to say, "Well, when it was put in in 1982, it was only for four or five years," because it got renewed then. It got renewed in '87; it got renewed in 1992. I don't remember -- and I'd be pleased to be corrected if such is the case -- that any notification has been given by the provincial government to the motoring public in British Columbia that the propane tax exemption was going to be allowed to expire at the end of 1997.

It's something like the discussions on municipal grants that we've just spent a few moments on. It's that these things suddenly come out of the blue. With municipal grants, they were told in 1995 that there would be certainty. In 1997, they're all of a sudden gone without notice. It seems to me that this is somewhat similar. It would be nice to have given us the two years. . . . Maybe there is. . . .

Hon. A. Petter: I'm happy to respond to this point, albeit we're again sort of straying from this legislation. But to clarify this matter, maybe we should allow ourselves a little bit of leeway -- if the Chair will allow us that.

In fact, there has been knowledge -- certainly within the industry initially, but also amongst the motoring public for some time -- that because of the expiry of this other legislative provision, the government was looking at and reviewing the exemptions generally. In fact, a news release was put out on December 13, one that announced the exemption would continue for the two alternative fuels. That news release said: "Government is also reviewing the exemption of auto propane. Submissions from interested parties will be accepted until January 15. A decision is expected in early February."

Furthermore, even when we announced our decision on propane, we deferred the imposition on propane under other legislation for two months to allow people to have notice. I guess the evidence that there's been a good discussion. . . . I can quote for the member from an article of March 13 in the Times Colonist. It's from Mike Jeggo, president of the Capital Region Taxi Owners Association and general manager of BlueBird Cabs. Here's what the Times Colonist wrote:

". . .last year, when the government started talking about removing the tax exemption on propane, it was" -- according to Jeggo -- "talking 8 to 12 cents a litre. With propane up at 49 cents a litre during the winter, a tax that high would have made it uneconomical to convert vehicles to burn the alternative fuels, said Jeggo. Now that propane is back to about 29 cents a litre, a 2.2-cent tax doesn't look too horrendous, he said. 'I think that's a pretty fair deal, actually,' said Jeggo."

F. Gingell: I believe the date of that news release was December 1996. The subsequent stuff was in February '97. I'm not talking about four months' notice. I'm talking about all of the people who have been buying and converting vehicles in the last couple of years. That two years. . . . If the government intended to allow this exemption to die, it would only have been fair to have given notice two years ago, so that there wouldn't be people who had done vehicle conversions in 1995 and 1996.

Yes, I appreciate that by making it taxable under the Social Service Tax Act, rather than under the Fuel Oil Tax Act, the taxes are substantially lower. That's good, and I'm pleased that the minister saw fit to do that. But it really does seem to me that we're arguing about cutting off one finger or five fingers. I think it would have been appropriate, really, to have given good notice, so that people could have planned properly. I know that if I had done a conversion of my vehicle to propane in mid-1996, I would feel that I had been treated most unfairly.

It is important for government to have the citizens feel that they are being treated fairly, so that we discourage them from rushing across the border and filling their cars up south of the border, and all those things. My issue isn't the amount that they're taxed; my issue is the lack of notice and any amount of tax.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me take one final run at this. It may not satisfy the member -- whose job it is not to be satisfied, as an opposition member must not be -- but it will add a little information. In 1992, when this legislation was reintroduced -- not the legislation we're debating, but this other legislation that we're not debating but are talking elliptically about -- it was the first time that a sunset provision was introduced, as I understand it. That surely put everyone on notice, users and distributors alike, that this was an exemption that was going to come to an end -- or at least was likely to come to an end. So in respect of earlier notice, I think the legislation itself sent that signal.

Beyond that, the decision to give some months' notice here was, I think, designed to provide fair warning. As the member knows, very often tax decisions are sprung on people without any notice. Sometimes it's desirable to do that out of fairness so that there is no advantage-taking. But here it was felt that some notice that government was contemplating this provision was in order, and it was provided.

At the end of the day, the tax imposed is still the lowest in Canada. It still is one quarter the tax, on an energy-equivalent basis, that is imposed on other motor fuels. In terms of those who invested, the payback period for conversions, as a result of this adjustment, is extended by something like three or four months on the current 30 months. It's not a huge additional burden. It doesn't change the basic structure that propane is an advantaged fuel from a tax point of view, that conversions are paid back over time through the tax advantage. Notice was given in the initial legislation some four or five years ago. It was renewed in a more specific way prior to the end of the last calendar year. The decision that was made is one that continues to treat propane in a highly preferable way and recognizes that conversions are ones that should pay for themselves through the payback that is achieved at the pump. All of that remains in place.

[ Page 3078 ]

Now, the member must not be satisfied with that, or he would lose his critic's responsibility. But I think it measures up pretty well to the test of fairness by any other reasonable standard.

F. Gingell: Perhaps I should think about this from a Finance critic's viewpoint and ask the minister exactly how much additional tax this government anticipates to raise by this 2.2-cent-a-litre tax that now will be exigent but wasn't previously.

Hon. A. Petter: It would raise about $8 million on an annual basis. Because the first two months of the year was a period in which the tax had been delayed under other legislation, the amount will be something in the range of $7 million.

F. Gingell: So the amount of additional taxes that this government promised that they were not going to raise from any source -- no new taxes. . . . I know what the minister is going to say: this is not a new tax; it's just a tax that was there but no one was collecting it. It was an old tax that we'd never had before that's suddenly come back to life and is going to raise about $8 million.

Moving along, there have been some discussions during the past five years about whether or not British Columbia would follow the example of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the federal government in bringing in any exemptions that deal with ethanol-blend fuels, with ethanol either at 10 percent or 5 percent. I used not to have to bring these subjects up because we had a member from Chilliwack -- who's no longer a member of this House -- who made it a personal crusade. As the minister knows, there are very substantial environmental advantages to ethanol-blended fuels; Mother Nature told me that. I'm wondering whether this provincial government is planning on following the example of the federal government, the prairie provinces and Ontario.

Hon. A. Petter: I know the member has had this debate in the past, and I'm afraid my answer is going to rather track that of previous ministers. No, B.C. has not considered providing tax relief for gasohol blends containing 10 percent alcohol, either methanol or ethanol. That's for a number of reasons.

First of all, part of the reason for the tax exemption is to cover the cost of conversion and the cost of an extraordinary infrastructure required for a distribution network associated with environmentally preferable fuels. Neither of those two features apply in the case of the blends that the member is referring to. They can be carried through existing infrastructure at the pump, and they can also be burned in cars without conversion. So they are not considered for those two reasons.

In addition, there is some debate around just how much additional environmental benefit they in fact offer, because I take it there are offsetting features to these fuels in terms of their atmospheric effects in the way they are pumped, etc., that call into question whether the environmental benefits, even if one were looking beyond the factors I've just indicated, are sufficiently great to justify recognition through tax relief.

F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, my last statement on this. I'd be happy to finish my portion of this with what the minister often says to me: I would be most happy to arrange a briefing of the minister on this issue.

K. Krueger: I hear a great deal from constituents about this propane taxation issue. I tell you very honestly that this has really crystallized in the minds of my constituents the offence they take at government continually saying one thing and doing another. People feel betrayed by this.

[4:45]

It was a brutal thing to do, of course, and it's an extreme example. But people feel betrayed when they are encouraged to trust someone, to trust a government, and then find out that they can't. Frankly, people feel that they were led down the garden path by the provincial government -- not just the government of this day, but governments of the past. They certainly didn't expect, when they went to the expense of converting their vehicles to propane, that this sort of thing would ever happen -- that the rug would be pulled out from under them and they would end up feeling foolish that they had spent the money on changing the vehicle.

Frankly, it is a little more troublesome to fuel up a propane-powered vehicle than a gasoline-powered vehicle. It takes more time at the pumps. Often the customer has to wait a little longer because the other fuels have a higher profit margin, presumably, and the attendants often deal with them first. But at any rate, people decided to do those things, and they believed -- and still do, and so do I -- that it was an environmentally wise and environmentally conscious decision to make, and they really feel betrayed by this.

I have heard the minister's arguments that it's really other legislation he feels we're talking about, but I agree with the member for Delta South that that is more or less a reversal of the minister's backdoor discussions that took place earlier. It would be easy to continue to extend the tax exemption on auto fuel propane, just as the exemption is being extended for the other fuels. People will feel, and already feel, that this is a major example to them of a government double-dealing and reneging, going back on its word, double-crossing them, saying one thing and doing another, and being unreliable and untrustworthy.

So I have to speak again on this issue on behalf of the people I represent. Even by the Finance minister's own numbers, if it's 35,000 cars, if it's $8 million that the government expects to enjoy as additional revenue, that works out to $229 a year per vehicle. I've seen calculations of $500 per year per vehicle. But whatever it is, there are a lot of people who voted NDP in the last election believing that this government would be faithful in its commitment not to nail them with further taxes.

We've been speaking in this same debate on this same bill about the taxes people are going to have to pay municipally because of the changes to unconditional grants and transfers to local governments. Taxpayers feel they're getting it in the ear in that area, and the taxpayers who are using propane certainly feel that in this area as well. They're asking me what they did it for. Why did they go to that major expense? They feel that they did it for nothing, that they've been sabotaged, that they've been tricked.

[ Page 3079 ]

And people in the industry are very concerned, because the competitiveness of their product, of course, is being altered. They're concerned about their business, about whether customers will switch away. Apparently conversions are tapering off dramatically, because people realize this is probably the thin edge of the wedge. In any event, the attractiveness of the option is gone. So this is viewed by my constituents and many constituents -- I've seen letters from all over the province -- as a betrayal by government.

When we get to the next section, section 19, I'll be proposing an amendment which I hope the Finance minister will seriously consider. We'll get to that, obviously, very shortly. But I do feel it's incumbent upon this government to consider these arguments, to consider the protests of the many people who have written about this issue -- and the letters have been forwarded to cabinet and to this minister. I'd very much like to see propane included in the ongoing exemptions.

Hon. A. Petter: Very briefly, and not to restate too much what I've already said, the only change of direction represented in this legislation is to continue an exemption that five years ago the Legislature decided would terminate with respect to three fuels. This legislation continues that exemption for two fuels. So if the member is concerned about changes of direction, I suppose he should be arguing against a continued exemption for ethanol and methanol. Anyone who fairly assessed the legislation that was passed five years ago would have known that the intention of that legislation was to impose a tax under the Social Service Tax Act on those three fuels five years hence. There's been no change in government policy. What has occurred, at least with respect to propane. . . . Where the change in government policy has occurred is in the decision to continue the exemption for ethanol and methanol and -- through order, I suppose -- to defer the imposition of the propane tax for two further months, in order to provide some opportunity for people to prepare themselves for it. This follows a consultation process that I've already referred to.

I think that if the member were to explain all of that to his constituents, their reaction would be much as the one I've already quoted from the president of the Capital Region Taxi Owners Association, who suggested that it's a pretty fair deal. No other province provides an exemption for propane. Five years ago this province decided that it wouldn't provide an exemption for propane five years hence. Five years have now come. This government has done nothing to change that direction.

What we have done, though, is to rethink the direction with respect to methanol and ethanol, and continue an exemption in that regard, and to provide an additional two months for propane to allow people to prepare themselves for a tax which will be the lowest in the country. It is still a huge advantage over other motor fuels, so no one needs to feel they've been hoodwinked or betrayed. What's happened here is that legislation has been carried out exactly as it was contemplated. The advantage of being a propane user continues, and the advantage of being a propane user in B.C. is manifestly greater than in any other province in the country, save Quebec.

C. Clark: I'd like to address the issue of the failure to continue to exempt propane from this tax, as well. I think it's a little disingenuous for the minister to suggest that this legislation doesn't deal with that, because clearly it does. It expressly fails to continue that exemption for propane, but it reinstates the exemption for the other two types of alternative fuels.

The reason this is of particular concern to me is not just because I represent a whole number of people who have written to me and made presentations to me with their concern about this tax, but also as the Environment critic. We have a great deal of concern about our ability in this province to live up to the commitments that this government has made with regard to air quality. The minister would have to admit, I'm sure, that any new tax on alternative, cleaner-burning fuels will certainly provide something of a disincentive to people to use those fuels. Any new tax is going to have that effect.

It's not up to me or my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson to go to our constituents and tell them why the government is introducing this new tax and why it's good, as the minister suggests. It's our job to stand up and hold the government to its promises that it made with regard to keeping our air clean -- in regard to living up to its commitments.

The government produced this nice, flashy British Columbia greenhouse gas action plan a year and a half ago. I know that the minister who produced it is no longer in cabinet, but from his words, I understand that he still has a great deal of influence on what happens in the government. So I have to assume that he might have expressed some disappointment about this new tax, as well.

In it, it talks a great deal about how one of the primary ways in which the government will try to reduce greenhouse gases in British Columbia -- will try and live up to its commitment -- is to move to alternative fuels. They talk, for example, about the provincial government fleet being converted to alternative, cleaner-burning fuels. It refers to the amount of money that companies can save by going to these fuels because there's a lower tax rate on them. It talks about a huge company, United Parcel Service, which saved a million dollars over a year and a half to two years by converting to this. I suggest that if those savings aren't there, whether it's for a huge company like UPS or a small construction company that has a couple of vans that have been converted in its fleet, that's going to have an impact. It's going to have an impact on their bottom line, and it's going to have an impact on their costs. Companies aren't going to be as likely to convert to alternative fuels.

For example, from doing some quick call-arounds, I know that the number of conversions to propane that are being done in the lower mainland has fallen dramatically in the wake of the government's announcement. You can phone any number of the conversion places in the lower mainland, and you'll find that it's dropped anywhere from about 20 percent to, in some cases, 80 percent. In light of that fact, I'd suggest that the minister should be cognizant that the number of people who are going to convert to propane is dropping because of the fact that this tax has increased. Nothing else has changed a great deal over the last month, except for the fact that the government has announced that it's going to be adding a new tax to propane. That's why conversions are falling.

I wonder if the minister could tell us if his ministry has done any analysis on the tax -- if they have included in their expectations of revenue from this new tax what factor it's being reduced by the fact that they expect that the number of conversions that are done and the number of people using propane will be dramatically decreased as a result of it.

Hon. A. Petter: I suggest to the member that last winter the market price of propane went up significantly -- almost 50 cents a litre. At the same time, the government was undertaking a consultation period. I think there was a fair degree of 

[ Page 3080 ]

pressure at the pump, if I could put it that way, based on the fear that the imposition of tax on propane would be equivalent to that on gasoline. Since then, the price of propane has dropped back down to its more conventional levels, around 29 to 30 cents a litre.

The government has clarified that its intention is not to change the legislation but to allow the legislation passed five years ago to take effect, which means that B.C. will have the lowest tax on propane of any jurisdiction in the country. Propane will enjoy a tax advantage over all other fuels, save ethanol and methanol. That is significant. Therefore I expect that once that information finds its way through to the pump and people get some security around the pricing structure of propane in the marketplace, we will see conversions increase as a result, because there is still a significant advantage to people in terms of tax and price for propane.

C. Clark: I should tell the minister that I didn't. . . . This was an informal survey of a number of different propane conversion shops, and I should tell him that this. . . . I didn't do this sort of phone survey in December when the price of propane was high. I did it a few weeks after the announcement was made. So clearly, the imposition of the tax as it was announced, not as it was expected to be announced, has had a real impact on propane conversions. That's obvious for anyone who wants to bother doing the research. It's obvious to anyone who wants to bother picking up the phone and doing the calls.

The fact is that this government's record on air quality -- on meeting their targets for air quality in British Columbia -- is terrible. By the former Minister of Environment's own admission, we are already at least 15 percent behind the targets that the government has set for itself. And remember that the government has been expecting to meet those commitments by the year 2000. Well, that's less than three years away, and they're already 15 percent behind their targets. The government is cycling backward. It doesn't appear to me that the government is interested in doing very much to clean up our air quality, particularly in the lower mainland.

[5:00]

I think my colleague from Delta South pointed out very well the fact that while the government is continuing the exemption for two fuels -- and getting rid of it for one fuel -- those two fuels for which it will be extending or renewing the exemption amount to about 35 cars in British Columbia while the one that they're not continuing to exempt represents 35,000 cars in British Columbia. Now, that's a big revenue source for government. The minister says he's going to be taking in $8 million more in new revenue. I would suggest to the minister that the added costs in our environmental deficit and in the health deficit and those social costs of having dirty air and higher greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia are going to be much greater.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

The trade-off that he is making is a bad one. It is wrong to sacrifice our air quality so that the government can have more revenue to cover up its deficit problems. That's just wrong. Those aren't the kinds of trade-offs that British Columbians expect their government to make. British Columbians expect the government to live up to its commitments with regard to the environment, to ensure that the air that we breathe is breathable and that next summer there are fewer days when people are advised not to leave their homes because the air quality is so bad in the Fraser Valley. Those are the commitments people expect the government to make, not trading off our clean air standards -- or cleaner air standards -- to meet its revenue projections, whatever those might be on any given day. I know they change on a regular basis.

I wonder what consultations the Minister of Finance has undertaken with his colleague from the Ministry of Environment on this issue and what outcome those consultations might have had in terms of the trade-off that he's making here.

Hon. A. Petter: Again, we're really dealing with legislation other than this legislation. There were extensive consultations. I've already referred the previous member to the news release that invited those consultations.

I remind the member that, far from changing direction in respect to propane, all this government did was allow legislation that was previously announced to take its effect. That legislation was designed to provide a benefit to the propane industry to assist in conversions and, yes, to provide an incentive for consumers to go to propane. The industry has put in place an infrastructure. The need to continue a full exemption therefore is no longer there, as was originally announced five years ago.

But there's still a huge advantage for propane from a tax point of view, which recognizes that it is regarded as an environmentally preferable fuel -- although, I'll be frank with the member, some of the conversions that have taken place in this province have caused some doubts as to how successful propane conversions have in fact been in achieving environmental benefits. There has been some uneven experience, let us say, and I think that's reflected in some of the AirCare testing.

The bottom line is this: this province provides a bigger tax break for propane users -- even after this legislation of five years ago comes into force a month or so hence -- than any other province, save Quebec. I think that answers the member's questions. Also, the exemption that was originally provided was provided with the goal of assisting the propane industry in getting some infrastructure in place, which is now to a large extent in place. Therefore, to provide that continued subsidy for infrastructure is not warranted to the same extent that it was five years ago, which is why the Legislature five years ago -- not today, but five years ago -- said that this was an exemption that should terminate after five years. And indeed it has.

C. Clark: Well, I think it's incumbent on the minister to recognize that with two exemptions already having been renewed. . . . The legislation, as he mentioned, was introduced in 1982. The exemption was continued in 1987 and then it was continued again in 1992. I think it would be fair for the minister to admit that there's a reasonable expectation that that exemption might continue.

Interjection.

C. Clark: Well, I think it's fair for people to assume, too, that with the government out promoting its greenhouse gas 

[ Page 3081 ]

action plan -- telling people that it was intending to convert its fleet to propane, as well; that it was a big money saver and promoting it as a money saver -- the government was going to make a commitment to carry it on.

You know, I think it would only be fair for the minister to admit that introducing this tax, or allowing this tax to be applied to this fuel, is going to depress demand for the fuel. It's going to depress demand for conversions. There's no question about that. Otherwise why would they have put the exemption in in the first place? That would fair for the minister to admit; that would be really being frank and coming clean on it.

I didn't hear the minister telling the committee that there were any consultations with the Minister of Environment, so I have to assume that there weren't. And I didn't hear the minister say that there was any analysis of how much this might decrease demand for conversions, so I have to assume that, again, there wasn't.

I would ask the minister, then: has there been any analysis of the impact that this might have on jobs? Propane is a. . . . As my colleague from Peace River already pointed out in second reading of this bill, this is a made-in-B.C. industry. This is an industry that provides overall revenue for the government. By depressing demand for it, by depressing demand for a B.C. industry and consumption of this B.C.-produced product, surely that will have a jobs impact. I know the Premier likes to talk all the time about how much he's concerned about jobs. We rarely see that translated into action, because we see B.C. hemorrhaging jobs to Alberta. I wonder, then: is the Minister of Finance at least taking some of this job commitment seriously and doing some analysis of what the impact that this exemption, or the failure to renew this exemption, will have on jobs in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm waiting for the member to stand up and congratulate this government for extending an exemption on methanol and ethanol through this legislation that was not intended to be extended under previous legislation, because that's all this legislation really does.

Insofar as the environmental impacts are concerned, yes, there were discussions with the Ministry of Environment. And the Ministry of Environment's point of view is that methanol and ethanol, from an environmental point of view, are preferable fuels to propane. Nevertheless, there is recognition that the continued encouragement of propane, which takes place because it is subject to the social services tax rather than the motor fuel tax, is a desirable social policy. But it's more desirable to provide a further incentive for investment to take place in the infrastructure to provide methanol and ethanol -- so that we don't just have 25 to 50 cars on methanol and ethanol, and we start to see the same kind of numbers in that sector. If that takes place, then we'll see many, many more jobs, which seems to be the member's concern.

So if you're really concerned about the environment, hon. member, instead of continuing to provide the full subsidy to propane -- which doesn't need it, because the infrastructure is now in place for propane -- the next step is to provide a greater subsidy for methanol and ethanol so people will start to consider conversions in that area who previously have not, and the infrastructure to provide methanol and ethanol and the associated jobs there will now be provided. If the member was really concerned about promoting environmental values and jobs, that's what she would be supporting. And instead of criticizing the Legislature of five years ago for having its tax exemption terminate, she would be congratulating this government for having the foresight to come in and change direction by continuing exemptions for methanol and ethanol. I'm sure that's what she really believes, but like all other members of the opposition, they are forced by some mysterious force to be negative when they really want to be positive.

C. Clark: Well, with that rhetorical flourish. . . . Boy, I'm almost shy to respond to something so theatrical.

I just want to recap the minister's logic on this, which appears to be that we want to get people to stop using gasoline and start using alternative fuels, and the way we're going to achieve that is by reducing taxes on alternative fuels and having them at a lower rate. So the minister's solution is to say: "Well, we started doing that; we've got 35,000 cars on propane. But we have too many cars on propane now. So we want to depress the use of propane so that we can increase the use of the other alternative fuels -- on which only 35 cars operate in British Columbia." That appears to be the minister's logic.

I suggest, too, that implicit in that logic is the idea that by raising the tax on propane, you are certainly going to depress the use. On that point, I certainly agree with the minister. That is exactly what this legislation is going to do: it is going to mean that fewer people use propane in British Columbia. It's going to mean that more people are using dirty fuels. If there isn't a big advantage to using propane, people will continue to use gas. People will continue to use gasoline and will continue to foul the environment.

I want to just finish by recapping again my belief that this government really does need to make a commitment to improving air quality in British Columbia. They have really done a pathetic job on that front. Its impact on global climate change. . . . In British Columbia, we produce a disproportionate per capita amount of greenhouse gases on a global basis, and that is disgraceful. And it's not getting better; it's getting worse. This government has failed consistently to live up to any of its commitments on air quality. We know that air quality and global climate change have a huge impact not just on the air that we breathe but on the quantity of fish that exist in our oceans. Climate change has a. . . .

I see some of the ministers over there looking in surprise, but that's a well-known fact. Climate change has an impact on the fishery. It has an impact on the air that we breathe. It has an impact on almost all of the aspects of our daily lives. So for the government to be rolling back, stepping away from its commitment to cleaning up our air is a real disgrace.

It's another broken promise from this government, particularly in an area where British Columbians previously had some degree of confidence in this government. Of course, we know that they don't anymore. We know that British Columbians don't believe that this government can do a budget. We know that British Columbians don't believe anymore that this government cares about protecting education. We know that British Columbians don't believe that this government has a commitment to protecting health care. And we know now, and British Columbians know, that this government doesn't have a commitment to protecting our environment, either. This legislation really exemplifies this government's lack of commitment there.

I ask the minister to make a commitment to include propane in the tax exemption in this legislation, because it only makes sense to encourage people to go to alternative fuels. It only makes sense to encourage people to live their lives and produce less pollution so that we can live up to our 

[ Page 3082 ]

commitments that we made on an international basis. I ask the minister to consider making that change to the legislation. It is not right for him to consider sacrificing the quality of our air and sacrificing the commitments that this government made internationally to clean up our act with air quality in exchange for the $8 million that he needs to cover his budget shortfall that he promised British Columbians wasn't there.

My colleague from Delta South points out that it's not enough. But as we know, this government appears to believe that every little bit counts. It doesn't matter where they get it, they're going to try to find it somewhere. The long-term effects aren't something that this government is taking into account. There is no long-term planning in any of this government's ideas for revenue collection. What we're talking about here is too great a sacrifice.

I ask the minister to consider my suggestions for changing this legislation and to consider living up to the commitments that he and this government made during the election.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll try this one last time. The member is in deep denial. But perhaps, on reflection, she will consider the substance of what I have to say and get out of her oppositional mind-set.

The decision to phase out tax exemptions on propane and other fuels was taken five years ago by this Legislature. It was taken because it was felt that a five-year exemption would provide an opportunity for the industry to invest and get its infrastructure up and running. In the case of propane, it did. In the case of ethanol-methanol, it did not. The default tax that takes place as a result of that legislation passed five years ago is still a hugely preferable rate for propane, which places this province at the forefront in terms of preferring propane over other fuels -- way ahead of other provinces, still the leader in the country.

[5:15]

R. Neufeld: I just have a few questions on the taxing of propane, and a few comments. I listened intently earlier to the minister explaining about the tax. It was your government that brought forward the legislation to eliminate the tax -- five years, and hence the time has passed. It was the administration of the now Premier, when he was Minister of Finance, that brought forward this regressive piece of legislation that removed propane from being tax-exempt.

It's absolutely ludicrous to take fuel that is not as harmful to the environment as what we generally use -- gasoline -- and start taxing it. I don't know for what purposes, other than to justify or be able to spend more money. I know you always use the term "to save health and education," but that gets a little thin after awhile, hon. minister.

The issues surrounding taxing. . . . I recall the minister saying just a little bit earlier that it was to take this tax and put it back into infrastructure. Is that correct? Did I understand the minister to say that the tax that is going to be applied to propane will be taken and used on the infrastructure in British Columbia?

The minister shakes his head no. I would be surprised that he would say that, because as I understand the tax, you've included the sales tax. It's a 7 percent sales tax.

Did the minister think about the costs that would be incurred by many school districts? When he talked about saving health and education, did he think much about what it would do to increase the operating costs for school buses in the province, specifically in my constituency? I mean, maybe you don't have school buses down here; I don't know. I guess you have a good transit system; I'm not exactly sure. But we have quite a fleet of school buses in both school districts to move children to school -- long distances and in cold weather. It increases the cost dramatically. In fact, I'm told that in one school district alone it's close to $50,000 a year.

Now, did the minister contemplate when he was thinking about saving health and education, what that kind of an increase was going to do to those people that had to try and live within their budgets or have their budgets cut back by the Minister of Education, who said: "Just tighten your belts. Let's see how you can operate a little bit better"? Was that taken into account at all?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, in the decision that was made to extend exemptions for methanol and ethanol, certainly all these issues were considered. The evidence suggested that if you looked at the price differential amongst provinces -- say Alberta, our neighbouring province, for example, which taxes propane at the same rate as gasoline. . . . What the evidence tended to suggest was that the exemption was being captured by the distributors in the industry and not being passed through to consumers. Now, that made some sense if the purpose of the exemption was to do. . . . This is where I think the member was confused, hon. Chair. The purpose of the exemption -- not of the tax, but the exemption -- was to enable those distributors to capture that value and invest it in putting a distribution network in place. That's why the tax exemption was provided, and over the past number of years there has been a distribution network put in place with the benefit of that exemption.

That's one of the reasons why five years ago, foreseeing that this distribution network would be in place and that the benefit captured by the distributors was being put into that, the decision was taken by this Legislature to have the exemption sunsetted. So that's the point. Yes, the consideration was given. But the anticipation is that the benefit that is being extended under this legislation to methanol and ethanol will probably not be seen by consumers so much as it will be seen by distributors, who will now have the opportunity with those two alternative fuels to do what propane distributors did in the past -- and that's to invest in the same infrastructure.

I don't expect that there is going to be any major change in the price for propane at the pump. What I do foresee is that there will be less of a subsidy captured by distributors. That's appropriate, because those distributors use that subsidy appropriately to invest in creating an infrastructure and a network for distribution of propane, which are now in place and therefore no longer require a 100 percent subsidy.

As I've already pointed out, compared to other provinces, this province will continue to treat propane in a very preferable way -- much more so than Alberta, much more so than virtually every other province, save Quebec, which is the only province besides British Columbia to tax propane at this hugely advantageous rate. Methanol and ethanol, thanks to legislation being introduced today -- not the other legislation 

[ Page 3083 ]

that people want to debate apparently -- will enjoy a full exemption, which will enable the distributors who can now come forward to capture that benefit and invest in a distribution network.

R. Neufeld: The minister totally evaded the question. I am not talking about methanol and ethanol. I'm talking about propane. I'm talking about propane-powered school buses. Did the minister give any consideration to the increased costs that were going to be incurred by school districts with the application. . . ? The minister shakes his head that there will be no increased cost. I mean, really, a 7 percent increase. That's exactly what you've applied to the cost of propane. The pump price will go up by 7 percent. He shakes his head. And that's. . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Well, then, you don't understand your own legislation. That's what your policy puts forward, and that's what you say in your legislation: that you are going to apply the 7 percent sales tax to propane.

Did the minister give any consideration. . . ? I don't want to talk about ethanol and methanol. I'm talking about propane. In removing the taxation exemption on propane, did the minister give any consideration to the costs that would be incurred by many school districts in powering their buses?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not going to go too far down this line of inquiry, hon. Chair, because it takes us to other legislation, not to the legislation before us. But I'll make the point again one last time for the member.

The evidence suggests that in provinces that impose an equivalent tax on propane and some other fuels, versus provinces that provide a subsidy or a complete exemption, the price differentials at the pump do not reflect that difference. This suggests that where tax breaks are provided, those tax breaks are absorbed in the profits of the distributors, not passed through to consumers. That may make sense and be good public policy when you want that tax advantage to be used by distributors in order to do something, which is what the Legislature in the past wanted distributors to do in this province -- that is, to take that tax advantage and invest it in a distribution network.

What I'm suggesting is that by imposing the tax, what one is doing is taking away the opportunity for the wholesalers and distributors to increase their profits. More than one is passing through the cost to the consumer. That's what the analysis tends to suggest when one does comparisons of the at-pump differential versus the tax differentials across this country. The assumption the member makes that ending an exemption or a partial exemption is going to mean a price increase passed on to the consumer is just not borne out by the evidence.

Secondly, the effect of this other legislation, which we're not debating today, is to introduce a tax on propane, a social services tax which is way below that in most other provinces. That's why -- and I'll read the quote again -- representatives of the Capital Region Taxi Owners Association say that this is "a pretty fair deal," and I think they're right.

J. Weisgerber: Well, I certainly am intrigued by some of the conclusions the Minister of Finance appears to have come to. Let me say, first of all, that I think many consumers. . . . The traditional NDP tactic of floating a trial balloon around the elimination of any tax preference on propane and then coming in with a lower tax appears to have worked again. I assume we'll see it used in future, because the effect has been that many consumers of propane were somewhat relieved to find that the tax being introduced on propane would only be roughly 2.2 cents a litre, when the minister himself had made it pretty clear that they were thinking somewhere in the range of 5 cents to 10 cents a litre. So my congratulations to the minister. The old switch-and-bait theory worked again, and until British Columbians become a bit more sophisticated in this area, I expect the government will continue to use the strategy.

Having said that, and having recognized that the consumers -- the vast majority of whom live in the northeast part of British Columbia, by the way. . . . The minister looks up somewhat surprised, but the reality is that a high percentage of consumers are in the northeast where fuel prices are high, where distances travelled are significant and where propane has been traditionally less expensive than in other parts of British Columbia. That's where the majority of individual conversions have taken place. The fleet conversions have taken place primarily among taxicab operators, and I know that the minister and his government are much more attuned to some of those taxicab operator groups, as was reflected in the Motor Carrier Commission hearings, than they appear to be attuned to the concerns of consumers.

Mr. Chair, individual consumers were, in fact, relieved to see a relatively smaller-than-announced tax increase on propane, but to suggest for a minute that distributors, wholesalers and suppliers had somehow captured this tax relief and turned it into infrastructure is outrageous. It's absolutely one of the most outrageous statements I've ever heard. Propane is not an expensive fuel to distribute.

Natural gas, on the other hand, is incredibly expensive to pump, to store and to distribute. But to suggest that putting in a very modest and inexpensive propane tank and a pump and having that propane delivered to that tank in exactly the same way that gasoline is delivered to a retailer's pump requires some substantial infrastructure, and that with this great wisdom, government and the distributors of propane colluded in order to provide that infrastructure, is absolutely outrageous. There's just no basis in fact. When one looks at the evidence, there is just nothing there, other than the minister's wishful thinking, for believing that this might have happened.

I have to ask myself: if these distributors and wholesalers were capturing the full tax on propane, does that mean that they continue to capture 6 or 7 cents a litre? Is that what the minister believes? The minister has auditors. The minister has significant background and resources available to him in the Ministry of Finance. What possible evidence, other than pump prices. . . ? I would argue that if you look in the northeast and compare those pump prices to those in the lower mainland or greater Victoria, transportation plays a far greater role in pump price than the minister wants to acknowledge. What evidence is there that the minister has to back up this outrageous theory that somehow wholesalers and distributors of propane for 15 years. . . ?

[5:30]

[ Page 3084 ]

Hon. A. Petter: The member raises a number of issues. Let me just deal with two. First of all, the tax rate that was brought in -- using the member's terms -- was exactly the default tax rate that was in the legislation passed five years ago. There was no change. If people had examined that legislation closely, they would have seen it was a sales tax rate of 2.5 cents and not the motor fuel tax rate. The evidence I cited is simply the information that I've been provided by the ministry on differentials in gasoline versus propane tax rates in various jurisdictions, some of which have very little differential, some of which. . . .

I have to correct myself. I think I said Alberta had no differential. I've been informed by staff that in fact there is a differential between gasoline and propane in Alberta. I think gasoline is taxed at 9 cents and propane at 6.5 cents, so let me correct the record on that. It's still much higher than is going to be the case in B.C. under the legislation that was passed previously.

So when differentials between gasoline and propane are looked at, the price differentials in various jurisdictions do not reflect the differential in tax treatment. They do not fully reflect it. To some extent there's some differential -- I don't want to pretend there's no impact on consumers -- but they do not fully reflect it. That suggests that the elasticity in demand -- or the lack of elasticity in demand -- is such that where tax incentives are provided, they are able to be captured by the wholesalers and distributors. That in turn provides an incentive for wholesalers and distributors to add additional outlets for propane to their distribution network. That, as I'm informed, was indeed part of the policy objective of Legislatures past.

As the distribution network became more adequate -- more extensive -- the need for that full exemption was seen to be one that was going to come to an end five years ago. So the legislation took away the exemption but defaulted to the sales tax, as opposed to the motor fuel tax, which would continue to provide a substantial preference in tax treatment to propane versus other motor fuels and would provide a relative preference in British Columbia versus other provinces, like Alberta. That's the point I'm making, and that's the evidence to which I refer.

The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member, is it not possible for us to deal with the passing of section 18? I think the discussions are revolving around sections 19 and 20?

Interjections.

F. Gingell: I said at the start of this discussion that I planned on dealing with sections 18 to 22 in one piece, because I thought that would save time. I didn't want to keep the minister away from his onerous responsibilities in other places. So that was basically the way we were working. We were working on sections 18 to 22 in one go, and at the end of this discussion anticipating a vote on all five sections.

J. Weisgerber: It's sad, it's disappointing and it's a little bit pathetic to see a minister introduce legislation -- taxation -- in an area where he so obviously doesn't understand what motivates that issue. For the benefit of the minister, I would suggest that the tax relief on propane was introduced in this House 15 years ago with an understanding that the biggest single obstacle to expanded and broadened use of propane in this province was the cost of converting vehicles. The distribution system -- the infrastructure that the minister speaks about -- is relatively simple, relatively inexpensive and will grow or shrink depending on the number of vehicles that have been converted to propane.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Indeed, the focus of tax breaks on propane was to convince British Columbia motorists to convert their vehicles to propane. For a number of years, in addition to the tax-free incentive, there was a direct grant given to those people who converted their vehicles to propane. I would suggest to the minister that the first and immediate reaction. . . .

The minister is obviously carrying on a conversation with somebody else. I won't take a lot of his time and I won't ask for a lot of his attention, but I will ask for it now.

The reality is that the first reaction by consumers to the propane thing has already been felt. The propane distributor in the northeast part of the province, one that I'm familiar with, employed a shop with seven full-time technicians converting vehicles to propane. With the threat of a tax, that dropped to two. Many other converters of propane have gone out of the business entirely as a direct result of the trial balloons floated by the minister. Propane sales for automobile use have now started to decline as a result of that drop in conversions.

So if the minister wants to promote the broader use of propane he must, first of all, understand that the challenge is not in the distribution infrastructure but in convincing individual consumers and corporate consumers -- taxi fleets, school bus fleets and others -- that there is a cost/price advantage to using propane.

I would argue that that tax break has, in fact, flowed through to consumers; it has convinced significant numbers of them to convert. This increase in taxation narrows the benefit and will make it harder to persuade people to make that choice to convert. Indeed, all of the indications in the northeast are that conversion rates are slowing and that propane consumption rates will drop. I can assure the minister that without any government interference the infrastructure supply will shrink as the numbers of consumers shrink.

So those are the key issues around taxation and propane, and if the minister believes there are unfair business practices and unfair collusion among propane suppliers or distributors -- if he believes that there's some price-fixing going on and that profit margins are unfair -- then I encourage him to act. Move in and deal with those people who are taking unfair windfall profits as a result of tax room. Don't permit that to happen. But allow consumers to take advantage of an environmentally friendly fuel that's in large supply in British Columbia.

I don't expect the minister to turn around his decision with respect to taxation. I've been here long enough to understand that that's not going to happen. I would encourage the minister to do something along the lines of what the now Premier did in 1992 -- that is, at least give some finite time frame in which he can guarantee British Columbians no further increases in propane taxes. I would be interested in knowing the minister's thoughts on that topic. Then, perhaps, I can follow along from there.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me first say that I am pleased, contrary to the member's suggestion, that I am not introducing a tax on propane. What we're doing with this legislation is preventing the introduction of a tax on methanol and ethanol. 

[ Page 3085 ]

Having said that, however, let me say to the member that yes, I understand very well that the incentive -- and the perceived incentive -- for people to convert to propane is important; support for propane is important. Indeed, that's why this government did not seek to alter the legislation which defaults not to the motor fuel tax but to the social services tax, which continues to provide a huge differential on tax to propane relative to other motor fuels and relative to other provinces.

I don't quarrel with the member that some of the tax benefit finds its way to consumers, although I'd encourage the member to look at some of the spreads. It suggests that the full advantage is not being passed through to consumers. That may have to do with just the nature of the market; I'm not suggesting that there's anything inappropriate. It may be one of the reasons, though, why distributors do encourage their customers to convert, as well.

So I don't think that the fact that we're seeing a propane tax coming in at this level, as was announced five years ago, will take away in people's minds, the advantage of propane or the disadvantage of other fuels relative to propane. I think it will continue to provide the incentive to convert. I agree with the member that government should support that process, and I will take under consideration his suggestion as to how government might do that and, in particular, how we might provide to the industry and to consumers some guidance in terms of the stability of the tax structure. I think that's a constructive suggestion, and one that is certainly worth considering.

J. Weisgerber: Given the fact that the minister hasn't given us any assurances -- although one has to be somewhat encouraged by his tone and his demeanour -- can the minister tell me, and through me, British Columbians, what steps would in fact be necessary should the government decide next year or in some future year to increase the tax on propane beyond the 7 percent sales tax -- or beyond the social services tax?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess I should have added. . . . I thought the member was aware of this: I indicated at the time that the legislation came into effect -- and in fact, at the time we decided to delay its effect by a couple of months -- that the legislation would be subject to the tax freeze and that therefore there would be no adjustment upwards in propane tax for three years. So we have the assurance of that three-year period.

I took it that the member's suggestion was that there ought to be some assurance beyond three years, and I'm prepared to consider that and take it under advisement. But the social services tax application to propane is subject to a tax freeze; it will not be subject to a tax increase for a period of three years, at minimum. If the member's belief is that a longer-term indication of government's intentions would be helpful, then I will certainly be pleased to consider that.

J. Weisgerber: Well then, let me make a pitch along that line. The average cost of converting a vehicle to propane today is somewhere between $2,000 and $3,000 -- more between $2,400 and $2,800, probably. Most consumers, when they're considering that decision, look at their annual fuel bill and at the annual savings that they can realize by way of conversion to propane and then make a reasoned decision about whether or not they will see a savings as a result of converting to propane. Most people like to calculate and see a net return or a return on their investment within a two- to three-year period.

[5:45]

In concluding my remarks, I just want to reinforce the notion that propane fuel consumed in British Columbia is in large measure a made-in-B.C. product, as is the natural gas we burn in our homes and use to heat our businesses, etc. Gasoline burned in British Columbia is in large measure imported into British Columbia; it's either imported from Alberta, refined and imported that way, or imported to B.C. as crude oil and refined here. So I think that if the minister hasn't considered that made-in-B.C. element of propane as a fuel of choice for British Columbians, perhaps he will go back to his ministry and think a bit more deeply about the implications of bringing in a tax on propane. With that, I anticipate and look forward to the minister's response.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I appreciate the member's suggestions, certainly the consideration of not only the advantages of propane from an environmental point of view but also in terms of domestic industry. The same is true of natural gas, of course, which continues to enjoy full exemption as a result of this legislation, not of the other legislation. I am mindful of and I appreciate the member's suggestions about providing a context in which people will feel some stability to make conversions. I will take that under advisement and see if some of the member's suggestions might assist me in providing some of that stability.

R. Neufeld: Maybe the minister is not aware of the price fluctuations that consumers experienced in the last year. I don't use propane, but if I remember correctly, I think the price is around 30 cents now, somewhere around that, on average, across the province. So when you use the 7 percent sales tax, it obviously comes out to about the 2.2 cents a litre that the minister had inserted in the press release. Can the minister explain -- and he states that that's fairly low -- why we would use sales tax when we know that the price of propane floats went as high as 48 cents in my constituency last winter? So the tax paid to government increases dramatically when those things happen. I wonder if the minister could just explain the rationale behind that.

Hon. A. Petter: We did discuss this a little bit earlier in the debate, or at least I referred to it a little bit earlier in the debate. There was an anomalous situation last winter in which the price of propane went up dramatically. In fact, I think that that, more than anything, is what fuelled -- pardon the pun -- the public concern around this issue. The prospect of a tax on top of that anomalous rate was obviously a contributing factor. It's not expected that that will reoccur. It had to do, as I understand it, with the conditions of supply and demand at the time.

But in answer to the member's question, if it were to reoccur and if we were in a situation in which prices were onerous, there are provisions, as I understand it, under tax statutes -- again, not under the statute we're debating today 

[ Page 3086 ]

-- to provide for remission. We are straying pretty far from the terms of the legislation before us, so I think I'll just leave it there.

R. Neufeld: Well, I'm really amazed that the minister says that this is something that may never happen again. I don't know what crystal ball the minister stares into when he starts talking about the pricing of propane on the free and open market, saying that it may not go back up again. But maybe the minister would like to give the assurance that it will not increase, and that if it does increase to that magnitude again, government will step in and do something -- say: "Look, we're going to stop the price fluctuations that are happening with propane." The minister seems fairly certain. . . .

I know this is getting off the subject a little bit, but I can tell the minister that when you're a senior in Fort St. John, you live out of town and you heat with propane and your heating bill goes from $50 a week to $100 a week -- I'm not talking a month; I'm talking per week -- because the price of propane has fluctuated a whole bunch. If the minister can assure those people that, "Hey, I don't think this will ever happen again," I'd be quite interested to see what kind of magic he would use to do that. It's absolutely ridiculous to stand up and say that the price of propane will never fluctuate that much again. That's just not true.

I want to go back to what the minister talked about -- the price of propane and what happened when your government first came in with the tax on gasoline. The tax on gasoline used to float with the price. It was on a percentage basis, so the road tax, or whatever you want to call it, changed. Every time the price of gasoline changed, that tax changed. Your government brought in legislation to stabilize that because, as I recall at the time, the Minister of Finance, now the Premier, said that there had to be some certainty put into the taxation on gasoline. You put in a percent per litre -- I believe it's ten cents a litre -- for gasoline. That was initiated. You changed the legislation so there would be some certainty.

Now, with the 7 percent sales tax, as the price of propane goes up and down, so does government's revenue. So I'd like to know the rationale of how you like certainty around the tax on gasoline but it seems to be quite all right to have a floating rate on the price of propane. I would rather that the minister put into place so-many-cents a litre on propane. If that's what you're intent on doing, then put that into place so there is also some certainty in what the tax on propane is going to be.

Maybe the minister could explain those two different rationales. Or is it because there's two different Ministers of Finance? That may be the reason.

Hon. A. Petter: We're straying pretty far from this legislation. As I say, the application of social services tax to propane was a decision made in the Legislature some five years ago in relation to the sunset provision.

Just to clarify for the member, propane is not taxed in this province and will continue to not be taxed in this province for residential use. The tax rate in this province will be the lowest in the country, tied by only one other province. Whatever this legislation does or doesn't do, clearly it is not about regulating increases in price that are due to market conditions, although in the past this government has shown that when gasoline prices have gone up, for example, we have not been afraid to step in and at least review the situation and consider action as necessary. But that's so far from the scope of this legislation as to really. . . .

I must say to the hon. member that we can debate this during estimates if he wants, but I really don't think this is something we can easily debate in the context of this bill.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that, and we can spend some time in estimates doing that.

Could the minister tell me. . . ? Earlier on, he stated that by not charging any tax, the industry had the ability to install a system -- a service station system is what I would assume he meant -- to dispense propane across the province. Could the minister tell me how much investment went into an installation such as that in the last five years? If that's what you base your rationale for now putting a 7 percent sales tax on the price of propane, you must have some information surrounding how much investment was made in propane distribution plants around the province.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't have that information at hand.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
(continued)

J. Dalton: I indicated to the minister the other day before we took the break for the weekend. . . . We did ask a few preliminary questions on the construction industry review panel, so that's where I would like to start today.

Maybe I could just give a preview, at least from my perspective, of where we would like to steer things in the committee for the next while. Off the record, hon. Chair -- not off this record, but before we started -- we agreed that workers' compensation should be something of a special topic that we could target for Wednesday.

[ Page 3087 ]

[2:45]

So with that comment, let's return to the construction industry review panel, which is an interesting read. I think it has produced some useful discussion, at least from my perspective as the critic for the opposition. I think several topics that have come out of the Kelleher-Ready report are not necessarily ones that we can get into detail on at this time, because they may be more conjecture than reality. I did ask the minister the other day, and if I recall his response, he said that there may be some follow-up to this. Maybe this, which is described as the first interim report, is only a preliminary view of things that we may or may not expect to see coming down the pipeline either as we proceed further in this session or -- who knows? -- in future sessions.

For the first part of the report. . . . I don't need, of course, to go through the report. I'm sure everyone here with an interest has looked at it, and I'm sure some people have a copy with them. There's some good background discussion of the construction industry, things which I've already indicated we're going to ask about later. I see on page 8 that training and apprenticeship is a particular topic the report writers dealt with. "Safety," on page 10, is, of course, a workers compensation issue, and the royal commission is certainly hearing chapter and verse on that subject. So with that in mind -- and some other items that members can certainly look at, if they get the opportunity -- let's look at some of the questions that I feel come out of the Kelleher-Ready report which need some further amplification.

Again, if I recall, the minister did point out to us the other day that some of the questions that may be asked or possibly directed at him in the future may in fact be future policy. Obviously, I leave that to the minister as to whether he feels comfortable dealing with something where there may or may not be legislation pending. Not to encourage the minister, but I've always found him to be accommodating, hon. Chair, and I'm sure he will be equally accommodating as we proceed.

The first thing that the report writers, Messrs. Kelleher and Ready, actually deal with as a specific issue, or possibly one that they would make a recommendation on. . . . In fact, they do so on page 15, where they make a recommendation that's under the heading "Ministry of Construction, or Construction Office." Of course, there were lots of submissions made by people as to whether there should be a separate ministry or a separate office dealing with construction labour issues. The recommendation on page 15 is that a construction industry bureau be established in the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I guess it doesn't matter where it's housed, but it matters whether it's a recommendation worthy of support or consideration. My first question is: has the ministry considered this recommendation and looked at it in any detail. And does it have potential merit as something for implementation?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. The government is considering it. The Minister of E&I is considering it, and he may have something to say about that at some point.

J. Dalton: Would I take it, then, from that response that if this were to be brought forward, it would not be brought under the umbrella of a labour relations issue but more as an Employment and Investment or business issue?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. I think that's where it would be the best fit. Also, when it comes to labour issues, there are actually several ministries that have responsibilities for issues that do have a labour aspect that ties them all together. In this particular case, for obvious reasons, I think that it really is the mandate of that ministry.

J. Dalton: I guess that response probably gives rise to -- not that we need to get into a detailed discussion now, because it's probably more philosophical perhaps than an estimates-type. . . . The question of the various ministries, and how this one in particular we're now dealing with, Labour, fits within the general structure of government. . . . It does bring to mind something that we are going to be asking the minister later, and that's the apprenticeship fit: how it fits within Skills and Training or how it fits within post-secondary issues. Obviously, Employment and Investment. . . . He's quite right. As the minister said, some of these things don't necessarily have the most convenient parking place, but they have to be parked somewhere as they are a government responsibility.

I'll take note of that response in particular. We will certainly have the opportunity to ask the Employment and Investment minister about the recommendation. The reason that it's important to at least raise it now. . . The report was prepared for the then Minister of Labour, although at that time, he was wearing the title of Skills, Training and Labour. Of course, since that time we've had various other changes to the portfolio, including Education, Skills, Training and Labour, and now we're back to Labour.

There are several subcomponents, as well. I'll just make reference to page numbers -- not that we need to deal with that here. But on pages 15 and 16, under this recommendation of a separate bureau, there are various issues that the authors of the report feel that bureau could deal with, some of which may actually become Labour ministry issues in time. At the moment we can leave that.

The next one is one that certainly causes some people an amount of interest, not necessarily concern. It's on page 16 under the heading of what the authors describe as issues that they can address immediately. The first one is the single bargaining unit for the construction industry. As noted in the report, various organizations submitted, either pro or con, that there should be a single bargaining unit. The CLRA, the Construction Labour Relations Association, is quite clearly on record as being in favour, and we've certainly heard a fair amount from that organization on this topic. The authors go on, and I just want to make sure that I get this into the record, because if we're having to debate this issue later on in another environment, then I think we had better make sure where we're all coming from.

This is a direct quote: "This proposal is, to say the least, far-reaching." Of course, the proposal they are referring to is the single bargaining unit for this industry: "It would entirely eliminate collective bargaining in the construction industry, apart from bargaining conducted by CLRA." In that context they are saying that if they accepted the CLRA model, then 

[ Page 3088 ]

that naturally would be the master agreement that would surface out of this if the recommendation was to go forward. My question -- and then maybe we could read in some other things as we proceed here -- to the minister would be this: has the ministry examined the issue, not necessarily specific to the construction industry, of single bargaining units? I guess some people will deal with it under another title. It comes out of the 1992 report that I have with me, which a former Labour minister commissioned, which deals with sectoral certification. Has the ministry examined this issue, either specific to the construction industry or, in more general terms, as a labour relations issue?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. It is being examined in the context of construction but not in a more general context.

J. Dalton: Then I guess at that point we have to start trying to interpret words and what we might read into that, so let me pursue this just for a little bit.

If the ministry, I gather from his response, is examining this issue within the context of the Kelleher-Ready report -- therefore specific to the single bargaining unit for the construction industry -- is the ministry prepared for or has it heard from the various component parts such as the CLRA, such as the ones who are on record on the same page 16 as being opposed to this: ICBA, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association; the Pulp and Paper Employee Relations Forum; FIR, Forest Industrial Relations; and purchasers of services such as Westcoast Energy, Cominco and IWA-Canada, which represents construction workers?

It's an interesting sort of tennis game that's going on here. Some people, of course, say, "Great, let's bash it that way," and other people bash it back. Has the ministry considered the various concerns of these member groups and others of similar mind?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, the ministry is considering the comments of this broad spectrum of groups, as am I. I have met with a number of them personally.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

J. Dalton: Well, I'm certainly pleased to hear that these, and no doubt other, groups have approached the minister and will have fair representation -- no pun intended on the labour context -- as they approach this issue.

Just going back -- I'm not going to necessarily deal with this issue any further now -- there are some interesting comments, again both pro and con, that come from the report that Messrs. Baigent, Ready and Roper prepared in September of 1992 which led to the Labour Relations Code as we know it today. As the minister will recall -- and I want to make sure we're clear on this -- one thing that was pulled off the table and recommended by two out of the three authors then was this very topic. The dissenting voice from the report writers in this one was Tom Roper. In fact, I just happened to flip to it right now. It's back in "Appendix 3" of the 1992 report. Now we have one of the three people who prepared that September 1992 report who was a party to this current document. It's kind of interesting sometimes to track the history and the record of these things as they proceed.

To get to the last point on this topic, in effect, we all know that the committee of two, the Kelleher-Ready report writers, said: "We have carefully considered this proposal and have decided not to include it in our recommendations. . . . One size does not fit all."

I'm not trying here to persuade the minister to take this thing and put it through the paper-shredder, but you might detect that from my perspective -- and I'm certainly not alone. I do speak for my colleagues in the opposition, and we've got lots of support through this and other reports. We do not feel that any further consideration of sectoral certification would be beneficial to the economy of this province. It's not going to help this government wiggle out of its financial woes; at least, I don't think it will. So maybe he'd like to take that back to the Finance minister and Treasury Board and say: "We've heard and we've. . . ."

I see there's also one other reference on page 26 of the same report, which comes back and revisits the topic one more time. It's item 1 on page 26: "Given the almost universal lack of support for the 'one-size-fits-all' proposal advanced by the CLRA" -- the one I referred to earlier -- ". . .we are not prepared" to make that recommendation. So I'm happy to see that they agree with the dissenting voice in the '92 report -- and good on them.

Okay, enough of that for now. It might even be something we could come back to and revisit when we talk about the Island Highway and things. But who knows? We'll have to see.

The authors go on, hon. Chair. Other things that they touch upon in the report. . . . Again, I think it's important that we have some discussion and understanding of the issues and where the ministry may be coming from.

I would also add that given that the current minister is relatively new to the portfolio, I think it's important that we have his understanding of what these issues are. Given that he wears the hats of two ministers. . . . Something I asked the previous minister about last year was whether it was fair treatment of the Labour portfolio to say: "By the way, if you're not so busy in Education, we'll give you Labour to play with for a day or two." I'm sure the minister doesn't approach it that way, and I know his officials don't approach it that way. They're all very competent and professional. I hope we're not taking Labour and saying: "If it's not parked in Skills and Training, then we'll put it here and put it there. Who knows next week?" I'm sure it goes without saying that this government in particular considers Labour to be far too important a portfolio to kick around like it's an old soccer ball.

[3:00]

Actually, at one time, for a three- or four-year period, I was on the negotiating team for the Langara Faculty Association, so I at least have had the opportunity to look at some of the labour issues from the employee side. But that was what I. . . . Maybe my colleague sitting next to me, who of course has been a member of a not dissimilar organization, would describe it more as a professional association than what I would say is an alternate union that the authors are discussing in this document.

But there were apparently some submissions that have been made that were critical of the Christian Labour Association of Canada -- CLAC -- and CISIWU. CISIWU, of course, is the Canadian Iron, Steel and Industrial Workers Union, and 

[ Page 3089 ]

the GWU is the General Workers Union. There has been some criticism that the authors were prepared to put some unsettling aspects of it on paper. I'd like to ask the minister to comment on a couple of things that have come out of this, on page 19. In particular, the authors say there have been concerns about CISIWU. So firstly, workers have had no contact with CISIWU on the job site. Is this the sort of thing that the minister's office would examine, or is this something that is put into the offices of the Labour Relations Board for further study if needed?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is that those kinds of issues would be issues for the Labour Relations Board and that it's best to maintain an arm's-length distance from the influence of the minister and the ministry.

With interest, I would just observe that in an earlier analogy the hon. member referred to a soccer ball, not a rugger ball.

J. Dalton: Fair enough. He's quite right, that is my background. I did play soccer once. My son still plays soccer, so I guess I threw it in to keep him happy. I'm trying to wean him off soccer and onto rugby. Now that he's graduating from high school this year, I think his opportunities in the world of that manly game of rugby are far better than they are in that. . . . Some people call it sissy-ball, but I wouldn't call it that, and I hope that hasn't gone on the record. That has nothing to do with CISIWU. Maybe I can get an ad in right now. About a month from now the golden oldies rugby tournament will be held in Vancouver, which is a world-class event. There'll be hundreds of rugby teams here. Isn't that a frightening thought for mothers and daughters, to think of literally hundreds of rugby players and teams running around the greater Vancouver area? However, thank you for the plug.

I guess I used the word "analogy," because it is easier to visualize kicking around a soccer ball, which is something that you do. Rugby is supposedly a game where you run with the ball and not kick it too much, but some people abuse the ball accordingly.

Coming back to the question, I can appreciate the minister's response. These sorts of things are labour relations issues, I guess, if the minister is invited to try and sort out some of these. I guess it's kind of like the problem of the rock and the hard place the Prime Minister is facing right now as to whether he should step in and call off some of the elections in the flood-bound southern Manitoba area. Of course, if he did that, then he is interfering with the chief electoral officer's job. And if he doesn't do it I think he's got a problem for not only himself but some of his incumbents in Manitoba, who are probably sweating right now. In fact, I know they are, but that's not relevant to this discussion. That's the sort of thing that will come up. Of course, ministers have a tough job, but that's why they're paid so well to deal with these issues.

I would take it, then, that some of the other complaints that have been forwarded to the minister through this report are not necessarily ones that the ministry would be prepared to sink their teeth into. Given that there's a series of complaints in specific unions and given that this was put on a minister's desk, I should ask if there is any attempt from that point to take that to the LRB? Or do you just take the report, shove it on a shelf somewhere and hope the problem will go away? What happens to the issues that are drawn to the minister's attention that aren't necessarily ones that he or she would feel comfortable with?

Hon. J. Cashore: Those specific issues have been referred through to the LRB. The LRB has taken up those issues, and there is a pending response.

J. Dalton: Would that pending response come back to the minister, or would it go to the parties? I'm just trying to get the process. Unless these people have specifically complained -- and this isn't really a proper vehicle to complain, I wouldn't think; they tell the panels they are not happy, and the panel comments on their unhappiness -- does the minister have the authority to make reference of these issues to the LRB? Or do they have to be specific to a particular union or employee complaint, or a management complaint, as the case may be?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes to the second question. There are very limited circumstances under which the minister can make referrals to the board. With regard to the items that the hon. member was referring to, it amounts to a board decision and, of course, the parties would receive copies of that decision.

J. Dalton: If these issues were not specific -- that is, coming out of a labour dispute -- but were more from the point of view of people that had an opportunity to make observations and recommendations to a panel that the minister had commissioned -- are these reports the sort of thing that action can take place on? Or are they more in the academic field, that it would be nice if somebody would bite into this issue and try and resolve it? I'm thinking of mine, for example. Unfortunately, right now there are some support staff issues looming out there in certain school districts. That's the sort of thing the ministry can get involved in, and I made comment when we started last Thursday that I was happy, at least. . . . I didn't want the one-day strike in my school district. At least my kids in North Van were only off for one day, and not who knows how many days.

The ministry, and particularly one person who's here with us today, stepped in, did a good job and said: "Well, here's an answer. Let's stop this." Of course, we also had the public sector employers' group and others involved. But that's a specific labour dispute that either this ministry or the Education ministry or the Premier or somebody can step in and say: "This either has to end, or here's the way we would like it to be dealt with."

These sorts of things that workers and unions are complaining about are not generated by a dispute in a school district or in a pulp mill. They're generated because somebody went to Messrs. Kelleher and Ready and said: "You wanted our opinion; here it is." They were prepared to list concerns, and the minister has told this committee, if I heard him correctly, that these things can then be referred to the board. So what happens to them with a reference? Is there any follow-up action on it?

Hon. J. Cashore: Just to clarify, the board took those issues up. The board had the option to take those issues up on the volition of the board, which is what happened. So that's how the board happened to engage those issues.

J. Dalton: Once the board has exercised that option, do they have any authority to go back to the parties affected and say, "These are our suggestions on recommendations" -- whatever? I know that because this is not a specific union dispute they can't order a mediator in or have. . . . But can they make fairly strong recommendations that the parties would, hopefully, be prepared or might in fact act upon?

Hon. J. Cashore: The board received the referral, then exercised the option to go to the parties and receive comprehensive information with regard to the issues and then to make recommendations.

[ Page 3090 ]

J. Dalton: Would I be correct in assuming that these recommendations could or could not be acted upon by the parties affected? In other words, I'm thinking that if there's a potential labour problem out there, whether that be a management problem, a union problem or an individual employee, is there some strong likelihood coming out of these recommendations that a pending, looming problem could be headed off before it becomes a real problem, such as a strike, lockout, grievance or some other dispute?

Hon. J. Cashore: The board, having received the submissions from the parties, makes a decision. While we have both referred to them as recommendations, they are actually binding decisions on the parties.

J. Dalton: Good. Certainly that's helpful, at least for me to hear. As I say, my somewhat limited experience from the perspective of negotiating on behalf of and being a member of the union, I think, is in a certain context that would not be one where I would likely have come across this sort of concern that has been registered.

It's helpful to know that in fact if something is pending out there that could become a problem. . . . I remember, for example, that the first week I worked at Langara, back in September of 1974, I was greeted by a picket line. I thought, this is a strange way to start working. It was in fact a picket line from the other faculty union, the King Ed, in the downtown campus of what was then the Langara campus of Vancouver Community College. So I spent the first week not on the picket line. I didn't necessarily want to go walking, but I certainly wasn't working, because nobody crossed the picket line. This was a strange new world that I'd gotten into, because I used to practise law before that and do other things that didn't invite picket lines and that didn't have to go to the Labour Relations Board and ask for their recommendations and have follow-up. So it is interesting from that perspective.

[3:15]

There is one, just coming back to page 19 for a moment. We had some discussion about the various concerns that unions have raised and the way that the ministry and the Labour Relations Board have handled them. One -- which I see is on page 19 and which we'll come back to because it's also referred to on page 21 -- is the fair-wage policy in the act.

Of course, some of the problems. . . . I think, probably more appropriately, I'll bring this up when we get into the Island Highway discussions, where we have a sort of specific vehicle to deal with. But there has been some concern by some unions that fair-wage is not necessarily working out the way that the government maybe had in mind. Maybe there are problems with policing, enforcement, detection or something. Of course, on page 21, as the minister and others will well know, there's been a fair amount of concern expressed since the fair-wage policy. Then, when the act was brought in, in 1994, if I recall correctly. . . . The Skills Development and Fair Wage Act is not necessarily doing everything that perhaps it was designed to do. As I indicated, I think it's probably something better left to a specific discussion of the Island Highway or other issues that other members may bring up when we get to them.

But one thing they do make -- Messrs. Kelleher and Ready, on page 21. . . . At least we can address this now. They talk about the debate as to whether fair-wage is a good thing or a bad thing. As I say, this is a matter of government policy, and that will be debated elsewhere. We can have that debate either now or later, but that's where it should be dealt with.

But they go on: "Our central concern, rather, is with enforcement." So that's where Messrs. Kelleher and Ready are prepared to step out: "We heard considerable evidence that the legislation is routinely contravened. Material presented to us indicates employees are often paid less than what the act requires." I don't need to go on and on. I'm sure the minister has this wording in front of him -- what they've commented. Is this still an ongoing problem? Has the ministry in fact, either coming out of this report or others -- I'm sure he's had other things of perhaps similar concern put on his desk -- looked into this problem of enforcement? If so, can the minister tell the committee what steps have been taken to ensure that loopholes, if any, have been plugged, and therefore that the stated purpose of the act is in fact being enforced?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair. The Deputy Minister of Labour has asked each deputy minister and agency head for their assistance in enforcing the act. There's information developed by the Ministry of Employment and Investment to help standardize contract language in fair-wage projects across government. The employment standards branch is putting together an enforcement team to increase compliance. So I think that covers the range of the questions, including what is being done.

J. Dalton: Given that it's the employment standards branch team that the minister has referred to and, of course, that this act is enforced by the employment standards people. . . . This team, as he's described it: can he tell us how many people are on the team? Is this a specific task that's been assigned to it -- to go out there and beat the bushes for offenders of the law? If so, are they finding any people? How are they going about putting this team together? What is its actual task? Is it underway? If so, what interesting things is it finding?

Hon. J. Cashore: The team is just being put together now. There are two industrial relations officers and two co-op students. They will be conducting audits, and their work will be beginning in about two weeks' time.

J. Dalton: So we know there's a team of four. They're about to get underway. I'm just trying to picture it in my mind. You say two are co-op students. Is this part of the Premier's Youth Works project? [Laughter.] Well, I mean, I don't know. Maybe Hansard can make sure they detected the laugh from the minister. I don't know if the Premier wants to hear the minister laughing about Youth Works, but. . . .

Can the minister, perhaps, just to be a little more specific, give us any assistance with how long this task might be perceived to take? Of course, we have no idea what monumental problem there may be out there. Maybe it's just: "Well, they said something about it last year, so we'd better send somebody out into the streets and do something about it." Not to be critical, but some of the minister's colleagues, on a dime, 

[ Page 3091 ]

seem to have something drawn to their attention, and the next thing we hear in the opposition and the newspapers is that there's a review or a study or a royal commission or whatever.

I recall, just over the weekend, and it certainly caught my eye in here, that the Attorney General said he's going to deal with the high-speed hot-pursuit issue in the fall session of the Legislature. So I'm thinking. . . . Well, number one, I'm glad to hear that he's dealing with hot pursuit, because it's a topic that I and my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum drew to his attention in his estimates just last week. It's a topic that the Oppal commission dealt with at some length.

However, I'm getting off the track, because, of course, we're not here to debate high-speed pursuits. But I am saying that sometimes ministers. . . . I don't know whether the Attorney General made that pronouncement yesterday -- number one, whether he was telling us something that no one else has heard: that we're having a fall session. . . . Has anyone over on that side heard about a fall session?

Secondly, more importantly, does this team have a specific point of reference? Can we see anything in writing -- that is, the mandate of the team, what its budget might be, for example, or what it expects to find as part of the enforcement problem? Clearly, this act has at least generated some scouts to go out into the forests, etc., of this province and see what it can come up with.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we'll get the budget and the mandate for the hon. member. With regard to the little exchange about co-op students: no, this is not part of the Premier's program. It's something that happens on a regular basis, where co-op students are hired in the summer to assist with payroll audits and that sort of thing. That's an ongoing, worthwhile opportunity for students.

The Chair: Before recognizing the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, I would like to remind the member to keep his comments to the issue of the Ministry of Labour.

J. Dalton: Thank you, hon. Chair; you're quite right. It is so tempting sometimes, particularly when little gems that I won't speak of anymore just happen to pop up on a Sunday afternoon when you have nothing else to do, and you're listening to CBC news, and somebody sort of throws something out and you kind of wonder: "Oh well, I wonder what's behind that." I certainly didn't mean in any of the comments that I made about co-op students. . . . I'm very pleased to hear that co-op students are doing this sort of thing.

When I was at Langara College -- if I can come back to sort of labour relations issue or quasi-issue -- in my department, the business administration department, all of our programs were either on co-op or were headed into it. It was the best thing that post-secondary students were ever exposed to. Number one, it gave them some real education and not this kind of academic, sometimes phony, four-wall stuff. Secondly, it gave them some money -- an opportunity to put some real cash in their pockets.

There is, I guess, actually a third benefit; many times they didn't finish the program -- not because they flunked out or dropped out, but because they were hired by the very co-op employer that they'd been associated with. We said: "Right on. The best program we could run would be where we had no graduates because they were all hired by Safeway or IBM or whatever." And if it's the government that's doing some good hiring, I'd be the first to applaud that, as well.

We'll certainly look forward, as the minister has indicated, to seeing the terms of reference and what's up. Then, I guess, we'll get a sense over time as to what this enforcement issue really is, because right now maybe it's just something that the report writers thought they should comment upon because it had been drawn to their attention. But maybe there's something looming out there that we should all know about.

Let's see -- what else? The Employment Standards Act itself is, of course, mentioned on page 22 and following. And that's one -- well, timing is everything, you know, in this game -- that some of my colleagues, and I as well, are certainly going to be dealing with: the Employment Standards Act and some of the issues. . . . In fact, one of them may be doing so in a few minutes, because I see by the clock on the wall that I have to go and play bridge for a while. And I don't mean that in a facetious sense; I have an important Lions Gate Bridge safety meeting that I'm going to be attending with my North Shore colleagues. We call ourselves the bridge club.

I guess I'm off the track again, aren't I? Some of my colleagues have offered to fill the void -- not that there's ever a void around here -- and to pitch in while I'm off for half an hour or so.

That is one topic that is certainly of concern, I'm sure, to many members, both in opposition and on the government side: questions of how the Employment Standards Act is being operated, enforced. I can tell the minister that in my constituency office in West Vancouver -- and I don't think it's necessarily terribly typical, given the makeup of the population over there -- we get more calls, probably, on the Employment Standards Act and, of course, the Residential Tenancy Act than anything else, I think -- plus, needless to say, that WCB, which we are going to deal with later with this minister. I don't know whether it's surprising to any of us to hear that the Employment Standards Act is high on that list, but from some of the horror stories that I've heard out there, I guess it isn't a surprise.

There are some other things, but given the clock on the wall, if my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena is prepared to step in -- if he cares to -- I should beg my leave. I'm not abandoning the minister. Of course, they could call the vote on us, and that would be the end of this. But I don't anticipate that I'll be any more than half an hour. My colleague can jump in now, and I will be back.

Hon. J. Cashore: While the official opposition critic is still in the room, I just want to respond to a question that he asked on Friday about the cost of the Kelleher-Ready report. It was $95,221.11.

J. Dalton: Does that include GST?

Hon. J. Cashore: You've got me on that one.

J. Dalton: Well, maybe just one follow-up question to that, if I may. I haven't yet left, so I guess I still have the floor.

I believe the minister told the committee last Thursday that. . . . Given that this is the first interim report -- he's now very kindly told us the cost of this, right to the nickel; in fact, to the 11 cents -- has the ministry undertaken any commission to further pursue some of the issues? Or is it just this sort of thing where, for example, as he mentioned to us, it is the enforcement team that's going to deal with fair-wage. . . ? Is that the approach that the ministry will be taking for any follow-up on some of these issues? Or does he contemplate another panel and more submissions of a more formal nature being submitted?

[ Page 3092 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: There are two streams of potential follow-up: one is further with the commission; the other is with specific actions that we as government and within the ministry decide to take. Both, of course, are under consideration, but I think we've indicated to some extent some of the follow-up that's taking place within the ministry.

[3:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: The Employment Standards Act has been around for quite some time. The regulatory part of that is driven by legislation. The fair-wage act, of course, is quite recent, and the Human Rights Act is no longer part of the responsibility of this ministry.

C. Hansen: Maybe I didn't make myself clear on this. It's the mandate of the employment standards branch itself, in the annual report -- although this one I have is '94-95. . . . Is that the most recent annual report?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think so.

C. Hansen: Yes, I was pretty sure I had the most recent one. In here it spells out six points that it indicates are the mandate of the branch. What I'm wondering is: is this a changing mandate? Or is this a mandate that had been in place for some time? And would the process by which this mandate is developed by the ministry. . . ?

Hon. J. Cashore: The mandate is enabled through the legislation. Therefore that is the mandate, and it's not a mandate that changes.

C. Hansen: One of the things in this mandate that I have some concerns with -- and I just wonder whether this has been something that's been addressed by the ministry -- is that if you look through all six points of the mandate, the word "investigate" appears in all but one of them. It's to investigate applications pursuant to the Employment Standards Act; to investigate applications pursuant to the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act; to investigate and mediate complaints, etc. -- that's the B.C. Council of Human Rights, which, as you mentioned, is not part of the ministry now; to conduct union certifications and investigate applications; to assist in the collective agreement arbitration bureau -- that's the one that doesn't mention the word "investigate;" to investigate differences and assist employers in trade union arbitration hearings.

I guess the point I want to make is that I find the approach taken by the branch is not one of enforcing compliance with the act or meeting the objectives of the act, but rather it's there to enforce the act. I'm wondering if the ministry has at any time looked at that mandate from that point of view, in terms of how staff approaches fulfilling the objectives of the branch itself.

Hon. J. Cashore: If I understand the point, and I think it's a good point, you can have the sort of legal interpretation of what the mandate is, but then there. . . . Obviously the intent is that it serves the worthwhile functioning of the employment standards, so that it's a benefit to employees and employers and the general economy.

So yes, there is that investigative role and that monitoring enforcement role. It's always mitigated by resource availability and that sort of thing, as it is in virtually every area of administration. But increasingly, the approach is to work with the sectors in seeking to try to come up with methods of carrying out the act that are consistent with a respect for those who are working in those areas. There's an increasing recognition of the importance of working with those sectors and seeking to fulfil the intent of the act.

C. Hansen: I was wondering if the minister could give us some background in terms of what is being done by the ministry to encourage compliance with the act, as opposed to acting in the policeman role.

Hon. J. Cashore: For instance, some of the issues that are quite current are the employment standards for taxi operations, truckers -- both truck loggers and intraprovincial truckers -- and the circumstances in the oil and gas drilling industry up in the northeast segment of the province. Those are some of the kinds of examples, and in each and every one of those examples we find that it's very important, given the complexity of the issues, to be in dialogue with both employers and employees -- indeed, we hear from communities on these issues as well.

C. Hansen: I do want to get into the whole issue of exemptions shortly. But I think the examples the minister has mentioned -- the taxis, the truckers and the oil and gas industry -- are all issues surrounding the whole issue of exemptions and what they see as the particular or unique aspects of their industries.

Last year during estimates I asked a question about how many companies or individuals had participated in orientation programs for the then new Employment Standards Act. The ministry very kindly provided me with that information following the estimates, which was very helpful, and I thank them for that. One thing that really did surprise me, though, was how few people in this province had ever gone through any kind of a formal orientation on that act. I'm wondering if programs under the ministry have accelerated or whether there has been any increased emphasis on training and orientation about the requirements of the Employment Standards Act.

Hon. J. Cashore: There was a higher degree and intensity of those kinds of orientation programs soon after the act came into effect. Now some of those activities are not being carried out to the same degree.

Just to add to that list I stated a little while ago of some of the areas that we work with in the process of working with sectors, I also want to mention agriculture and garment workers.

C. Hansen: When we were travelling in northern British Columbia a few weeks ago, one of the sessions we sat through was a small business program attended by an employee of the Ministry of Forests. I was very impressed with the attitude of this individual, who was a professional forester. He referred to the individuals participating in the small business program as clients. It was such a refreshing attitude, because you could 

[ Page 3093 ]

tell that there was indeed a very deep respect between the industry representatives who were part of this discussion group and the ministry itself. You could tell that there was a dialogue, that there was truly an attempt to understand where each other was coming from. The Ministry of Forests employee had a very good understanding of some of the pressures these small operators were facing.

In the case of the employment standards branch, a lot of people bring particular situations to my attention. We're certainly not going to go through all of them in detail, but some of them are quite frustrating. They truly don't feel that kind of a partnership or that kind of empathy. There was a feeling on the part of some of the small companies involved that the employment standards branch is not there to achieve the objectives of the act or to make sure that workers are dealt with fairly. Rather, they are there to enforce the act and to punish employers who, in most cases unbeknownst to themselves, may be in violation of the act. Even when they're not in violation of the act, there is a certain advocacy that comes from the ministry solely on behalf of the worker, without even getting both sides to the story in many cases that have been brought to my attention. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the reality is that these professional and very competent staff are professionals, and they are regulators. It is workers' rights that are being regulated within this context. Therefore I think there's a given that when it comes to the point of an employer seeking contact, there are going to be times when, from that one perspective, it's not a win-win situation. I think there are probably other occasions you don't hear about where things don't have that kind of evaluation. But the fact is that it is a context which, by definition, will have in its outcome a certain amount of that kind of statement coming from some employers. But certainly the intent is to seek to maintain a stable climate. It's not the intent to be unfair in any way but to fairly administer an act which is the law of the land.

C. Hansen: Perhaps I could phrase it in this way: does the minister see the primary objective of the branch being the enforcement of the acts that are under its purview? Or is it ensuring that the objectives of those acts are met?

Hon. J. Cashore: The intent is always to see that the objectives are met. I think that in any rational assessment of the way in which this work is carried out, it would be judged to do just that. But where there is a disregard of the law -- where the requirement is that the law shall be enforced -- it is enforced. That is part of the function of these people, and that's one of the reasons that the branch is necessary.

C. Hansen: One of the things I want to be really careful of is that I'm not being critical of the staff in the branch. What I am questioning is the atmosphere in which they are working, and the mandate under which they are working -- whether it is the explicit mandate as set out in the legislation or whether it's in fact the approach that they take to their work. Could the minister tell us if there is any ongoing review of how that branch is achieving its mandate? Is there any flexibility? Is there any opportunity for that to be a changing environment?

Hon. J. Cashore: There are the normal evaluative processes -- to evaluate, address and improve -- that take place within any good management system. And, in my view, it is a good management system. It's administered fairly, and those kinds of checks and balances are there within the management of those processes.

C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us if there has been any effort made to determine the degree to which their education programs under the new Employment Standards Act have been effective?

[3:45]

C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us: does that translate into more cases coming into the branch? How does that manifest itself?

Hon. J. Cashore: Right now there are more cases coming in, and there are also more inquiries coming from employers.

C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us if there have been any surveys done to determine the level of knowledge that small business employers have?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. We have met with coalitions several times. They seem to be very knowledgable about it. I would think that their comments do manifest a fair reflection of what's going on out there. Certainly they tell us that that is the case.

C. Hansen: I've had many cases that have been brought to my attention by small employers. Usually in my experience, I find that the larger employers don't have a problem with this at all -- with the way that the act is being implemented. They've got departments that have professional staff dedicated to the area of human resources; they've got the time to develop that expertise. But where I find. . . . Most of the situations that have been brought to my attention involve very small companies -- sometimes with two, three, five employees -- where typically the business owners are faced with a situation which, in their mind, defies common sense.

This isn't just as a result of the new act. I think it actually goes back many years, with employers constantly being surprised when they learned of some of the provisions or the regulations of the act. They only find that out after they've been burned. Just to give you an example of something that isn't in the new act but actually goes back to the previous one -- I don't know how many years this provision goes back -- an employer grants a day of vacation leave to an employee so that they can make a summer of three-day weekends, for example, rather than taking a full week's block of vacation time. This particular employee came back after a summer, and because he knew the provisions of the act and the regulations, he went back on his employer for unpaid vacation leave after the fact. The mistake that I guess the employer made was not getting it documented in writing. From his point of view, that defied common sense. He felt burned by the act, he felt burned by the provisions of the act because they weren't something he was even aware of.

Hon. J. Cashore: In that example, I think that was perhaps under the old legislation, in which case he should have 

[ Page 3094 ]

gone for a director's review. The improvement of the new legislation is that there is now recourse to apply to the Employment Standards Tribunal. So in that way I think we've seen what has been a very positive development.

Just to pick up on one point about an employer being burned, in my role, and I think perhaps in the role of those of us who hear this information from people who are obviously raising a concern that it's outside some kind of due process, it's awfully difficult to say who is the burner and who is the burnee in any one of these instances.

C. Hansen: I agree with that very much and recognize that difficulty. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that. . . . Certainly my perception of looking at these individual cases. . . . It's certainly not my role to get involved with whether the employer is right or the employee is right. It's obviously the responsibility of the branch and the tribunal to do that. So it's not to take sides over who's right or wrong in any one of these cases. Rather, I think the way that we can avoid these situations arising is to have far better education and far more emphasis put on compliance rather than enforcement.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. J. Cashore: We certainly agree on that, and that's the direction that we are moving in.

C. Hansen: I find that very reassuring, and I think a lot of employers would too. I think if everybody knows the rules and the responsibilities, the ultimate objective of the branch would be to reduce its caseload, because both employers and employees would be complying with the act and the provisions set out in it.

I want to turn to the whole issue of exemptions. The minister mentioned five sectors: taxis, truckers, oil and gas, agricultural, garment workers. Could the minister tell us how many sectors have exemptions that are valid as of today?

Hon. J. Cashore: At the present time there are exclusions from the act under regulations. It's a fairly comprehensive list, which we would be glad to compile and make available to the hon. member.

C. Hansen: I would appreciate that. I guess what I was looking for are entire industries that have been exempted, such as the taxi industry, which had been given an exemption. I'm just wondering, of those sectors, how many of those exemptions may still be valid.

Hon. J. Cashore: The taxi industry does not have an exemption; it has a temporary exclusion. These are not industries but occupations that are excluded.

C. Hansen: When the minister talks about a fairly extensive list, is he talking about occupations, then, in this list? Maybe I can rephrase my question. In the context of temporary exclusions, could the minister tell us how many occupations have temporary exclusions? If that's an extensive list, then approximately how many are we talking about?

Hon. J. Cashore: We'd prefer to bring that information back. Just for the record, I would like to get an accurate answer to that into the record. So we will bring that back.

C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us. . . ? In the case of these temporary exclusions, my understanding is that they are in place for a maximum of one year, although I stand to be corrected. Is it a policy of the ministry to decrease the number of exclusions that are being granted?

Hon. J. Cashore: The intent is that there would be fewer exclusions, but each of these issues has to be addressed and assessed on its own merit.

I just want to make sure, for the record, that it's recognized that the use of the term "exclusion" as applied to the taxi industry was under the old circumstance, and that temporary exclusion has been granted to enable the industry to deal with the findings of the tribunal.

C. Hansen: If I can just follow up on that answer. In the case of the taxi industry, has the exclusion has been extended? If so, what is the term? Does it expire when the tribunal's decision comes down?

Hon. J. Cashore: The tribunal has made its recommendation, and government has extended the temporary exemption to October 31 of this year. During that time, we are working with the industry to seek to come up with an appropriate way of dealing with the issue of compliance in a way that's considerate of some very unique circumstances.

C. Hansen: Does the minister anticipate that this would be in the form of changes to regulations in the act?

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't know the answer to that at this time. It's too early in the process to be able to ascertain whether that is in fact the case.

C. Hansen: If it is necessary for regulations to be changed to accommodate the taxi industry, would the minister insist that these regulations be across the board or industry-specific?

Hon. J. Cashore: No.

C. Hansen: Sorry -- no to which one?

Hon. J. Cashore: They would be industry-specific.

C. Hansen: Does the minister anticipate there may be any other industry-specific interpretations, other than the taxi industry, that will be under consideration or may be under consideration?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. Another would be interprovincial truckers.

C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us: is that the extent of what's being considered at this point -- taxis and truckers?

[4:00]

C. Hansen: I gather that the three temporary variances would be the taxi operators, the interprovincial truckers. . . . And then there's obviously oil and gas.

[ Page 3095 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Yup.

C. Hansen: Is there any analysis being done of the applications that have been completed by the tribunal or the recommendations coming from the tribunal in terms of across-the-board changes to regulations or interpretation?

Hon. J. Cashore: At this point in time, the answer is no, simply because it's very early in the life of this process. But we are obviously going to be monitoring that as we gain more experience, with a view to analyzing it and trying to understand what we can learn from it.

C. Hansen: If an industry is looking for exclusions or making application for exclusions, as these 18 applicants have. . . . Is the ministry receptive to negotiating or sitting down to try to address some of the unique features of each of these industries? In other words: given that you're looking at some changes with regard to taxi operators and interprovincial truckers, is this same opportunity available to all of the industries that may be seeking some variance?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we try to sit down and work with these industries prior to them going for a variance. That would be the more frequent point at which there is that kind of contact.

C. Hansen: Now, I understand that the provision for variances is under chapter 14 of the act, and I don't want to get into detail on that. I just want to ask, in the case of variances as opposed to exclusions, whether or not the number of applicants is increasing or decreasing -- whether the minister has any statistical information that might be available to us?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's too early in this new process to provide that kind of analysis. Obviously there are going to be increases, but in terms of the ratio and that sort of thing, we simply haven't got a meaningful way of assessing that, with the rather small number that have been received so far.

C. Hansen: In the annual report, I noticed that the ministry does track calls that come in, and the nature of calls. I also know from the telephone book that there is in fact a number for employer advocates -- I think they call them that -- and employee advocates within the branch. I am wondering if the minister can tell us if he has any information in terms of the number of calls. I'd also be interested in the number of staff that are on the other end of those calls. If he doesn't have specific information, I wouldn't mind receiving it at a later date, as well.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that the question that the hon. member is asking is actually in reference to the workers compensation system, which is where we have the employer advocates. So if it's with reference to the Employment Standards Act, I don't think that's a correct connection there.

C. Hansen: I'll accept that, and I'll go back and double-check myself, because I was sure it was there. But anyways, if it's not there, it would probably be a good idea to have specific lines for employer advocates, because I think there is truly a feeling that they've been shut out of the process.

In closing, I was wondering if. . . . I notice in the annual report that there is some very good statistical information, but unfortunately this is now over two years old. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us when we might expect a more up-to-date annual report for the ministry.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's in the final-draft stage; it won't be long. The cheque's in the mail.

P. Reitsma: I've got a couple of questions. In fact, this morning, rather timely, I had a meeting with one of my constituents who actually phoned over the weekend asking if we could meet -- which, of course, we're happy to do, like for everybody else. . . . I'm referring to a letter to the editor of the Nanaimo Daily Free Press on April 25, which is just about a week or ten days ago. The headline states, "Paper Carriers Don't Need Interference," and relates to the Employment Standards Act. Permit me to read it:

"NDP legislation to include newspaper carriers in employment standards in effect converts carriers from independent contractors to employees. Even though most adult carriers are included in this, it is a lose-lose situation for all carriers, employees, newspapers, distributors and readers. The adult carriers will have to deliver four hours because they get paid for a minimum of four hours. Many adults unable to do this will lose routes. There will also be fewer routes. Youth carriers at a lot of papers will cease to exist as their routes are gobbled up by four-hour routes. Adult carriers will be forced to pay deductions like WCB, CPP and others. Their take-home pay, it's estimated, will decrease by 20 to 30 percent.

"Most papers will likely have to resort to two carrier forces to allow days off. The most likely scenario will be four-day and three-day carrier forces for seven-days-a-week publications. Fewer bigger routes will mean fewer circulation managers and fewer drivers to drop bundles. In addition, with increased costs, papers may have to lay off in other departments. And marginally profitable papers may be sold or closed. With the earlier press runs, readers will also be losers."

A couple of questions to the minister, if he could comment: if there is legislation planned, what can be done to revisit that? Would he be open to communication and consultation with those that are affected?

Hon. J. Cashore: As one who delivered papers from the time I was ten years old until I was 15, I appreciate the question the hon. member is asking. I just want you to know that public hearings before the Employment Standards Tribunal have just been held on the issue. The recommendations will be forthcoming. When they are delivered, we as government will then be making a decision based on the input from all those who are affected. To comment further on that at this time, since it is before the tribunal, would not be the right thing for me to do.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate the answer. Would there be an opportunity. . . ? Once the report has been delivered to the 

[ Page 3096 ]

government, before recommendations are entertained and implemented, would the minister undertake that consultation will take place with the stakeholders -- an opportunity for them, whether it's through a committee or a board or a presentation of some sort, or sorts -- whoever they may be -- the employee or the small contractor or the papers, for that matter. . . ? Would the minister undertake to give a promise that they will be consulted and communicated with so that they have an opportunity to have their say?

Hon. J. Cashore: No, we don't release the report before it goes to cabinet. The consultation has been carried out through the appointed process, which is through the tribunal. Prior to that, the ministry did meet with the employers of the various entities that have an interest in this issue.

P. Reitsma: I take it that a proper amount of communication and consultation has taken place as part of the formulation of recommendations by the tribunal. So the stakeholders have had an opportunity to present their case.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that in addition to the employers, some carriers actually presented at the tribunal.

P. Reitsma: On a different subject, quotations will come from the "Features" section of the Journal of Commerce publication of Monday, April 14, of this year. The headline states: "Pension Funds from Island Highway Lost for Some Workers, CLAC Claims." The CLAC is the Christian Labour Association of Canada. I'll do some quotations; it's going to take me a couple of minutes. I don't know if the minister is aware of this. . . . This has been given to me by some concerned contractors as well, so it's very appropriate to bring it up, of course.

"A large group of construction workers employed on the B.C. government's Vancouver Island Highway project may never receive any pension payments from pension contributions made on their behalf during the time they were employed on the project, the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) charges.

"CLAC cites a study commissioned from the Shasta Consulting Group, which estimates that many Island Highway employees who customarily work in the open shop sector may get shortchanged as much as $3.8 million to $9.6 million because they won't have worked enough union hours to become vested (eligible for pension benefits). In a letter to [the current Employment and Investment minister], CLAC is asking the province to take action to ensure all workers get every penny of money they are owed.

"The Shasta study proposes establishment of an alternative, voluntary pension plan for employees on the Island Highway project, with provision for transferring accrued contributions and hours when they leave. CLAC's letter has been forwarded to [the current Highways minister] who is now the minister responsible for the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.

"[The minister] in turn, is asking the Ministry of Labour's pension experts to review the study and its recommendations, says Highways communications director" -- are we allowed to mention names here? -- "Ian McLeod."

P. Reitsma: Is he here?

J. Dalton: He's upstairs. I was at his meeting.

[4:15]

"The multi-year $1.2 billion Island Highway project is scheduled for completion in the year 2000-2001."

"A single labour relations structure was established to cover the scope of the Island Highway project until completion. Under that structure, Highway Constructors Ltd. (HCL) which is a subsidiary of TFA, was established as the employer on the project.

"HCL has a project agreement with B.C. Highway and Related Construction Council, referred to as the BCHRCC, which represents traditional construction trade unions. The agreement sets out wages, benefits, working conditions and certain other provisions such as local hire.

"Construction workers on the Island Highway project are employed by HCL, and if they're not already members, must join one of the BCHRCC-affiliated unions for the duration of their work on the project. This requirement applies even to construction workers who are members of other unions, such as the CLAC, that are not BCHRCC affiliates. Both unionized and non-unionized contractors may bid on Island Highway contracts but must obtain their crews from HCL."

"HCL pays the workers' wages and benefits, and bills the cost to the contractors and subs the project. Pension contributions are part of the benefit package.

"HCL remits pension contributions to the pension plan of the appropriate BCHRCC-affiliated trade union in respect of the hours worked by each construction employee. The issue, according to the study, is that many of the construction workers who were not members of a BCHRCC union before they began work on the Island Highway project are unlikely to accrue the minimum hours of employment required to benefit from the union pension plan.

"The study infers from HCL workforce data that the average duration of employment with HCL is less than a year and it assumes employees who previously worked open-shop will return to the open shop sector when their jobs on the Island Highway are finished. Construction workers who were members of a BCHRCC union prior to their employment with HCL won't have the same problem, because they're likely to stay in the unionized sector, and if not already vesting can include the hours worked for employers in their vested requirement. Although vesting conditions of half the pension plan, to which HCL contributes, offer reasonable expectations that previously unaffiliated workers will receive benefits, those plans that offer low expectations of delivering benefits represent between 50 and 75 percent of HCL employees, the study says.

"Moreover, it estimates between 45 percent and 75 percent of them did not belong to a BCHRCC union when hired."

It further suggests that those pension plan contributions will reduce the amount of money the workers might otherwise have been able to contribute to an RRSP. As well, the study says:

". . .while in the employ of HCL, formerly unaffiliated workers may be required to suspend or terminate membership in pension plans to which they already belonged."

I'm almost at the end, hon. Chair, but it gives a little bit of background. Rather than using two sets of 15 minutes, maybe it might be better this way.

A solution the report recommends is that HCL employees be given the option of having their pension contributions go to a monetary, purchased pension plan, established for the purpose. Vesting would be immediate.

S. Orcherton: Point of order. It strikes me that these estimates are focusing in on the Ministry of Labour. While the article may well be interesting, I'm sure many in the room 

[ Page 3097 ]

have already read it. I'm wondering if there's ever going to be a question asked here. I thought that was the purpose of estimates.

The Chair: It is true that while members show a great deal of interest in some subjects, one of the rules that we have to live by is that we don't read full transcripts of articles. Perhaps the member could wrap up and get to his question.

P. Reitsma: That's why I mentioned earlier that with a little bit of the background. . . . Since it has gone from one ministry to another ministry, and now that, of course, as I mentioned -- and I'm certain the member listened to that -- it has gone to the Ministry of Labour's pension experts to review, I would ask the minister if he could perhaps comment on that. Certainly when you have got between $3 million and almost $9 million or $10 million that it appears is not going to be to the benefit of those people, that's of great concern.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think this is one of those classic situations that could be straightened up in a few minutes simply by maybe contacting my office, making an appointment, coming in and sitting down with officials who could set the issue straight. The article's wrong; the concern is incorrect.

I have in my hand copies of two letters. I'm not going to read them into the transcript, but I am going to make them available to the hon. member. One is dated April 30. It's to Mr. Neil Roos, B.C. director of the Christian Labour Association of Canada; it's from Sherallyn Miller, superintendent of pensions. It's a report on pension benefits for employees of Highway Constructors Ltd.

The second is a letter from myself to my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways, again responding and making the points to indicate why the points that have just been read are incorrect. Just to give you a summary of the points that I have indicated in my letter, indicating and pointing out the way in which the wrong assumptions are made and in which the conclusions are incorrect, the fact is that most of the Island Highway project workers who were members of pension plans as of January 6, 1996, or later will be fully vested in their benefits on January 1, 1998.

On January 1, 1998, the vesting rules under the Pension Benefits Standards Act change. Any Vancouver Island Highway project worker with two or more years of continuous plan membership on that date will be vested in their benefits. The workers do not terminate membership until they have completed a two-year period of plan membership with less than 350 hours of plan service. That's only nine weeks of work in each of two years. Most of the workers will have at least 350 hours of employment in 1995 and 1996 or subsequent years. These workers will still be members of their plans on January 1, 1998, and will be fully vested in all benefits.

I just want to say for the record -- I want to tell this hon. member now -- that I would welcome in the minister's office any time the researchers that work within the Liberal caucus who wish to have a face-to-face meeting with officials in order to try to get the background on these issues. I think a tremendous amount of time can be saved just by that open and reasonable way of trying to make sure that people have their facts straight before these kinds of statements that are incorrect are stated as fact.

P. Reitsma: A couple of points. First of all, this was given for the minister. When he talks about this as a classic example that can be done in a couple of minutes, I would like to remind the minister that this apparently has gone from the Ministry of Employment to the Ministry of Highways. The Ministry of Highways has now asked your ministry, your experts, to comment on this.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair, please.

P. Reitsma: The second ministry has now asked a third ministry for comments by the ministry's experts. So I do not take kindly to the suggestion that this is a classic example that can be done in a couple of minutes, when we have three ministries involved.

This was given to me last week. I appreciate the minister's invitation to come and sit down. I will take the minister up on that. This has come from a local contractor. The apparent slight to researchers of my party. . . . I would like to assure the minister -- and I'm also open to being contacted on that -- that this isn't from the Liberal research team at all. It's given by a concerned contractor, and I hope the minister will receive this in the same spirit -- from a concerned person. I would like the minister to make available the copies of the letters that he referred to, and I'll look forward to receiving those.

Hon. J. Cashore: I just want to make it clear that it was on my initiative that I invited the hon. member to make the good services of my office available to the researchers. For the record, I want to say that at no time did I contemplate that it would be a two-minute meeting. I anticipate that a fairly complex issue takes a little while to explain and that there would probably be some follow-up questions. So I would appreciate that it not be characterized that I thought it could be done within two minutes.

Finally, I do know that this hon. member -- the former mayor of Parksville -- is undoubtedly delighted with the good work, the stable work, that has taken place on the Island Highway, which has provided economic benefit for the community of which he was formerly the mayor and for which he is now the MLA. I certainly know, as I travel up and down the Island Highway, that I talk to a wide spectrum of people from a wide political spectrum, and I find very positive comments about the way in which that project has been carried out.

P. Reitsma: I don't really wish to get into a protracted, probably animated, debate on the Island Highway. The bottom line is that, of course, we are happy that the Island Highway is there, but up from $1.08 billion to $1.2 billion. . . . I won't comment on that. I would like to, but this is not the appropriate time. Certainly, having been the mayor of Parksville for nine years -- and even in Port Alberni I was mayor there during the eighties. . . . Of course, it is of ultimate benefit to the Island and to the travellers and to the economy and to the expansion of a multitude of things. The appropriate time has come -- and will come again maybe -- to debate the merits of an increase from $1.08 billion to $1.2 billion. We don't even know what the final bill is.

One last question, referring to an April 19 article in the daily newspaper, whereby a number of non-union workers say that a contractor owes them X amount of work at the Duke Point ferry terminal project, and they have taken their concerns to the employment standards branch. It's not the specific. . . . It's more the conduit, I suppose: the way that they're treated or not treated. It was mentioned by a union official who has helped a number of non-union workers file complaints regarding the fair-wage act. The problem is that when it comes to the employment standards branch, they do not have the people to monitor this. The MLA for Cowichan-

[ Page 3098 ]

Ladysmith, who is now the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, said monitoring is impossible, and any responses by the branch must be complaint-driven. "We recognize there are some problems with it, and we have been reviewing it. Our government is aware that there are problems with it. We certainly have some large investigations into some contractors." That was the comment.

My question is an apparent concern -- not necessarily an allegation; "concern" is the word, I suppose -- that when it comes to employment standards, they don't have the people to monitor them. Could the minister comment on that in terms of how many there are? Are there a sufficient amount of inspectors or people that are in charge to monitor some of those concerns?

[4:30]

I just want to state again that with regard to the earlier item about the Pension Benefits Standards Act that was discussed, I'm making available to the hon. member these two letters that I cited earlier. We will get them to the hon. member.

J. Dalton: Since I got back at 4 o'clock, I've listened with interest to some of the line of questioning. I'll make sure I review the Blues before we return tomorrow to ensure that I'm not trespassing on ground already taken or on things that we may want to review in another context.

I want to return, if I may, just for a few moments to the construction review document that we were canvassing earlier. I think we've essentially covered most of it. The minister has agreed that there will be some kind of follow-up to the initial report. Of course, there are some ongoing issues of some importance both to this minister and certainly to the Employment and Investment ministry and, no doubt, to Education and maybe to other portfolios as well. One thing that certainly, I think, in two or three cases from this document. . . . I know that just as I came in, my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena had finished a line of questioning on enforcement issues and my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum had raised some further issues. It seems that the enforcement issue is a common theme in some of these acts that the Ministry of Labour is responsible for. The fair wage is certainly an enforcement issue. With employment standards, there are obviously some concerns on enforcement issues. The pensions issue, which my colleague from Parksville just raised, is an enforcement issue.

I appreciate the remarks that the minister made about approaching his office and his officials, and we've always found them very helpful. But I think it's useful if we can get some of these things on the record, through this vehicle of estimates, because this is the more political environment, shall we say, as opposed to the straight process of asking what this issue is about, if there is a monetary solution to it, or whatever it may be.

Quite frankly -- and I know I'll probably be shut down as soon as I try to say this -- I think the whole estimates process is really not very functional. It's not for this committee to deal with, and it's certainly not for the Chair to allow me to comment on, but that's a fact. I think if we restructured this whole process, we'd be far better off. It would probably take less time to accomplish things, as well. However, that's an aside.

I do restate that in two or three places in the Kelleher-Ready report, the issue of enforcement comes back. I think it's in everyone's best interest -- in particular, the minister responsible for these statutes -- that enforcement be conducted objectively and thoroughly, and then everyone would be much happier. That doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that we like the law that is being enforced, but at least we know that it is being enforced in as fair a manner as can be.

A couple of other things that the document commented on, as well, starting on page 23, are "Issues Requiring Further Consideration." From comments the minister made earlier, I take it that Kelleher and Ready were not prepared to comment on some of these issues. Would these be the things that the minister may very well invite some follow-up on? If so, does he have anything specific in mind as a follow-up? Or is it that we'll stay tuned, and if I listen carefully on a Sunday afternoon I might be surprised as to what I hear on the radio?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's a question that generally fits into the category of future policy. I stated on Friday that I'm not going to follow that in such a way that we can't have a meaningful dialogue, but I do think that on this particular question it is fair to point out, as I think I have indicated earlier, that there are those things that we consider and review, and then at some point we decide whether or not to follow a certain course. Also, there is always that possibility out there of calling on Kelleher-Ready to do further work.

But, as I've said before, we really haven't decided that. We are considering those things, and I think that perhaps the general answer is that as the Minister of Labour I'm always interested in dialogue with opposition members about issues that need to be addressed to improve the climate for employees and employers and for the economy of the province. I know that's a very generalized type of response, but I think that's about all I can say about that.

I just want to mention something with reference to something the hon. member said in commenting on the dialogue that took place between myself and the member for Parksville-Qualicum. The opposition critic commented that we are now talking about enforcement problems in pensions, and there's really no enforcement role that government has when it comes to pensions. I just wanted to mention that for the record.

The other point I want to make is that when I was commenting earlier that there may be some issues that could be cleared up without coming in here, I do respect the role of estimates and how important it is that we do discuss these issues here, but I think that sometimes a bit of embarrassment, perhaps, can be avoided if the research is wrong. Sometimes we can help with that research prior to it coming in here. Instead of spending our time correcting wrong information, we're spending our time discussing ideas and concepts. I think that's more valuable.

J. Dalton: I certainly agree, in general, with the comments the minister has just made -- not necessarily with all of them. I guess it does raise an interesting side issue when things come to our attention in opposition -- whether it be in the Ministry of Labour or Education or the tourism industry -- as to the authenticity of things that come across our desk, I suppose, and whether we were prepared to get a full briefing 

[ Page 3099 ]

in something that might be appropriate or whether it's maybe of a more political nature -- not that we're going to do anything sneaky behind anyone's back, of course. The fact is, sometimes I don't know that we really want to call up the ministry and say: "What's going on in this issue that I read about in the press?" It's the sort of thing that -- who knows? -- might even appear in question period or in second reading of a bill or something of that nature.

Just to conclude on this topic, one thing that certainly towards the end of this Kelleher-Ready review. . . . There's a fairly lengthy discussion in the review, starting on page 23 and going through for several pages -- so it's certainly something that the authors were very vitally interested in. . . . They do invite a close review of the matter. That's the relationship between -- I'll get the full title; it has an abbreviation, but we won't try and read that into the record -- the bargaining council of British Columbia Building Trades Unions and the CLRA collective bargaining group. That's one that, without question, has caught the attention of Messrs. Kelleher and Ready, as I say, because they comment for several pages. They state right at the top of page 26 that this issue "speaks to the need for a close review of the BCBCBTU constitution." Easy for me to say, but there it is. I guess we can't turn that into a CISIWU-type thing, can we? I don't know how you're going to contract that into. . . . Unless we just call it the BTU -- boot-u. [Laughter.]

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Maybe we can produce this entire document in some sort. . . . As they say, now and then you have to have a little levity in this business; otherwise you take yourselves too seriously. If I recall, the other day, some unnamed member had a letter in the newspaper, and the mixed reaction to the letter was of interest. But that's all I'll say on that topic.

I just want to draw to the attention of this committee and of the minister -- and particularly to his officials -- that given the several pages of comment by these people, there's going to be follow-up on some of the things coming out of the first interim report. I would certainly suggest that that one is obviously begging for some further examination.

Then the authors on that same page, page 26 -- and I've already referred to this in another context -- go on to deal with one-size-fits-all on other issues that are still looming out there. Future policy, maybe legislation -- who knows? That's probably for the fall sitting, no doubt. After all, we dealt with the Labour Relations Code in 1992 as a single statute only, in that full -- was it? -- eight weeks. I can't look to you guys. You weren't here; the minister was, in another capacity. Maybe the Attorney General's remarks of yesterday afternoon will come true. Who knows what will be on the agenda?

One other thing that my other colleagues and I are going to deal with in more detail later is the last issue that the authors comment upon: the question of apprenticeship. It's certainly one that is of vital interest to my colleagues the critic for Skills and Training, for example -- who's here now -- and the MLA for Delta North -- certainly in an Education context, and in Employment and Investment. As the authors say in the last paragraph on page 27: ". . .the traditional role of unions in training and apprenticeship. . . ." That's something that is, of course, of much importance. I made comments in my opening remarks last Thursday on this.

We know now that through some restructuring, there are certain moneys designated in this minister's portfolio for apprenticeship. We know that money has been left in the Education ministry for apprenticeship, I believe -- and maybe I'd better make this clear. I'll ask this question: has the ex-Labour Force Development Board -- close enough to the title -- gone to the Education portfolio? Or is it gone, period?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's gone completely. Some of that responsibility has gone to the Minister of Education.

I think I misspoke myself earlier, in the comment about pension enforcement. We do enforce pensions, but there have been no issues of enforcement that we've been dealing with.

J. Dalton: Funnily enough, that leads right into the next thing I want to ask about. Are you looking at my notes? Is there a mirror up there?

I was quite interested in some of the discussion that you and my colleague from Parksville had, given some interviews that I've heard recently about the Island Highway. Maybe the first thing I would like the minister to tell the committee, if he could. . . . He mentioned that a letter was just recently sent from his office to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Was that precipitated by a letter that the Minister of Transportation and Highways apparently wrote to the Minister of Labour, dealing with the pensions issue? Is that the response? I heard this on CKNW radio last Thursday morning.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think, perhaps, in that broadcast. . . . What actually happened was that Blair Redlin had said that he would ask us for a report. Hence I wrote that letter, which I referred to earlier, which we will be sending over to you.

[4:45]

Now, I know some of these issues are not specific to the Ministry of Labour. Some of them are employment and investment; some are obviously MOTH -- Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- issues; and some are wherever else they may be parked. So if I start trespassing on other people's territory, no doubt the minister will either respond as he feels he needs to. . . . Of course, we can come back to these through other portfolios when we get to them.

The minister is so lucky that he's the first on the Island Highway list. It's becoming more and more of a timely topic. I guess it certainly wasn't by accident that the president of the B.C. Road Builders and Blair Redlin appeared on Bill Good's show last Thursday -- the moderator was Allen Garr, actually, because Bill is on holidays. I guess he's taking a rest, I understand, from a little battle that he and Rafe Mair are having these days -- but that's neither here nor there.

An Hon. Member: Tell us about that.

J. Dalton: Well, all I know, hon. member, is that the other day, before he left, Bill Good really took a shot at Rafe Mair. I was quite surprised that two colleagues. . . . We get along very well on this side, and, of course, with the other side -- at times -- as well.

However, back to what was discussed on CKNW and some of the issues that have come out of the Island Highway 

[ Page 3100 ]

agreement. Probably the main issue that we will get to in a little bit, hon. Chair, after we do some preliminary questioning -- before you might suggest that I'm not sticking to the topic -- and, of course, we always are. . . . One of the issues is the fair wage. I want to sort of park that aside for now, because I think it deserves enough attention -- not necessarily just in this context but elsewhere -- and we have touched upon the enforcement issue that the Kelleher-Ready report. . . . So the fair wage is certainly going to come back and raise some discussion in various senses.

Workers' rights, however, is one topic that the guests on the Allen Garr show discussed last Thursday. Then, according to some people. . . . Then again, maybe the minister is going to say: "Well, if you'd walked into my office, we could have resolved that issue earlier." But maybe not -- who's to say?

There's been some suggestion that workers of eight specified unions have been given priority access to work on the Island Highway. Now, it was my understanding -- and no doubt my colleague from Parksville is even better versed on this than I -- that employment was not to be sort of specified for the select few, but that employment under the Island Highway agreement was to be given to local contractors and people like that. Yet we hear stories of people from Alberta taking jobs away from local people. So given the labour aspect of this -- and I understand there are some issues of employment and other aspects -- is there any merit in the argument of some that the Island Highway agreement isn't necessarily doing its stated objective, which is to give employment to local people?

I can tell the minister -- and I'll put this on the record -- that I have had complaints from several people who live in the area north of Parksville around Mud Bay, Union Bay and those areas. They really feel put out that they're qualified, as far as they're concerned -- and I have no reason to disbelieve them -- and they live in the area of Union Bay or wherever it may be, and they're not getting the work on that stretch of the highway. The work is going to who knows where. So I would like the minister to clarify that issue.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Island Highway is not covered by the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act, so it is a question that should appropriately go to the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

J. Dalton: The minister just advised the committee that the fair-wage agreement does not apply to the Island Highway agreement. What is the controversy, then, about the so-called exporting of the fair-wage off-Island? This is one of the topics that Tony Toth, the president of the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association, and Blair Redlin discussed at some length, as time allowed, on last Thursday's radio program. I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused here. Is the fair-wage agreement a part of the agreement or not?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's covered in the collective agreement, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation and Highways insofar as that agreement is concerned. What I said was that it's not covered by the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act; that's what it's not covered by.

J. Dalton: Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was just trying to leap into something that was kind of intriguing but really wouldn't have held true.

We all agree -- and we've already had questions this afternoon in this committee -- that the fair-wage issue, whether it comes out of the Island Highway agreement or elsewhere, is one that this minister has the responsibility for, and we're looking forward to seeing some of the documentation on the enforcement aspect of the fair wage.

Let's consider some other things: workers' pensions. My colleague from Parksville has again dealt with that issue. It was discussed last Thursday, and having listened to that program, I learned that on March 5 the Minister of Transportation dealt with this on CHEK Television -- at least that's what they said there. Not that we all get our information from CHEK Television, but I guess we all look forward to watching the Judi Tyabji show at 12:30. Am I correct? Yes, I sense some people nodding.

An Hon. Member: Not nodding enthusiastically.

J. Dalton: That's on the record: the lack of enthusiasm for Ms. Tyabji's show. Actually, I kind of enjoy it, but that's okay. That's where the issue of pensions came up. I believe that the minister will share a copy of the letter he sent to the Minister of Transportation, which came out of that discussion.

One point as well, on the same topic of pensions, which again is the responsibility of this minister. . . . If he would care to, I would like him to comment on something that the president of Road Builders said. According to him, 47 percent of the workers on the Island Highway will not get any benefit out of the pension provisions. In other words, I think this is the transferability issue as to whether they can take the pensions they have earned on-Island elsewhere, which is likely to be off-Island, given that it's not likely that. . . . At least, I presume Vancouver Island is not going to get another billion-dollar project. I would kind of like it if somebody would build a Lions Gate Bridge for me, for example.

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe I have answered this question. Not only have I answered it, I have stated that I will send over those two pieces of correspondence that outlined the answer. For the member's information, it was in the context of this question that I was making the point that it would be helpful to check out the research to at least find out if what is stated as fact is incorrect. I think it's helpful to be able to do that. I am sure that any party in opposition doesn't want to get a reputation for stating as fact that which is incorrect.

J. Dalton: Perhaps the minister has just made a fair comment. I am not sure; I guess it depends on the context in which it is taken. I don't recall anyone on this side getting up today and saying: "It is a fact that. . . ." I'm just suggesting things that we are hearing from constituents, contractors and other people that naturally raise some questions and concerns. At the end of the day, who knows what is a fact? I guess it's a fact that it seems to be raining out there, but I'd have to go outside to double-check that one.

Of course, the process that we are struggling with here, as I said earlier, is an imperfect process, and it's not because things are not fact. The fact is that when you go through this type of estimates process, I think that things should be set by a committee with a prescribed agenda and that all members, if they wish to participate, should be allowed to do so. Also, if I'm here to make suggestions -- at least to get them on the record -- I think we should have more opportunity for government officials to get to their feet and say: "Oh well, that's not a political question; I'd love to comment on that." I know that the minister deals with the politics, but I think we have lots of expertise in this room and in every other ministry that should deal with things and put them all on record and say: 

[ Page 3101 ]

"That's where it is, that's where it's coming from and that's where it's going." But there you are. One day when we get our chance -- soon -- we'll do it, right?

There were some other issues that came out of the radio show of last Thursday, but they're not necessarily things that we're going to find very helpful. As I say, I want to revisit the fair-wage thing in perhaps another context. Some of the discussion between the two guests, naturally, was one opinion versus another -- fact versus fiction. I don't know, but that's the way things get played off.

One issue, however, that. . . . I don't know whether the minister can be helpful to this committee on this issue, but I think we're certainly going to be asking it of others. So let's start again, because he's first on the firing line. There was a recent announcement by the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I don't want the minister to say: "Well, wait a minute; go ask somebody else." And that's fine. I know what she said. She did say that the fair-wage aspect of the Island Highway agreement will now be applied to every project over $50 million. Now, of course, within that context, if we can get at least this from the Minister of Labour. . . . Are there any issues that we should be discussing right now in the context of this so-called exporting of the fair-wage agreement from the Island Highway model to project(s) such as, hopefully, the Lions Gate Bridge -- when and if -- and the HOV and the Trans-Canada and interchanges and other things that will certainly be over $50 million?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. This is a Highways issue.

J. Dalton: That's fine, and of course we will revisit it at that time.

One other thing, however, which I might as well at least put on the record now, and we'll get some more details from other ministries. . . . At the time the Island Highway agreement was put together -- and there are labour and other issues, naturally, that come out of it -- there was an understanding made between Road Builders and the then Premier, Mike Harcourt. And his signature is at the bottom of it. It's not one that this minister can deal with, but there certainly was an understanding at that time that the fair-wage agreement would stay on this Island and would not be transported across the gulf of Georgia and dumped on Lions Gate Bridge or wherever else. We're now hearing something else. In fact, they said on the radio the other day, in answer to that: "Well, we've changed our minds; we're now revisiting it." The Minister of Forests said not too long ago that government can do anything it wants. I guess that's what we're now finding, unfortunately, hon. Chair. But let me end that line of questioning.

I want to ask the minister something else about the Employment Standards Act, as this has come to my attention. I apologize. I wasn't here for my colleague from Quilchena's first part of his questioning on the act, but I don't think he got to this particular topic. I have some correspondence and documentation from a lawyer. I'm not going to use his name, of course, but the minister has been written to about this particular subject. The issue, just to give you a bit of the background, hon. Chair, is the role of the director of employment standards and the role of the Employment Standards Tribunal.

When something has been determined by the director, is that the end of her function, or can she in effect intercede when a matter has gone from her office to the tribunal? I'll just make reference, for the committee's information, to the relevant parts of the Employment Standards Act, and then we can come back and look at this particular issue.

Section 86 allows the director to vary or cancel a determination that has been made. That means that if a dispute, whether that be employee-driven or employer-driven, and I guess it's fair to say. . . . Maybe my colleague -- and I'll check the Blues -- did ask about the number of complaints. I would take it that a significant majority are employee-driven. Is that fair to say?

[5:00]

J. Dalton: Oh, that's fine. Thank you. I'll come back to that later.

So the director may vary or cancel the determination under section 86. Then the act goes on, in part 10, dealing with the director's powers. That's actually where section 86. . . . That's the last section in that part.

Part 12 deals with the authority of the Employment Standards Tribunal, which in essence is to act as a court of review or appeal or whatever. I'm a lawyer, so I look at it in the context that you have a trial decision, and then it moves on to the appeal level. That, in essence, is what the tribunal is to do. Section 108 of the act deals with the appeal and inquiry powers of the tribunal. It's given, under the Inquiry Act, the power of a commissioner. It very briefly states: ". . .may decide all questions of fact or law arising in the course of an appeal or a review."

Now, returning to this concern, which a lawyer has drawn to my attention. . . . I'm sure he's not the only one out there, but he stated it well and documented it fairly well. He was representing an employer. I won't use any names; it's not appropriate to read the names of companies and clients into the record. But again, the minister has been written to on this subject. He is complaining that the director, in effect, is interceding in a matter that has left her office and has now gone on for review by, for want of a better term, the tribunal. And one letter from this lawyer, dated February 10, goes on at some length -- two and a half pages -- to document this interference of the director.

I would like the minister, if he would care to comment, to tell this committee what he sees is the role of the director of employment standards. Is her role to deal with the initial complaints that may come to her attention, and that's it? Or is she allowed to carry that role on beyond the first look as an employment issue that she or her office may have?

Hon. J. Cashore: The director of employment standards will try to avoid changing a determination. But if she determines that it was wrong without having to incur the cost of a tribunal appeal, she will make that determination.

J. Dalton: Do I take that to mean that if, let's say -- just taking a hypothetical before I come back to this complaint -- the director has already made a decision that's been drawn to her attention, she can in effect reverse the field and say that she was wrong, and therefore vary or. . . .? What's the term from section 86? Is she entitled to vary or cancel her own determination?

[ Page 3102 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Given that this is a hypothetical kind of discourse, if information were to come before her that indicated that there should be a change in the determination, then I expect that she would make that wise decision based on having that new information.

J. Dalton: Now I'm looking at section 79 of the act, and 79 is under part 10, "Complaints, Investigations and Determinations." That's where a complaint can be registered with the director if. . . . I guess people who care about it would, of course, typically call their local employment standards office. If and when it may end up at the director's office, I would like to know if. . . . Maybe we're going to have to go back and re-debate this bill, but we can't do that. When did we pass this thing? In 1995. I'd like to go back and re-debate it, but we can't do that -- not with this current arrangement.

Section 86: ". . .the director may vary or cancel the determination. . . ." Is it possible to argue that she can vary or cancel her own determination?

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe that was the question I just answered. My answer was that if information were to come before her that she therefore found behooved her to change a determination, then she would do the appropriate thing, given the fact that section 86 enables her to do that.

J. Dalton: It may very well be that we're going to have to -- not this committee, but I certainly may -- take the time right after we're finished today to go back and review the Hansard where we debated this part. Obviously, I can't recall what was said at that time, but it's a bit of a surprise to me to hear that that's the power we advertently or inadvertently gave the director when we passed Bill 29 -- the Employment Standards Act, as we now know it.

But let's return from the hypothetical to the real. Again, even though I'm not going to use names, the minister has these letters, so he can fill in the blanks. This lawyer is concerned that determinations made by the director of employment standards are perhaps being made not necessarily illegally but certainly, in his suggestion, in an untoward fashion.

The process is: people complain to their employment standards office -- if they can get through on the phone. That's another issue. I don't know whether my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena got into that, but one of the big complaints we get on this side of the floor is that you can't get through on the telephone. It's very ironic. Here's a poor employee out there who hasn't been paid, who would like some assistance, and he can't even talk to a real person. All he gets is a ringing phone. We have little tricks of the trade sometimes, where you can cut through that, but Joe Public or Josephine Public can't do that.

So, returning to this issue, the tribunal was supposed to be a completely independent body which reviewed the facts and law of each case. Now, this lawyer is complaining that his client got into the tribunal process in part 12, and guess what? The director changed her mind -- whether that was her mind or someone else's mind -- and pulled the plug on the tribunal. She made a decision that, needless to say, the lawyer's client wasn't happy with, otherwise he wouldn't be writing and complaining -- but that's a side issue.

The legal issue that I would like to try to get resolved here. . . . Does the director indeed have the authority, as this lawyer's complaining of, that whatever they may be charged with the responsibility to do in a specific complaint, they can suddenly find -- maybe they're even halfway through -- that somebody pulls the plug on them. I can tell you that the Court of Appeal certainly can't operate that way. The judge can't come back halfway through an appeal and say: "Well, I've reviewed the file and I think that the person's guilty or not guilty, and I've changed my mind."

There has to be some fairness in the law. There has to be some objectivity, whether it be this tribunal under Bill 29 or whether it be the Supreme Court of Canada -- I don't care what level we are. It seems to me that due process is being somewhat compromised by what this lawyer is suggesting.

The Chair: Members, before I recognize the minister, I would like to caution members in regard to matters that may be sub judice and perhaps even. . . . I would also like to bring up the matter of relevancy to the minister's estimates.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I think it's important to point out that it could well be in this particular example that if a decision was reversed, it refers to a decision that was not made by the director but by a person who was empowered by the director to make that decision. That may be the actual circumstance in this case. I'm advised that this letter has come to the minister, and a response, with research into the details, is being prepared.

J. Dalton: I'm glad to hear that, and I'm sure the lawyer is looking forward to receiving the response. Actually, the last correspondence that was copied just last week from this same lawyer is that he's already had a response from the Attorney General on the subject. That, of course, is not the Attorney General's issue; it's the Labour minister's issue. The next thing to be done, as the minister has indicated, is a response from his ministry.

Putting that aside, however -- that's just to sort of tidy up the loose ends. . . . I still want to canvass the issue of it. It isn't sub judice; this thing has been done, as far as the director is concerned. Maybe that's the next question I should ask; I'd have to review the act in this context. But I'll ask this: who has the final say under this act as to what's a determination -- the director or the tribunal?

Hon. J. Cashore: The director makes the determination. The determination can be appealed to the tribunal, and then that is what stands. So -- appeal of the director's decision; then, when it goes to the tribunal, the tribunal makes a determination that stands.

J. Dalton: Fair enough. If it gets to the point where the tribunal, then, has made a decision, do I take it that that is the end of that complaint? It is resolved?

Hon. J. Cashore: There is the opportunity, if the tribunal decides to do so, to refer it back to the director.

J. Dalton: Boy, do you know that we created a monster in '95? I can't blame my new colleagues here, but I was part of the opposition when this bill went through the House. Maybe we're guilty of being asleep at the switch, but it seems very surprising to me with my legal background, and maybe my colleague from Chilliwack would like to jump in at some point as well. I am a bit dumbfounded to hear that something would go from the director's office to a tribunal, which is the next step up the ladder -- I will want to return to this lawyer's complaint in another context in a moment -- and then say: 

[ Page 3103 ]

"By the way, we're reversing our field, and the director is going to make the determination." As I sort of whispered to my colleague from Delta North as I sat down, who's on first here? Who's on first?

[5:15]

There's nothing complicated or confusing about the way the act sets out what is a very reasonable process. Indeed, there is another possibility that exists for all of these kinds of cases which could also go to judicial review. The hon. member is fully aware of that as well. I don't think that means to any greater extent that the way this is written is a problem. I think the hon. member, when he refers to reversing field, makes that statement, I would presume, assuming that no new information has come forward. But anyone in any system who has made a determination and who now has the responsibility to look at the situation in the context of new information may, in those circumstances, decide that that new information behooves that there be a decision made that takes that into account. That's not reversing the field; that's doing a very sensible thing based on the information that is currently available.

J. Dalton: I've listened intently to that last response, so let's return to another aspect of this, which has come out of the correspondence from this lawyer.

In this case -- and I think this is where we really do have to determine whether we're reversing the field, which is football terminology. . . . It's certainly not used in either soccer, which I no longer play, or rugby, which is my lifelong pursuit. I don't play it anymore; I just stand on the sidelines and enjoy it these days.

So in this case we have no reason to disbelieve this lawyer -- I hope. He sets out his perception and that of his client that, in essence, the following took place: there was an issue as to whether somebody was or was not an employee. Well, that's a bit of background on what led up to this problem. The employer appealed the determination -- the one that was made by the director -- to the tribunal. It specifically did not appeal the findings of fact, but only the application of the law, which is one of the grounds that I've already cited in section 108. You can deal with either questions of fact or the law, whichever is the argument presented to the tribunal. So we have an argument of law to these findings of fact.

The complainant made no appeal, so this is a one-sided appeal. After all submissions had been made and a date had been suggested for the hearing, the director varied the determination and reversed the field.

Now, from my legal perspective, putting aside my legislative hat, I am guilty in a way. I guess I was in the House when this bill was presented and debated. I don't know whether I voted for or against. I hope I'm on record as voting against, after now having your second visit on it and after having seen what is happening out in the field. I think that's more important.

From the minister's perspective, is that a valid interpretation of the power given to the director for something to be set down for a tribunal? Submissions are made, and the director then invokes section 86 and says: "By the way, I've changed my mind." Whether she's done that because she's had new information, or whatever, I'm confused.

S. Orcherton: Point of order. I'm listening to the discussion and the ramblings here on this particular issue, and they don't seem, in my view, to be relevant. Certainly they seem to be repetitive. I'd ask that the Chair rule on whether my sense is correct or incorrect in this matter.

The Chair: I think all members are aware of the rule with regard to repetition and relevancy, and that's all the comment I would make.

J. Dalton: I raised an issue. Whether my colleague across the floor thinks I am being repetitive or not, I care not. Hon. Chair, I'll listen to your rulings, but if members opposite wish to come into this committee and not participate but simply jump to their feet every now and then and think some point of order is kind of a cute thing to do, it doesn't impress me.

Now, returning to this issue. We're trying to get an understanding from the minister, who is responsible for the Employment Standards Act, for the director, for the tribunal and not necessarily for the interpretation of the act. That's not his function, but he's got to administer it and it's got to be done fairly. I suggest that there are many complaints coming from people, both employer and employee, about the way this act is administered. That is -- excuse me -- the minister's responsibility. It's not mine or my colleagues' here; it's his. And it's certainly not the member from Hillside's point of order to jump up and try to be an interventionist.

Let's return to this issue that this lawyer, who is in the practice of law. . . . He's not out there just sort of whistling in the breeze because he's got nothing better to do with his life. He's trying to represent his client's best interests. And I'm trying to bring this to the committee's attention so we can get some better understanding of who is doing what to whom out there in the employment standards field.

After all submissions were made and a date was set -- so they had got all the information -- you know what the issue is? It's a point of law. I don't know what the training of the current director of employment standards is, but I hope she doesn't perceive herself to be set up there as judge and jury -- and doesn't really care about the appeal court, 'cause that ain't on. It probably could be argued, after the fact, that the law is then being applied unconstitutionally, if nothing else. So is it correct, then, to state, as this lawyer is arguing, that that's an unfair use of the authority given to the director in section 86 -- that it is not appropriate in any way, shape or form for her to invoke section 86 after things have been described the way they have? This issue is now before the tribunal, they've set a date for hearing, and then she says: "By the way, I'm pulling the plug on the whole thing."

Hon. J. Cashore: In my view, the act is being administered appropriately, and I have answered this question in a wide variety of ways. I think the hon. member is aware that he is discussing an issue on which he holds documentation in his hand. It is an issue that will not be adjudicated in this context; it will not be adjudicated in estimates. It will go through the appropriate process, which is for me to respond to the letter -- which I have received and of which I will be sending a copy to 

[ Page 3104 ]

this hon. member. But I do not intend to discuss this particular issue any further in these estimates, because I don't think this is a useful discussion. There are interpretations coming from one perspective; there are other perspectives. I will address that in my letter.

J. Dalton: I certainly look forward, as the minister has stated, to being copied on that, because I have been copied on the correspondence leading to this point. I'm not one to belabour an issue unless, in my role as critic and as an MLA in the opposition, I am not satisfied with the answers I'm getting. Again, I'm not terribly impressed with certain points of order that some people think are kind of nice to raise. It reminds me of how other members used to conduct themselves in this committee from time to time.

There's no point in our getting off on tracks as to whether this is or is not before a tribunal or elsewhere. The fact is that this thing is no longer before the tribunal, and that's the point I'm trying to clarify. This issue is no longer before the tribunal, because the director -- inappropriately, I'm saying -- invoked an authority that we may have, by accident or otherwise, given to the director in 1995. But I sure hope, as a person with legal training and therefore some understanding of the legal issues surrounding this issue, that our interpretation is not: we can go down this path, and we'll go through that office; we'll go over to this tribunal, and we'll set a hearing; we'll have the submissions. By the way, we're going to start reversing ourselves and walking back along that path, going back through the director's office. And she's going to say, "I've had a second thought on this" -- and who knows where that came from? -- and change her mind.

I think that's patently ridiculous, and it offends me. That's why I'm getting a bit annoyed -- and, as everyone knows, I'm a pretty calm, cool and collected guy. But it does tick me off a bit when I hear certain responses that I'm not terribly happy with. I'll look forward to the minister's letter. And I don't want members from the back bench jumping up and trying to suggest that things are or are not in or out of order. I might suggest that the member opposite who just made those comments is the same one who, I think, took some cheap shots at me last Friday when I responded to his statement in the House -- which was completely off topic, I agree.

S. Orcherton: Point of order. Hon. Chair, the member opposite is certainly legitimate in asking questions in terms of estimates, and I'm interested in hearing those questions. But his constant reference to the rulings of yourself as Chair of this committee and to comments made outside this committee's dealings with estimates is unconscionable, in my view. I'd ask the member to withdraw that kind of questioning or not pursue those kinds of discussions and arguments in this House here.

The Chair: Thank you, member.

Members, if we could continue within the defined estimates of the minister. . . . I think the minister has indicated that he's answered the line of questioning that the member is on, so perhaps the member could pursue another line of questioning at this time.

J. Dalton: That's fair enough. I don't know whether somebody was asking me to withdraw something, but certainly I'm not going to do so. So that's fine.

Given that, unlike the Attorney General's estimates, we didn't get our then-traditional although new-found tea break, and as the temperature in this room is maybe rising a little higher because there are no windows open -- or whatever -- I'm going to suggest that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:29 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada