[ Page 8939 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, we have an individual in the House today who is well known to many of us. He is a man of many hats, and the hat that he is best known for is that of the mayor of the city of Quesnel. I ask that the House make Steve Wallace welcome.

T. Nebbeling: In the gallery today we have some very special visitors from the Netherlands. With us is His Excellency Dirk Jan von Houten, the newly appointed Ambassador of the Netherlands to Canada. He is accompanied by Karel Birkman, consul general for the Netherlands, based in Vancouver. With your permission, I would like to say a few words -- in Dutch, of course. [Dutch spoken.] And with these kind words, I ask everybody to welcome His Excellency to the House.

Hon. I. Waddell: As the Minister of Tourism, I'd like to add my welcome to the Dutch Ambassador because we have many good Dutch people who come and visit Canada.

I would also like to introduce to the House the executive director of the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, former Canadian Ambassador Roger Bull. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: With us today in the visitors' gallery are a number of guests who are here to witness the introduction of a major new bill, which I am privileged to be tabling later today. The wide range of interests they represent points to the broad appeal and importance of this legislation. They include: Karen Goodings from the Peace-Liard regional district; George Smith from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; Wayne Sawchuk from the Chetwynd Environmental Society; Neil Meagher, representing forestry workers; Barry Holland, representing the hunting and recreation sector; Peter Stone, spokesperson for the Muncho Kaska and part of the Kaska Dena council; Rob McMannus from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; and Elizabeth MacMillan from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, who worked hard on this new legislation. I'd ask all members to join me in extending a very warm welcome from the House to all of these guests.

L. Reid: I have two very dear friends in the gallery today: Lynda and Murray Turney, who are visiting from Duncan. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: It is my privilege to introduce and welcome a woman was a member of the White Rock city council, a member of the South Fraser regional health board and the Fraser Valley regional library board. Today she is celebrating her twenty-first wedding anniversary and doing business on behalf of the city of White Rock. Please join me in welcoming Judy Forster to the precincts.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is a pleasure for me today to welcome an outstanding British Columbian to the chamber. He is close to becoming the longest-serving mayor in the history of Port Coquitlam. He's a former president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and he's the current chair of the MFA. He is a very good friend of mine. He's also celebrating his fortieth wedding anniversary with his wife Joanne. Would the House please welcome Len Traboulay, mayor of Port Coquitlam, as well as the city administrator, Tony Chong.

Hon. S. Hammell: I would like to introduce my sister Val Hammell, who is in the gallery with over 52 students from South Meridian Elementary School in south Surrey. With her are parents and teachers from the school who are also on this visit. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is my pleasure today to introduce two people from Cariboo South: Terry Tate, the chair, and Jim Chorney, the manager of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Community Skills Centre. They're down here on business. Accompanying them is Laverne Burnell, who also chairs and is intimately involved with a skills centre in the province. Please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Lovick: I note in the gallery a friend from my part of the world, Mr. Steve Beasley. He is a former president of the student society at Malaspina University College and also an activist in the Canadian Federation of Students -- a very bright, articulate and capable young man. I'm delighted to see him here taking an interest in our proceedings. I would ask my colleagues to please join me in making him most welcome.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery is a longtime friend of mine from Pemberton. Her name is Marg Long. Marg and I had lunch in the legislative dining room today and reminisced about when we travelled together for over a year, hitchhiking around Morocco and Europe in 1965.

An Hon. Member: Let's see. . .that would make you 70.

T. Stevenson: I started hitchhiking when I was ten, hon. Speaker.

Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm surprised he can remember.

I have nine names to introduce. I want to advise the House that I met earlier with a delightful group of children and their mothers who have come down from Prince Rupert. This is really a joint introduction with my colleague the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. First of all, I'd like to introduce Andrea Robinson and her two children, Tod Stephens and Darwin Stephens; Audrey Sankey, with her children Suzanne Sankey and Justine Sankey; and Judy Clifton, with her children Amanda Clifton and Kade Clifton. I'd also like to recognize Arlene Hartley, the president of the board of directors for Air B.C. Cares 4 Kids, and Joan Nielson, the secretary of the board of directors, who is a constituent of my colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon. I would like all members of the House to give them a very warm welcome to Victoria.

E. Walsh: I am very pleased today to introduce to the House Elaine Paterson and Bryan Rodger, who are here visiting from Quesnel. Bryan is president and Elaine is vice-president of the NDP constituency association in Quesnel. Also visiting us are Bryan's parents, Tom and Nancy Rodger. Tom and Nancy are here from Newport, Scotland; that's on the east coast of Scotland, for anybody who's not sure where it is. Tom is no stranger to politics because he sits on the city council in Newport.

[ Page 8940 ]

G. Bowbrick: I'm sure that all of us in this House remember teachers who made a very positive difference in our lives. Joining us in the gallery today is a teacher named Ron Jang, who was my English teacher in grades 9 and 10. I still use his rule of thumb to distinguish between the words "who" and "whom." I'd ask all members of this House to please join me in making him welcome.

[2:15]

Hon. C. Evans: Coming to work every day is wonderful, because the people who work in my office are brilliant, friendly and lovely -- and watching me on TV. Today we are especially graced by the mother of Jacki St. Dennis, Thelma Johnson, and her aunt Doreen Smith from Queensland, Australia. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: From the constituency of Surrey-Green Timbers are Malcolm and Margaret Gosse, who are visiting the capital today. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MUSKWA-KECHIKA MANAGEMENT AREA ACT

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

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: This bill creates a separate act for the Muskwa-Kechika management area, which was designated through an order-in-council under the Environment and Land Use Act in December 1997. I take great pride in introducing this legislation. I want, first of all, to personally thank the Minister of Environment for affording me this opportunity to introduce her bill in the Legislature.

This bill confirms and builds on government's decision, announced in October 1997, to provide special protection for this area of the Northern Rockies, one of North America's last and largest true wilderness areas. This decision has been praised around the world and is a triumph of conservation, wilderness protection and sustainable development. The Muskwa-Kechika is rich in untouched beauty, natural resources and abundant animal life. It provides a unique opportunity for both protection of internationally significant wilderness values and sustainable development of oil and gas and other resources.

The creation of a separate Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act will ensure that these values and opportunities are managed in a way that respects both today's needs and those of future generations. The new act, which contains all of the provisions of the original order, provides for natural resource management that is consistent with the direction of the Fort Nelson and Fort St. John land and resource management planning tables. The bill also sets out a trust fund and government appropriation for management of this area.

I want to commend, once again, all of those people in northern British Columbia, in the Peace country, who worked so very hard and who gave their time and effort to make this a reality. It is truly a gift for future generations. I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its passage. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY

For the first time ever, the province would like to proclaim June 21 as National Aboriginal Day in B.C. I would urge all members and their constituents to participate this weekend in various events around B.C. to celebrate this important day.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF LABOUR BILL ON B.C. ECONOMY

Hon. D. Lovick: The Leader of the Opposition may believe that the economy is in free fall, but I suggest that a dispassionate, serious look at economic indicators would demonstrate that that is not in fact the case. I would point out, as well, that the legislation that was introduced yesterday is an amendment to the Labour Code. It is a very small amendment. I anticipate that it will have no significant economic impact at all.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Any objective observer would say that a fall from the number one economy in Canada to number ten is a free fall.

[ Page 8941 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I thought I had been most explicit in the last 24 hours, explaining on numerous occasions what the bill does. The absolute theme repeated again and again -- and I'll say it as slowly and clearly as I can -- is that housing is not affected by this bill. The institutional, commercial and industrial sector of the construction industry. . . . Residential construction is specifically excluded. I hope that clears up the matter once and for all.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, this minister is clearly dreaming in Technicolor. The fact of the matter is that this minister doesn't know anything about the construction industry. He can bounce around over there as much as he wants, but he hasn't learned a thing in his portfolio. This is what Mr. Sashaw says about his legislation: "This legislation clearly demonstrates that this government doesn't have the faintest idea how the construction industry works." When will this minister and this government understand that putting working people out of work does not improve the economy and does not improve their livelihoods?

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, this bill will not put anybody out of work. One of the things. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. D. Lovick: One of the many recommendations made to the panel, and indeed made by the B.C. Business Council -- one of the many accepted by this government and by the panel -- was that the competitive nature of the industry must obtain. At the moment the marketplace will determine whether an individual building contractor gets a job or not. How, then, can one possibly say that a change to the Labour Code, which leaves us with the same competitive environment, will have some kind of negative impact on the economy? It's bad logic.

C. Hansen: Speaking of putting people out of work, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. The softwood lumber production numbers are now in, and they are clearly not a pretty sight. Our production is down 10 percent in the interior and 20 percent on the coast. I can see the Deputy Premier nodding his head, because he's very aware of these numbers. Alberta is building new mills; Quebec is building new mills. I'd like to ask the Minister of Forests: what in the Labour Code change is going to bring back investors to start building again in British Columbia?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't see any relationship between this legislation and investments in the forest industry. I can tell you that Statistics Canada has projected $700 million in investments in the forest industry -- like the changes in the Crofton mill. There are many projects that are underway, which have been announced and recently completed. During the last downturn in the forest economy, investments were flat and stayed flat for about five years. We don't expect, when there is 30 percent decrease in the Asian economy, that there would be anything but a reduction.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: I'm not sure that I caught the logic of that. Certainly with $34 billion of production in Alberta, if B.C. only had a portion of that we could put some of our 197,000 unemployed back to work.

Hon. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Labour. The economy in British Columbia is on the brink of recession. This introduction of Labour Code changes has sent a message to the world that B.C. is not a place to invest. Does the Minister of Labour have any idea how much will be charged to the B.C. economy, in terms of lost opportunity, by the Labour Code changes that he brought in yesterday?

Hon. D. Lovick: That reminds me of a line attributed to Churchill when he got the advice of the House one day. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .because obviously the people asking the questions weren't getting anywhere. The answer was: "No argument, more volume." It seems to me that's what we're getting here: no argument, more volume. The messages that are being sent out about the problems facing the economy are coming from two sources: (1) the Liberals and (2) the people who bankrolled the Liberals in the last campaign. That's where they're coming from.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES AND
EDUCATION AGREEMENT-IN-COMMITEE

Hon. P. Ramsey: There's a bit of a tautology in the member's question. It's exactly BCPSEA that just now completed their voting on the agreement. They are party to labour relations in the public schools.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Again to the Minister of Labour. Surrey school trustees, armed with a legal opinion, now have an

[ Page 8942 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Surrey school board also has in its possession a legal opinion obtained by BCPSEA that says that their application to the Labour Relations Board has no merit and will be dismissed. It's a shame that the Surrey school board didn't listen to the legal advice of their own bargaining agent.

[2:30]

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, since the Minister of Labour seems to be doubling for the Minister of Education, or vice versa, let me give it to either one who would like to handle this question: is it the view of this government that the Labour Relations Board is subjugated to the rule of the minister, and that the minister should now be able to dictate the terms of an agreement-in-committee without free collective bargaining and having a proper vote -- given that 87.6 percent of school trustees have voted down this agreement? Is that what the minister is telling us today?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, the member and I had a thorough debate on this in estimates. The mediation and the facilitation between trustees and teachers, which this government undertook, was not done under the auspices of the Labour Relations Board. The agreement was sent out for ratification by teachers and by trustees, and today we know the results.

SMALL BUSINESS INPUT INTO LABOUR BILL

Hon. D. Lovick: I am delighted to see that the member for Matsqui has regained his sense of humour. His self-righteousness was wearing a little thin. Welcome back to the humour.

I want to say this as delicately as I can.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: The amendments to the Labour Code deal with the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors of the construction industry. By definition, those are larger employers. Small business is not affected by this legislation.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: The minister's willingness to dismiss the concerns of small business this readily speaks volumes about the degree of thought that went into drafting this legislation in the first place. Small business will survive in Abbotsford and Smithers -- right across this province. They'll survive this additional NDP attack. But I want the minister to speak to them. I want them to know from him how many came to him -- it's not a difficult question -- and said: "Mr. Minister, please make these changes to the Labour Code. We're not satisfied with NDP overtaxation. We're not satisfied with seven years of overregulation. We need a change in the Labour Code to make our lives even that much more difficult and to drive this economy that much further down the toilet."

Hon. D. Lovick: I would simply remind the member and all members that there was a very long and elaborate consultation process involving all of the small business representatives. Three particular recommendations were made by the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. One was that they did not want sectoral bargaining; they didn't get sectoral bargaining. The second was that they wanted to have a training system that was at arm's length from government, and therefore we created ITAC in order to produce that. The third one. . . . I see I'm out of time, so I won't even bother; I'll keep them guessing.

Petitions

Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from 210 constituents of Vancouver-Little Mountain regarding Bill 26.

Orders of the Day

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading continued)

C. Hansen: I started out this morning and talked about some of the reasons why this bill is being introduced at this time. Before I launch into the final portion of my remarks, I want to quickly recap some of the issues that I raised earlier today, for the benefit of those who may be picking up on this debate at this stage in the afternoon.

Certainly we had an hour and 15 minutes this morning when I was able to outline some of the reasons why Bill 26 is wrong for the province. What's important for everyone to recognize is that this is a bill that was introduced yesterday, just slightly over 24 hours ago, and at 10 o'clock this morning. . . . This is a government that calls for debate on a substantial piece of legislation -- a very significant change to the Labour Code of British Columbia -- the very next morning.

[ Page 8943 ]

I talked at length this morning about the state of the B.C. economy. I talked about how, in the time that this party has been in office since 1991, we have seen British Columbia go from first place to last place -- to the No. 10 spot -- in terms of economic growth. I talked about job creation. In 1991, when this minister was elected to this chamber as a government member, B.C. was number one in terms of job creation, and now we are in last place. I talked about how the standard of living of individual British Columbians has declined and how their disposable income -- the amount of money they have left in their pocket after a tax grab by this government -- is declining. I talked about the things that are eroding economic confidence in British Columbia -- the things that are driving investment dollars out of this province.

I pointed out that in all the consultations this government has done with the business community -- to create the illusion that somehow they're sensitive to the economic damage they're doing to British Columbia -- they were given two very strong messages about things that had to be done to restore confidence in the economy. One item was a significant cut in taxes. The number two item that came up, time and time again, was: do not touch the Labour Code. That is why we have been fundamentally opposed to this legislation from the point at which it was introduced for first reading. The damage that is being done to the B.C. economy is done by the very act of introducing Bill 26 to this Legislature.

Investors who are prepared to come to this province and create jobs are looking for some evidence that this government has been listening to the concerns of job creators. There have been the talks, there have been the consultations, but obviously that has fallen on deaf ears when it comes to the government benches. For all the advice that was given to this government on how they could get British Columbians back to work again, what is clear is that the government was not listening.

Yesterday in question period the minister made a comment. I think he repeated it in various other interviews and in the House earlier today in question period. He said that indeed nothing in this bill would have a negative impact on jobs and investment in this province. That comment proves to me that this minister does not understand the harmful effect that this legislation will have on the B.C. economy. If this minister had done any economic impact studies at all, he would be able to answer that question.

Hon. D. Lovick: Tell me about the bill.

C. Hansen: Hon. Speaker, the minister says: "Tell me about the bill." This is the problem: the minister doesn't realize that this bill is about another nail in the coffin of the B.C. economy. That's what this bill is about. If he had done those economic impact studies, he would have discovered that the economists have been telling him about the negative impact that this legislation will have. If he had done an economic impact study, he would have had investment analysts -- not just from B.C. but from other jurisdictions -- telling him about the effect that this legislation will have. They could recite to him, chapter and verse, the number of companies that have taken a look at British Columbia as a place to invest and realized that what this NDP government is doing to our Labour Code is a reason for them not to invest in British Columbia.

What we have in Bill 26 is yet another reason for them to not invest in British Columbia -- at a time when we have 197,000 people unemployed, at a time when we have almost 20 percent of young British Columbians between the ages of 15 and 24 unemployed. That is a track record that this government should be absolutely ashamed of. It is a track record that will become their legacy, once they are driven out of office.

I want to go back to a year ago, when we had Bill 44. Bill 44 was the cause of enormous anger in this province. The government made an announcement on July 16 that they were not going to proceed with Bill 44, because they'd had three weeks in which public anger in this province had erupted. But even then, when they backed off on Bill 44, they did it not because it was bad legislation. . . . Their excuse was that they hadn't consulted properly.

[2:45]

The Premier said: ". . .it's important that we have discussion with the business community and others about legislation before we proceed with it in the House. . . . Clearly that consultation was not broad enough before we brought it" -- Bill 44 -- "into this chamber." He went on to say: "Over the course of the next few months, we'll go through a process. We intend to bring legislation back in the spring."

Well, this isn't the spring. Today is the first day of the summer solstice. I think it's probably a fitting metaphor for Bill 26. Here it is; they brought it in on the longest day of the year, and it is the start of darker days in this province. It is the start of days that are going to be shorter in this province, and I think that's an appropriate metaphor for the effect that Bill 26 is going to have on our economy.

But hon. Speaker, what did the Premier do after he announced that the only thing that was wrong with Bill 44 was lack of consultation? Well, he went out and struck two committees, but it was clear from day one that they were prepared to defend the legislation. They said it was good legislation, but they admitted that there hadn't been consultation. So the consultation became an exercise in a process rather than real decision-making, as we know, because the fix was already in.

Let me just grab another quote from the Premier, where he says: ". . .with respect to the legislation, there are clearly concerns in elements of the business community and others. Therefore it's incumbent upon the government to engage people and to discuss with people the explanation and

[ Page 8944 ]

I think if we look at what the Premier said at the time, clearly the fix was in then. They weren't out to rewrite Bill 44. They weren't out to back off on sectoral bargaining in the construction industry. They weren't out to back off on the successorship provisions. Instead they went for a process of consultation to put forward the appearance that they were listening to the business community. But what was clear was that they already had their minds made up: Bill 44 was good legislation, and they were going to go ahead with it.

What we have here in Bill 26 is perhaps not everything that was in Bill 44 -- I recognize that -- but it's a big chunk of it. The other thing that we recognize is that this is obviously the first stage in a strategy of sectoral bargaining in British Columbia. I go back to the comments that were made by Ken Georgetti at the annual convention of the B.C. Federation of Labour. He made those comments in November of 1996, when he said quite clearly that the labour movement needs new tools in order to broaden the reach of the unionized sector in British Columbia. He talks specifically about sectoral bargaining. He talks about janitorial services, the fast-food industry and service stations.

When you look at Bill 44, and now when you look at Bill 26, what is clear is that they are starting down that road. There may be organizations that were caught in Bill 44, that would have been caught into that web of sectoral bargaining, that are not caught in that web today under Bill 26. There are some companies, but there are an awful lot more companies than this minister has admitted to in the last two days. . . . I think those companies felt that under Bill 44, this government had a pistol to their head; it was a loaded .44 Magnum. Now, for all those companies that perhaps are not caught in Bill 26, they have to realize that that pistol is still at their head and that there is more than one bullet in the chamber. Bill 26 is clearly the first bullet in the chamber. All those other sectors have to realize that if this government gets its way in terms of the direction they would like to take labour legislation in this province, all of those sectors are next in line -- not just the construction industry. If you look to Mr. Georgetti's words, then obviously that reach is expected to go much farther than just construction.

Some documents came out earlier this year regarding the communications strategy that was put into Bill 44. It's interesting to note that the documents show that the government consulted only with labour before bringing that bill forward. In it, there's a great quote. In this document, it admits: ". . .government can expect criticism for lack of consultation with, and input from, the business community." When the Premier announced that they weren't going to go forward with Bill 44, it was this great revelation that had just suddenly occurred to them -- that they hadn't done an adequate job of consultation with this great piece of legislation. Yet their own documents show that even before they introduced Bill 44, they knew they hadn't done the consultation with the business community. They knew that they had listened only to the labour movement, and it was written right into their communications documents.

Last year the government tried to peddle Bill 44 as housekeeping legislation -- minor changes. Doesn't that ring a bell? Last year we heard about the modest changes to gambling in British Columbia -- only an 1,800 percent increase in gambling revenues to the government coffers. That was just a modest change.

We know that last year Bill 44 was also described as just a modest change, just minor housekeeping in terms of labour legislation in British Columbia. Yesterday -- both in terms of the minister's press releases and of the comments he made to the media -- he again described these as simply modest changes. It seems to be a pat line that they come out with. Quite frankly, whenever I see something that this government is describing as a modest change, I'm immediately suspicious, given the track record that we now have. It's the third example of legislation that's going to have significant impact, that they're trying to bill as being modest in terms of its impact.

The communications plan last year said: "The proposed legislation will make significant changes to the collective bargaining structure in the B.C. construction industry." Again, their own internal communications documents stated that they knew the significance of the changes. Yet they trot this out in their media interviews as being modest. "Don't get excited; it's really a very minor change." Frankly, this year we're not buying this, and the public isn't buying it either. They recognize the impact that this will have.

I also find it interesting that in that communications plan, there were two processes when it came to fielding questions and informing the various stakeholders about the legislation. It's interesting that the business and industry representatives were to be informed by either a deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister. The B.C. Federation of Labour and the building trades unions, on the other hand, were to be contacted directly by the Minister of Labour himself.

Doesn't that remind you of the letters that went out in December of last year, I believe it was, to the various stakeholder groups that were involved in this so-called consultation process? The letter that went out from the Minister of Labour to the trade unions started out: "Dear Friends. . . ." The letters that went out to the business community said: "Dear Stakeholders. . . ." I think that that in itself sums up where this government's priorities are.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: The Minister for Children and Families is asking me who my friends are. I would suggest to her that I'm very proud of my friends. I'm certainly not indebted to them by paying them back with legislation like Bill 26. . . .

I want to talk about some of the elements that have come out in the last few weeks. The minister talked yesterday about the very cordial discussions that he had had with various industry group leaders in British Columbia. What is so obvious is that the minister was clearly not listening to the advice that he was getting from those groups. There was an appeal. Here's a perfect quote from the leader of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses: "Labour law changes like those planned will only make matters worse." She goes on to say: "B.C. small and medium businesses don't want special treatment or bailouts from government. They just want a fair chance to succeed. Balanced and flexible labour policies are essential to their abilities to respond to the needs of their customers and to continue to be our province's overwhelming source of new job creation."

I want to refer to the section 3 committee report that came out. The minister was very quick to point out that he had heard complaints about the section 3 committee report from the business community, which felt that going ahead with those recommendations would have a detrimental effect on the B.C. economy. As a result, if you listen to the minister's words, he heeded that advice and backed off on going ahead with the section 3 changes that were being recommended.

[ Page 8945 ]

I'd like to refer to something that the section 3 committee said in their report, where they're talking about sectoral bargaining. This minister has gone to great lengths to try to convince us that what is in Bill 26 is not sectoral bargaining, yet what Bill 26 does is take one entire segment of the construction industry and say that all unionized workplaces, all unionized employers, all unionized employees in the craft sector are going to fall under one master agreement. That is sectoral bargaining. That is sectoral certification.

I have raised that with many experts in the labour relations field, and I have yet to have anybody say to me that this is not sectoral bargaining. In fact, one of the authors of this construction industry report -- after I had said that this is sectoral bargaining and had gone through my rationale as to why -- said to me: "Okay, maybe it's a form of sectoral bargaining." It's clearly sectoral bargaining.

I want to read to you what the section 3 committee said about sectoral bargaining:

"Sectoral bargaining imposes standards on employers once their workplaces become unionized. This puts some employers in a difficult position. They are operating the businesses to the best of their abilities, and their employees are also working to the best of their abilities. The imposition of higher standards without accompanying support to achieve those standards may be a recipe for disaster."

Let's talk about the company that's going to get caught in Bill 26. This is a company that is today a non-union company. They are working in the ICI sector, and now we have this organizing tool that's been handed to the building trades organizers in this province. They will be able to take this tool, this master collective agreement, and they will be able to go to the individuals that work on a particular job site. . . . The minister said it doesn't affect small business. There's a lot of small construction companies that are working in the ICI sector, and if he doesn't know that, he certainly proves that he doesn't understand the construction industry.

[3:00]

If the employer were to become aware of this union sign-up drive that was going on -- although the way these are done, employers are usually the last ones to realize that this is happening -- and they went to their employees and said, "Look, I know what's in that master collective agreement, and this company cannot afford it; if those terms of that master collective agreement were imposed on this company, then this company would go broke -- it would be considered an unfair labour practice by this government's Labour Code. And you know what would happen in that case? It wouldn't even take 55 percent of the workforce to sign up; they may only have 2 people on the entire worksite. But if an employer had the audacity to say, "Wait a second, guys; if I have this master agreement imposed on me, this company's going out of business, and you're all going to be out of work, because your employer will go bankrupt", and there were only two people signed up at that point, that would be a recipe for a remedial certification -- automatic certification slapped on the company. That would be considered an unfair labour practice by an employer who's basically trying to say to his employees: "This is what you've got to do for us to keep this company viable. This is a way to keep your jobs."

This government would be quite happy to have everybody sign up and become members of the building trades unions in this province, but what they're not worried about. . . . They don't care one iota about the fact that once they sign up them up, they can't ensure them jobs. They can't assure them that companies are going to be able to stay economically viable under this master agreement.

What this sectoral bargaining in Bill 26 does is take away the rights of workers in those workplaces to go out and negotiate with their employer. . . . If you've got workers in a workplace who through a majority vote, secret ballot and good democratic information from all sides make a decision to join a trade union, all the power to them. Next stage, you sit down and you negotiate a collective agreement that works for the employees and also allows the employer to stay in business. If you impose a collective agreement on a worksite that drives the company out of business, you are doing nobody a favour, and you are doing the economy of British Columbia a huge disservice. That is exactly what is happening under Bill 26.

The section 3 committee was the first to recognize this. First of all, go back to the first construction industry review panel report that came out in February 1996; it said the same thing, that sectoral bargaining and sectoral certification was not the answer to the problems of the construction industry in British Columbia. But the government didn't like that information, so they rejected the report. Now here we've got another report, that of the section 3 committee, and it says that sectoral bargaining is a recipe for disaster. Well, you know what? Government didn't like that report either, so they threw it out. "Ignore it; we don't like what they recommended."

They went through three committees before they got a recommendation on sectoral bargaining that they liked. So it's finally. . . . You know, it's like the whole referendum process in Quebec, where the Parti québécois are going to keep asking the question until they get the answer that they like. Hon. Speaker, this is exactly the process that this government has gone through in terms of getting advice on sectoral bargaining and advice on how to deal with the construction industry.

[ Page 8946 ]

And now, before there's any public debate, they're saying: "Quick. Let's get this thing into the Legislature, and let's ram this thing through before the public has a chance to take a serious look at the legislation." Hon. Speaker, the public is not on their side on this issue. The public is not on their side.

The section 3 committee actually went out and commissioned a poll of public opinion. There is some interesting stuff that came out of that survey done by the government's own section 3 committee, which they appointed. Our tax dollars went to paying for this poll, which the government is now choosing to ignore. Let me just read some of the results from that survey.

Most believe that labour laws in British Columbia need only minor adjustments. Do you know how many people in this poll indicated that they thought that significant changes to the Labour Code were required? It was 14 percent of British Columbians that thought there should be significant changes to the Labour Code.

The poll also said that 46 percent thought that whatever changes there were should encourage labour and management to work together. That's a novel concept, isn't it? That was something the section 3 committee spent a lot of time talking about recommending. They've chosen to ignore section 3.

The public in this survey also showed that most people support innovative employee practices -- 89 percent -- which are things such as share distribution and profit-sharing, all of those things that this party on the other side has fought so strenuously against in British Columbia. So 89 percent of the public think that those would be good initiatives.

Hon. Speaker, 78 percent supported an increased role in decision-making. Think about that one -- decision-making. That's the ability of workers in a workplace to have an impact on the decisions that affect their working environment. That's about collective bargaining. That's not about some big master collective agreement that's imposed from on high, that comes in and says: "We don't care about your particular workplace or the needs of this group of workers. What's good for you is this master collective agreement. If you don't like it, lump it." That's what Bill 26 says. Bill 26 says that if you don't like the master collective agreement that's being imposed on you, your only alternative is to go and work somewhere else. There's not enough work in the ICI sector, never mind enough work in any other sector in this province.

Let's look at some of the other things that come out in this survey. Do you know that the survey asked people's opinions on secret ballots and that 72 percent of the respondents said they wanted to see secret ballots on union certification? This is compared to only 21 percent who felt that the existing system of signing membership cards was sufficient. I've been through Bill 26. I don't see anything in there that brings back secret ballots when it comes to union certification.

Let's look at what the respondents thought about the current regulations on union certification. B.C. residents were typically satisfied with current regulations, and only 11 percent of the public thought that it was too difficult for workers to achieve certification if that was the majority rule in that workplace. Clearly the government didn't like what it read in the section 3 report. Clearly one of the reasons they tossed it out the window, good and bad, was that it didn't tell them what they wanted to hear.

There's a more recent poll that was done by Marktrend, I believe, just within the last few weeks. This poll asked a question about B.C.'s labour laws. It said: "Thinking about B.C.'s labour laws, in your view should the government modify the laws to make them" -- then it gave them a choice of answers -- "more pro-business?" And 36 percent of the respondents said: "Yes, labour laws should be changed to make them more pro-business." Then it asked: "more pro-labour?" What percentage of the public would buy what's in Bill 26? Hon. Speaker, 19 percent of the respondents to the Marktrend poll supported more pro-labour labour legislation in British Columbia, and 27 percent said that the labour legislation in this province should be left as it is. Just to round out the numbers, 4 percent said that they should be modified to accommodate both sides; 2 percent was "other" -- whatever that means; and 12 percent said nothing or that they didn't know. We know now why the government is not proceeding with section 3. It's not because of the concerns of the business community, which was opposed to section 3 recommendations, but because of the concerns of the labour movement that didn't get everything that it wanted in that report.

I want to refer to the report of the construction industry review panel itself. The construction industry review panel noted in their discussions that they had many presentations that were concerned about the economic climate in this province and that were concerned that now was not the time to change the Labour Code.

You know, there are two strikes against this legislation. The first one is that the economy can't handle it; it's another kick in the teeth for the B.C. economy. Second, it is bad legislation. Even the committee recognized that the economic climate was an important factor. When it got to their recommendations, they included a section to discuss this very point. I want to read what Kelleher and Lanyon wrote in the report of the construction industry review panel. They said: "The recommendations we are making in this report are what we consider to be sensible changes for long-term stability in construction industry collective bargaining. They are not based on the state of the economy at any particular point in time. Whether they will be introduced and the timing of their introduction are ultimately questions for the government to decide." Certainly, even the panel itself had doubts as to whether or not now was the time to make any of these changes, given the state of the economy that we have today.

When the minister was making his comments in his introduction today -- and other comments he's made -- I jotted down some notes just about different things that he mentioned. He talked about this legislation as being moderate. Well, we touched on that. You know, they called Bill 44 moderate. They called gambling expansion moderate. Clearly this is anything but moderate by most people's definition. I guess it tells us what their definition of moderate is. I hate to imagine what kind of change we would have to the Labour Code if they thought that they were bringing in significant changes.

Hon. Speaker, he also said that it was reasonable -- again, reasonable by whose definition? Reasonable, I think, by the Labour minister's definition, reasonable perhaps by some of the members of the caucus that have such strong trade union backgrounds, but most British Columbians do not see this as reasonable.

He also used the word "balanced," -- that these were balanced changes. You know what I found interesting? It's how he justified balance. He said that he had had an equal number of complaints from both business and labour. That

[ Page 8947 ]

[3:15]

He frequently talked about Alberta. He said that Alberta has legislation like this. That's clearly not the case. I had somebody who is very familiar with the labour codes in different jurisdictions in Canada who said to me this morning. . . . They said that they would gladly trade Alberta's Labour Code for B.C.'s Labour Code today. I'd like to see any member of the government stand up and talk so favourably about the Alberta Labour Code that they would be willing to make a commitment that they would trade B.C.'s Labour Code for Alberta's -- anytime; stand up.

We could have some novel things come back to this province, like workplace democracy. The minister said that this legislation was in the best interests of workers. I would say that what is important to workers' rights is that they have democratic choice. He says that this legislation doesn't force trade unionism on anybody. But clearly Bill 26 does just that. Bill 26 is a labour organizer's dream come true. We're going to see that not only is trade unionism going to be forced on them without a democratic vote, but we'll also see that their interests are not going to be served, because what's going to be imposed on them is this master collective agreement from on high. They will not have a say in being able to negotiate directly for the terms and conditions that suit their workplace and allow their employer to stay in business.

We've also heard, in many cases, the minister talking about the fact that small business is not affected. There is nothing that makes it clearer to me that the minister doesn't understand this legislation than when he makes a comment that small business isn't affected. Our construction industry today is increasingly made up of small businesses. I would suggest to the minister that the majority of companies that are working in the ICI sector today are small businesses. If you've got a company with ten employees, all it takes is for six people to be convinced that the world's going to be a wonderful place if they sign a union card and suddenly they start down a road for which there is no return. They start down a road where they wind up with a collective agreement being imposed on them, which doesn't suit their needs.

I think there's a lot of misinformation about what these Labour Code changes are all about. After the construction industry report came out, there was some comment on what the impact of that report was. There was a column written by a member of the Legislature, which I think showed that there was a lot of misunderstanding of what this Labour Code was about. I just want to read some of these comments. It says: "What the proposed changes to the code will do is secure proper apprenticeship and training to make sure that the people who are doing the construction are qualified to complete the work." That demonstrates to me the kind of misinformation that's out there. Bill 26 has absolutely nothing to do with apprenticeship; it has absolutely nothing to do with training. It has everything to do with ensuring that the craft unions have a leg up when it comes to unionizing an entire sector of our construction industry.

This goes on to say: "It's hard to understand criticism of the proposed changes when one considers the huge cost that is handed down to those who buy a building that has not been properly constructed, especially when we are faced with the staggering costs of leaky condos." There is absolutely nothing in Bill 26 that will do anything to address the issue of leaky condos, which is a fundamental problem. There's a report that I gather was released this morning about the time that I started talking. As a result, I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I know that there are a lot of people with real problems that need to be addressed in that area. But Bill 26 does nothing to solve those kinds of problems.

This goes on to say: "It is also hard to fathom why, at a time when British Columbia needs properly skilled workers who are paid well for the work they do, small business would be so opposed to the changes." I think that's the kind of misinformation that gets put out about what these Labour Code changes are all about, because that's not in this legislation.

Hon. Speaker, I know my time is running out. I've got a lot more material to cover, but I probably have only about five or seven minutes left. I guess that means that I will have to skip over some of the material I was going to use. I'm sure there will be another opportunity later on.

Let me talk about the issue that has come up from time to time about this legislation. One of the questions that gets asked about any piece of legislation that comes in is: what is the problem that is being fixed? Clearly we see that there is no problem being fixed by this legislation that could not be fixed by other means. In the Vince Ready and Stephen Kelleher interim report of February 1996, they said that the problems that exist in the construction industry and the building trades sector of the construction industry should be solved through a collective bargaining process. They did not say that there should be legislation. They specifically recommended against legislation to deal with these kinds of problems.

I want to talk about some of the things that the minister said in a letter. I'll just read to you how the minister prefaced these comments. He said: "Let me close by stating the criteria that I will use when evaluating the recommendations from the two panels, as well as submissions from interested groups such as yours." This is a letter he's writing back to a business organization: "1. We must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in the national and international marketplace." The minister said that that is one criterion he would use to evaluate the recommendations that were coming before him. What he did was adopt the recommendations of the construction industry review panel, yet it flies in the face of the very criteria that he said he would use to evaluate it. Instead of a measure that's going to ensure efficiency and ensure our ability to compete nationally and internationally, we have legislation that is going to make things worse for British Columbians. The number one criterion of the minister was not met. This legislation fails his own test.

The letter continues: "2. We must ensure that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected." If the minister wanted to do that, he would have to bring in secret

[ Page 8948 ]

Let's go to the third point. The minister says: "3. We must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs." The minister said that that was a criterion that he was going to use to evaluate his legislation. Yet what we see is legislation that has the effect of driving investment out of British Columbia, of destroying jobs. So the minister's criterion No. 3 was not met. He fails his own test.

Let's look at the fourth criterion that he has set for himself: "4. We must consult carefully with key stakeholders before making changes to laws, policies and regulations." Well, they went out and got people to write briefs, and they had hearings. The minister had people come to his office to say: "Don't do this." There might have been a process of inviting people to inject their comments, but the minister clearly did not listen to any of that advice. So on criterion No. 4, he fails.

Now let's look at the last criterion: "5. We must work to bring business, labour and government together to address issues of common and public concern." Clearly, what he has done is he has invited this input from the business community, the labour community and government. What we see in here is that they're not working together with the business community and labour; they're working together with the labour community to make sure that we have a Labour Code that is even more "union-friendly," to quote the regional vice-president of the Canadian Auto Workers. On criterion No. 5, he fails.

So here we've got in his letter the five points that this minister sets out. Again, I'll just remind you of what the minister said in this particular letter. He says: "Let me close by stating the criteria that I will use when evaluating the recommendations from the two panels, as well as submissions from interested group such as yours." Clearly the minister has not taken his own advice; he hasn't adhered to his own principles on this legislation. That's why this legislation is bad, and that's why this legislation should be defeated. If the minister had the guts to stand up and go through his own criteria in this chamber, he would recognize that this was bad legislation and that this legislation should be pulled.

After setting out these five points, the minister says: "I believe these goals are shared by most British Columbians. . . ." I agree with him on that. On those five points, most British Columbians would agree with him. But what most British Columbians will not agree with him on is whether this legislation meets even one of those five criteria. Most British Columbians would recognize that this legislation flies in the face of the very five items that he has set out as his own self-evaluation.

If I can just recap, hon. Speaker, what we have is legislation that is being forced into this House without adequate public debate. We have a government that is afraid of the public discussion on this legislation, because they know it's unpopular. They too have read the polls that I quoted from earlier. They know that the public will overwhelmingly condemn what's in this legislation. They are afraid of that, and that's why this legislation has been brought into debate so quickly after its introduction for first reading. If this government had the guts to face public opinion, they would have allowed the public to have a close look at Bill 26 before this is called for debate. They are afraid of the public debate on this; they are cowards, because they are not prepared to allow the public to have their input into how this legislation will impact on their lives.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your time is now up.

C. Hansen: I do have more material which I apologize that I wasn't able to get to. I know the minister was very concerned that I wasn't getting into the meat of the legislation, but I will certainly have lots of opportunity to do that in the days, weeks and months to come.

G. Campbell: I was very pleased to see at least some members of the government in the chamber today, because for the first time over the last few weeks, we've actually heard from someone who knows what he's talking about when he talks about the labour bill. I think that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena has done an excellent job of framing up some of the discussion that will follow, I'm sure, in the days ahead.

One of the things that's very interesting is that yesterday, as the Minister of Labour was trying to justify this imposition of the government's ideology on the economy of British Columbia, he referred to an America would-be politician by the name of Ross Perot. He's evidently using Mr. Perot as one of his economic advisers. We know that he's done no economic studies in the introduction of this bill; we know that he's paid no attention to the small business community in British Columbia; we know that he's paid no attention to the chambers of commerce in British Columbia.

I know that many members on the other side of the House are wondering what our concern is here. Well, Mr. Perot came to the American scene in 1992. In 1992, as you probably know, there was a presidential election campaign going on. There was a fellow by the name of James Carville, who worked for the Clinton campaign. So that everyone would understand what the issue was that they were talking about, Mr. Carville had a major sign put up in their campaign headquarters, and the sign said: "It's the economy, stupid." Every member of the government should understand that the problems we face in British Columbia are a result of their economic policies. It is still the economy, stupid.

[3:30]

One woman from Vancouver Island told me that her husband could not find work in British Columbia; he had to work in the Northwest Territories. She said she has effectively become a single parent to her two kids, because of the economy in British Columbia. I was talking to a woman in the media, a single mother who has worked for a long time supporting her two children. She said that when she started, she thought that things were going to be great. She thought that by the time she got to this stage of her life, she would

[ Page 8949 ]

Every step that this government has taken, every single step they've taken, has hurt our economy. For this government to intentionally introduce a bill which will make things worse in one of our major industries, that will drive people out of work, that will damage small business and that will take away opportunity is simply not acceptable to this side of the House, and we will do everything we can to stop it.

The first thing you have to have to build or rebuild an economy, to restore an economy, is a sense of trust. You have to re-establish and restore the sense of hope that used to define British Columbia. I was born in British Columbia. I remember when British Columbia was the place where there was nothing but opportunities. Young people in this province thought: "Boy, this is the place to be. Look at what I can do when I go out and work hard."

We have a government today that nobody trusts. Literally no one in this province trusts this government, and it's not hard to figure out why. First we have a government that inherits an economy that's vibrant, an economy that's creating opportunity, an economy that's encouraging investment. Slowly but surely -- by extra taxation, by one tax after another, by regulatory burden loaded up on one business after another -- they've sucked the life out of that economy.

As they've done that, have they learned their lesson? Well, I can tell you that this year I remember the Premier making a big fuss. This is what the Premier said: "We want to say it's not business as usual. We want to change some things, to get the economy moving, and we intend to do that."

What I didn't understand at the time was that he meant that the economy would be moving out of British Columbia into Alberta and to Washington State. What's happened this year as a result of the introduction of Bill 26 is this: things have been made worse -- substantially worse. People were led to believe that this government had learned its lesson. So the Premier went out and did a series of what he called consultations, meetings to turn our economy around and try to encourage investment again. What did the Premier hear? He heard that our taxes were too high, and we had to see a dramatic reduction in tax. He heard that our regulatory burden was too great, and we had to see a dramatic reduction in red tape. He heard that our labour laws were too restrictive. One message came through in one meeting after another: "Do not touch the Labour Code. Do not touch it."

The Premier left those meetings and said: "Oh, these were very good meetings. We're going to work something out here." What happened? After asking people to come forward and tell the Premier and the government what they have to do to start restoring the economy, they got a virtually unanimous message: "Do not touch the Labour Code."

After all that time and effort that people put in, the Premier just slapped them across the face and said: "I don't care what you think. I don't care what the small business community in this province thinks. I don't care what the chambers of commerce tell me. I don't care what the Business Council tells me. I don't care what the board of trade tells me. I don't care what the Hongkong Bank says or what economists from across the province tell me. We are changing the Labour Code, and we're doing it for one reason: we have to pay back our political friends and supporters." It has nothing to do with jobs, nothing to do with good economic policy. It has everything to do with payback time. That is, unfortunately, what's taking place in the province right now.

The Premier came out of those meetings, and he said that what he had learned. . . . It's good that he learned it, but evidently these were just words again. This is why the trust factor for this government is below zero. He said that what we need is a positive climate for business investment.

I've heard the Minister of Labour say that the problem with all of the people who are telling us what's taking place in British Columbia is that somehow the truth hurts. We should try and hide the truth about what's taking place in our economy. Well, I think that if we don't tell the truth and start acting to rectify the problems that have been created by this government, we are going to lose more opportunities and more jobs in British Columbia.

Let's start by looking at what the truth is. The truth is that our province -- British Columbia, with all of its assets, with all of the talent of all of the people who live here -- was the only province in Canada to lose jobs in 1997. What that means is that that little province over there in the Atlantic -- that tiny little province called Prince Edward Island -- generated more jobs than we could in British Columbia. That has never happened before. British Columbia used to be at the top -- the top economic performer in this country. In 1997 we were the only province to lose jobs.

What about the forest industry? Remember the forest industry, with thousands of people who used to work -- the pride of British Columbia? Over the last year what has happened is that 12,580 have lost their work for good in the forest industry.

Our economy was in trouble, and the Premier said: "I'm going to turn it around." What does he do to turn it around? He introduces Labour Code changes which send a signal that says to people across the continent and around the world: do not invest in British Columbia. The minister says that we, the opposition, are somehow at fault. The Coalition of B.C. Businesses and the B.C. Business Council are at fault, because they identify what the problem is. Somehow this government thinks that if they cover their ears up and cover their eyes up, the problem will go away.

The problem is that if we close our eyes, those people who are not at work today -- who can't pay their mortgages today, who are worried about their kids today -- will fall further into poverty and into despair. We want to open this government's eyes. We want to open their eyes and ask them -- or tell them, suggest to them -- how they can create a positive economic climate, a climate where they start to reestablish trust.

The first thing you have to know is that you don't do it by not telling people the truth. You have to tell them the truth. The truth is that we have been going through an investment recession in this province for the last two years, and we are looking at a major economic recession hitting the people who live here in the year ahead. Rather than deal boldly and aggressively and positively to make the changes that need to be made, this government gets out its shovel and starts digging the hole even deeper.

We have a construction industry that is in serious trouble. Again, let's not think about the industry; let's think about the thousands of people who work in it. Does the government really believe that when there is a 40 percent drop in housing

[ Page 8950 ]

Can you imagine the kind of economic impact that has, particularly -- and I see the member for North Island is here -- when you look at the situation in the forestry industry and the mining industry in the North Island? We have a government -- we have a member opposite -- that is willing to support a bill that will hurt the construction industry and drive that industry further down. Is that the kind of performance we're expecting from people from the North Island?

I can tell you that they would like an economic recovery plan there. And the only way to get it is to have someone in their constituency who will stand up and speak for them and say: "What on earth is this government doing introducing legislation that's going to kill construction and kill jobs in my constituency?"

What about the member for Skeena? He's sitting there and saying nothing. He's going to support a bill that is going to drive the very investment that's required in the northwest of this province out of British Columbia. It will drive jobs with it, even more jobs than they've lost in the northwest in the last few years under this New Democrat government. It's totally unacceptable.

What about the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, whose communities are reeling today under this government's economic policy, who won't stand up and speak for his constituents? For the major industry in his constituency -- the forest industry -- to take off again, we're going to need major economic investment. What do changes in the labour bill do? They drive investment out of the province.

You know, hon. Speaker, when we come forward with these messages, they're not messages that we're making up. They can be read in every analysis of B.C.'s economy that has been done over the last 18 months. All the government has to do is open their eyes. We'll give them a remedial reading course, if that will help. But please read the reports, because I'll tell you that you won't solve the problem by just closing your eyes. It reminds me of when there are little kids and their parents are coming to tell them that they're supposed to do something and they start making lots of noise, covering their ears and saying: "We won't hear it; we won't hear it; we want to pretend it's not there." It's there. Unfortunately, it's there for thousands of people across this province.

If we're going to move forward in this province, we have to turn this around. The fact of the matter is that even the government's own reports tell them that this is the wrong time to introduce any changes to the Labour Code. As the Wall Street Journal points out, there is a flag with a black spot over British Columbia today. Investors are afraid of coming to British Columbia. They're afraid of British Columbia because they know this is a government that hasn't told the truth about its books. They know that this is a government that says one thing and does another. They know that it's a government that will attack small business and interfere with court processes. They know that it's a government that doesn't care about quasi-judicial processes in the province. They don't care about due process. They don't care about workers in this province. They don't care if people are losing their jobs, because if they did care, they'd pay attention.

[3:45]

We hear from the minister that this is just a modest proposal and these are just modest changes.

An Hon. Member: Jonathan Swift said that.

G. Campbell: Jonathan Swift did say that; you're right.

It was a modest proposal when we had Bill 44. The Premier told us that it was a modest proposal. This modest proposal, unfortunately, takes away people's rights. This modest proposal drives investment out of the province. This modest proposal kills jobs in one of our most important industries. The construction industry in British Columbia is valued at between $16 billion and $17 billion. The minister says: "Well, this is only a little part of the construction industry. We're only talking about taking away the rights of 11,000 workers here. Who cares?"

The fact of the matter is that it is not a modest proposal. It's not a modest proposal when you say to an employer: "You are no longer able to negotiate an agreement between you and your employee." It's not a modest proposal when you say to employees: "Sorry, you can't negotiate how you'd like to work. You can't negotiate the rules that you'll have in your workplace." It's not a modest proposal when we know the damage it's going to do to the economy of British Columbia.

Let's tick these off. We know that this government has ruined the mining industry in B.C. We know that the forest industry is now on its knees, and now we have the government going after the construction industry. The construction industry has said clearly and irrevocably that this is the wrong thing to do at this time. The government is going to go after that industry, and that's going to mean that thousands of people lose their work in the province.

This is not, as the minister suggested, about providing people with choices. It's about eliminating people's choices and about taking away their right to decide. This is not, as the minister suggested, a mirror of what's happening either in Alberta or in Ontario. This is a special piece of legislation for British Columbia -- a special piece of legislation for this government's friends. This is a special piece of legislation that will drive investments and jobs out of the province of British Columbia.

I take no joy in the fact that in 1997 -- in that one year alone -- we lost 107 companies that fled this province, and this government and its policies, to go to one province: Alberta. And what do we get? What response do we get from the government? Zero. Do we see a dramatic reduction in tax rates? No. Nobody is getting any tax benefits in 1998. No one has looked at their paycheque at the end of the month and said: "Boy, my paycheque has really grown, because the provincial government isn't taking as much out of my pocket as it used to."

Do they see a dramatic reduction in regulations? Absolutely not. What we've watched in this session of the House is an increase of red tape and an increase in the intensity of the attack on small business across the province.

Interjections.

[ Page 8951 ]

Interjections.

G. Campbell: I really love the informed comments from across the way.

Let me just point out the names of some of the sectors of the economy that are opposed to this, and I think it's important to note this. The B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association is opposed to it. The Urban Development Institute is opposed to it. The B.C. Restaurant and Food Caterers are opposed to it. The B.C. Automobile Dealers Association is opposed to it. The B.C. Trucking Association is opposed to it. The Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association is opposed to it. The Council of Tourism Associations is opposed to it. The greenhouse and nursery trades are opposed to it. The Canadian Retail Hardware Association is opposed to it. The technical industries association is opposed to it. There are more than two dozen industry organizations that are opposed to this.

Who is for this? There is only one group that is for it. The B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council is for it, because they know what it is: it's purely and simply another tool for union organizing. I am not opposed for a moment to people deciding to belong to a union because they decide to, but not because it's ordered by legislative fiat that they must. As soon as we allow this government or any other government to say it is going to take away your right as a worker to choose, as soon as we allow this government or any other government to take away the right of an employer to negotiate openly and freely with their employees, I will guarantee you that what happens is that we lose the investment we need to turn this province's economy around.

It does not take an economics degree to understand what's taking place here. Over the last seven years, we've watched as investment has shrunk, so that today in B.C. we have the lowest level of private sector investment of any jurisdiction west of Quebec. It shouldn't be a surprise that when there's no private sector investment, you start to watch as unemployment grows. We now have 197,000 British Columbians who are jobless. We now have an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent in British Columbia -- again, the highest unemployment rate of any place west of Quebec. And our children, the young people who count on us to husband our resources and to marshal our economic resources to make sure that they have opportunities in the future like we inherited from our parents, what happens with them? Young men between 15 and 24, a 21 percent unemployment rate; young people generally, an 18-1/2 percent unemployment rate in this province.

You know why that happens? It's because we've lost private sector investment. We've driven another nail into the coffin of the small business community in British Columbia. The problem is that they've worked so hard for this government to hear their message. They've reached out to this government -- week in and week out, month in and month out -- to say: "Help us. Help reduce the burdens that you've put on us so that we can employ young people."

I remember talking to a woman who worked in a hardware store in Fernie. She made a point of giving first jobs to four young people every single summer. When I visited her, she said to me: "You know, Mr. Campbell, I can't do that anymore. I can no longer afford to hire those young people, to give them the training they need, to give them the understanding of what it's like to go to work and to do a job and to be responsible for it." She can no longer do that because this government's tax regime and regulatory regime and labour codes and employment standards are killing her opportunities to hire those people. That's what is going to happen in the construction industry.

We use the term ICI and everyone gets these big, big thoughts in their heads. The fact is that there's a whole bunch of very small businesses that are involved in the ICI sector of the construction industry. As members of the industry will tell you, you can't split the industry up like that; that's not how the world works today. So let's not kid ourselves that this is just one tiny segment of the construction industry. This is the construction industry, and the construction industry with its $16 billion of contribution. . . . I will guarantee you this, unfortunately: if this government passes this bill, if this government imposes this bill on employers and employees, if this government is insistent on taking away people's rights, one thing is going to happen. People that are involved in the construction industry are going to leave the province of British Columbia. Investors in construction are going to leave the province, and future investors will leave.

Let's remember: this isn't about a building company. It's not about the construction company itself. It's people that use those companies as a tool to create a capital plant. That's what they're doing. So say you're interested in investing in the forest industry. We have to have investment in the forest industry if we are going to be competitive; we must have it. So if, in fact, we are going to have that investment. . . . As Jerry Lampert from the Business Council said yesterday -- Mr. Lampert was very clear: "Look, when investors come to British Columbia, they are going to think about the labour climate." We know that.

If you read the Hongkong Bank of Canada report, it's very clear. There are three things that are hurting economic growth in the province of British Columbia. The first one is our high level of taxation. The second one is our labour laws, and the third one is this government's exceptional incompetence. When you take the arrogance of this government and you combine it with the incompetence of this government, you have a lethal combination which is killing the economy, killing our jobs and killing opportunities for the future in British Columbia.

So we take the job creators of this province and we say to them: "We really don't care what you have to say." By saying that we don't care what they have to say, what are the results that we see? In this government's first full year in office, what we saw were 28 companies leave the province and go to Alberta. By the second year, 46 more companies left the province and went to Alberta. By the third year, 62 companies; fourth year, 71 companies; fifth year, 77 companies. In 1997 the new record: 107 companies leave British Columbia and move to Alberta. It's absolutely disgraceful. We have to remember that those companies are moving with jobs today. And if they're strong enough and economically viable enough to move, they are creating even more jobs for tomorrow. That's part of what we're losing as a result of this government not paying attention to the small business community of this province.

So what is the small business community reduced to doing? What they're reduced to doing is saying: "This government doesn't listen." They're reduced to pleading with this government to pay attention to what they have to say. They're reduced to saying to this government: "We are working day in and day out to hire people, to make our businesses succeed,

[ Page 8952 ]

Let's be really clear. The fact of the matter is that if the government doesn't understand that you have to create job opportunities for working people to have a future, working people are in a lot of trouble. And this government doesn't understand. The results of this government's actions are very straightforward: a recession. This isn't about being on the brink of a recession; we are in a recession. As someone said, hon. Speaker: "When you're in a recession, if you're unemployed, things are looking pretty bleak."

I started by pointing out: "It's the economy, stupid" -- which we have to pay attention to. It is, and this government has ignored it and ignored it and ignored it. The damage that this government's policies have done has been huge: huge damage in the forest industry, major damage in the mining industry, major damage in the small business sector of this economy, thousands of people out of work, thousands of people unable to support their families the way they should, thousands of people looking for hope. Instead of looking for hope in British Columbia, they are looking to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Washington and Oregon.

I ask this government to take this bill and stand it down. Do not proceed with this bill. This bill is simply going to add another nail to the coffin of B.C.'s economy. Let's work together to make this province a province of hope again as opposed to a province of despair, which this bill will surely add to.

[4:00]

Leave granted.

G. Abbott: I'd like to introduce today in the gallery a constituent from the Shuswap, who's also a friend and a former colleague on the district of Sicamous council and, I'm happy to say, a personal supporter of mine as well. I'd like to introduce Councillor Fred Busch from Sicamous, who's here as a library trustee. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

C. Clark: I seek leave to make an introduction as well.

Leave granted.

C. Clark: Joining us today in the precincts -- although I'm not sure if they're in the galleries -- is a group from Moody Middle School in my riding: 43 visitors, grades 7 and 8, accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Blenkinsop. I hope I got that right, and I hope the House will certainly make them welcome.

J. Doyle: I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Doyle: On behalf of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, I'd like to introduce 55 students from Vanier Elementary School. They're in the galleries right now with their teacher, Mr. A. Jiva. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, in rising to Bill 26. . . . It brings to mind the other evening when I was knocked off my feet by a bit of a bout with the flu, and in an unusual manner had a chance to sit and watch a baseball game on television -- which is about the only time one can sit that long to watch that kind of a game on television. What I witnessed was a great deal of expectation because one of the members on the batting roster was said to be a home-run hitter and was going to come up and win the game by hitting a home run, and this was going to put the team over the top. When the fellow got up to bat, the team at field actually walked him to the plate and the batter had a tantrum. He wanted a pitch he could hit, because he wanted a pitch that was going to win the game. He wanted a pitch that he could put out of the stadium, but he didn't get it. He had a tantrum, because that's not the way it was supposed to be. It was planned for this fellow on the roster to be able to knock this ball right out of the ballpark.

When I look at Bill 26, I see a bill that had a million-dollar wind-up and a ten-cent throw. It's the same thing. There is nothing in this bill that's going to bring the economy of British Columbia to its knees. There's nothing in this bill that's going to do anything to the economy of British Columbia that is going to force people to leave in droves. This is not a bill that's going to plunge us into the deepest of recessions. This is not a bill that's going to kill our economy or our communities.

I'll tell you how serious this is. I am quietly -- with members of my community, through a mayor's task force -- negotiating with international aluminum companies to come and invest in the Powell River community. I'll tell you, when these international investors come in and hear the diatribe we heard today about how bad it is in the province -- how the labour laws are terrible, how the investment opportunities are terrible, how the economy's going in the sink, how nobody should invest in B.C., how everybody's leaving, how downright lousy it is here -- you know what they're going to do? They're going to go and invest in Quebec. They're going to go and invest somewhere else. The only thing that causes them greater concern than uncertainty about what this government may do is the complete lack of anything positive that they see on the Liberal opposition side of the House with respect to building the economy of British Columbia.

I anticipated with trepidation what was coming down, because when I looked at Bill 44, I had concerns about sectoral bargaining. This is not sectoral bargaining. I don't care what anybody tries to put into the verbiage of this debate; it is not sectoral bargaining. I'll tell you something else that really makes my blood boil. When the political agenda is set. . . . When the stage is there because you think you've got a batter who's going to come up and finally have a pitch they can hit and they're walked to the plate, for goodness' sake, acknowledge your walk to the plate.

I guess one could argue and debate, and one could ask the legitimate question: why is this coming in now? What is the need to bring this in now? In order to answer that question, you have to go back through a year's worth of negotiations and submissions to a commission that sat down and reviewed, over and over again, the information that was given to them by both the employer and the union sides. I don't know if the official critic, who spoke for almost two hours on this bill, has read the submissions to that commission. If he did, I'm really at a loss to know what he saw in them.

I've read every single submission that was made to that commission. I have met with not all, but many on both sides. I've spoken with organized labour as well as the management side of it, and the only organized group within the construction labour relations side that I see as being really uptight about this is the ICBA -- Mr. Hochstein and the non-union

[ Page 8953 ]

Bill 26 is not Bill 44, folks. It isn't Bill 44. Let's be very clear about it. The concerns that were expressed by people in independent business and out there in the unionized sector have been, in part -- and I say in part -- addressed, because there are issues that have not been resolved in this bill that are going to have to be at some point. But my goodness! If you've spent any time reading the materials in front of the Kelleher commission and trying to understand the niceties and problems associated with the construction industry, surely to goodness you read Bill 26 and you see that this is the least noxious of labour bills that could have come forward. The issue of double-breasting isn't dealt with here. There's nothing in here that tells us about the matter of the secret ballot vote and the issues that are really divisive within. . . . They're not even addressed here. The concern that average British Columbians had that this bill was somehow going to push residential housing construction prices up is taken care of: it's not there; it's not in the bill.

The other thing we have to look at is the whole idea of roads, bridges and all of the infrastructure cost side of it, which everybody said: "My God, it's going to put incredible costs to the municipal infrastructure cost." The association of municipalities came together and said they had those concerns -- it's not in the bill. It isn't there. I know that the Liberal opposition wanted it in the bill. They wanted it there because their whole political strategy was geared up to fight it -- like that poor batter that went up there ready to hit a home run and got walked to first base. But it isn't there.

To stand in the Legislative Assembly -- and I hope that they'll reconsider -- and put up speaker after speaker to tell the world -- and that's who's going to be looking at this debate -- how terrible a place British Columbia is to invest right now, how terrible an opportunity any investor might have here, how everybody ought to go to Alberta or to Quebec or some other jurisdiction outside of B.C., is just downright irresponsible. It's downright irresponsible because we are in a serious situation in British Columbia, and we do have to pull together and work together. We do have to find ways in which we can attract investment here and make sure that our communities get the kind of investment that we need.

I've never seen anything quite like this, and I've been around here for five years now, where a party has so focused its hopes that finally there's going to be something to get your teeth into, that when it doesn't show up, you decide you're going to try and get your teeth into it anyway. It can't be done. It's going to be a most divisive issue if we put out a lot of misinformation to the public to get people hyped up and all kinds of rhetoric over what essentially are some moderate -- and they are moderate -- changes to the Labour Code.

Now, hon. Speaker, let me say this. I am angry with this government around a whole host of areas, because I think their public policy is hurting the economy of British Columbia. I don't hesitate to stand up and tell them where I think we're going wrong. But surely to goodness we have an obligation and a responsibility that if we're going to criticize, we have to stand up and say: "All right, what do we do in its place? Where do we put it?" The Liberal opposition are saying: "Well, don't make any changes to the Labour Code."

Let me tell you what I heard from business. Business said: "Don't bring in Bill 44; do not reintroduce Bill 44." I said: "Amen. That was a bad move." The government recognized it was a bad move; they pulled it out. British Columbia went to a commission. We had a situation where we had both sides able to present, and they came out with what they thought were some rational approaches to being able to solve the problem. And Bill 44 did not come back; it is not reintroduced.

This -- and I hope British Columbians will hear me -- is not sectoral bargaining, or I would not stand and vote for it. I'm opposed to sectoral bargaining for a host of reasons which, on some other day and in some other debate, we'll get into and we'll discuss.

What does this do, fundamentally and primarily? I've consulted with many people who are in the employment sector. The employers, who are actually the people there who are already unionized -- because that's all it affects: those people who are unionized -- are saying that by putting in a master collective agreement, this means that the subtrades that come into those worksites are going to have to buy into that master agreement. That is going to eliminate a lot of labour disputes, a lot of very expensive -- in time and cost -- labour delays and some very difficult times when you try to get these labour groups to come on that site and they then engage themselves in the attempt to either negotiate a collective agreement or somehow to be able to challenge the language of a collective agreement because of one that is grandfathered. What this says is that this bill will bring in a master agreement that will allow smaller subtrades to be able to lock onto that master agreement for the duration of their time on that site. I am not a fan of provincewide master agreements. I've spoken out against them for B.C. teachers, for health unions. In all of those areas I have said that I'm not a fan of provincewide master agreements. But construction trades workers are not like teachers who go to a yearly job, nor are they like health workers. They go on a site for maybe one week, two weeks, five or six weeks -- for a short period of time. If they go on unionized and then attempt to negotiate a collective agreement in that short period, it is going to cost the employer -- the very people that the Liberals say they're trying to save money for -- lengthy and very expensive labour disputes on site. The attempt is to try to get rid of that, and it does that.

I don't know why we're locked into a three-year agreement. That's something I'm going to find out in committee. Why did we sit at three years? That's a good question. It could be a minimum of three years, and I think we could move forward on that -- I don't know.

The second issue that is not addressed in here -- and I think that there is an inherent unfairness in the law. . . . I'd like the minister, when we get into committee, to talk about why it is that a unionized company -- under the existing law and because it's exempted here -- is still not able to run both union and non-union sites, where a unionized worker is able to work both union and non-union sites. There's an inherent unfairness there. I need to know what the rationale is for not introducing what some people call double-breasting. It's called other things in other provinces. But why isn't that in this bill? I think that that's an important consideration -- to know why that is not in this bill.

The other thing, hon. Speaker -- and I offer this in some positive way to try and resolve a contentious construction

[ Page 8954 ]

The third area where I think that we really didn't go far enough. . . . I'd like the minister to address the whole matter of trades qualifications and the need for us to put in place the apprenticeship programs that I was, frankly, hoping I would start to see implemented here. If we're to stay competitive in the world market, we have to start putting an emphasis on training the most skilled workers possible. The best place to do that is through an apprenticeship program where we can start to build long-term training opportunities for British Columbians, so that we can enhance the number of skilled trades workers on the job site.

[4:15]

The concern that I have is this trend toward a multi-ticket for the subtrades, where you start to have people who sort of wear their certification like a badge on a string -- the notion that we can somehow deskill the workforce by saying: "Well, we're going to give people partial training. You're good enough to do half a dozen of these jobs, so you can kind of wear your badges like a Boy Scout." It's like, you know: "I've got the following, so I can do the following jobs."

All of those issues are serious issues that need to have ongoing debate in this province. We need to do it, hon. Speaker. We need to have the opportunity to debate those issues in the absence of what I believe to be inflated rhetoric -- which, for the life of me. . . . Having read this document, the reports and the Labour Relations Code amendments as provided through the committee, and having talked to members on the management side -- the employers -- and to members on the union side, for the life of me, I don't know where this Liberal opposition is coming from.

I do know that when Leader of the Official Opposition of a province stands up and says that this bill, if it's passed. . . . And it will pass, because there is a majority over there even if every one of us on this side voted against it. The Leader of the Opposition says that the passage of Bill 26 is going to further erode our economy, it's going to make an unworkable labour climate, and it's going to cause us all kinds of grief. I'm trying to negotiate with a major international investor, who says: "Well, the Leader of the Opposition says I shouldn't come to B.C. I would like to put our investment in the aluminum plant in Powell River, but -- gee, you know what, Mr. Wilson? -- the Leader of the Official Opposition says we should go invest in Alberta. Or maybe we should invest in Quebec or somewhere else, because he says it's an unworkable place to put our money."

Now we're going to have to go and sit down with these international companies and take this little piece of legislation and say: "Hang on, hang on. Look, never mind the rhetoric in the Legislative Assembly; there's a lot of political nonsense going on over there. There's a whole bunch of hype being played out to try and get headlines in newspapers and to try and look like the big aggressor for whatever groups they're trying to satisfy. Let's look at the letter of the law, and let me impress upon you what you're going to be faced with when you come in to construct your mill or your aluminum plant." They're probably going to use predominantly unionized workers because of the size of the contract. They're going to want to know that when they make their mill investment and start construction, they're going to have fair labour legislation that will allow them certainty. I can point to the section in this bill that simply says that when you move in there and have a master agreement, you will have that certainty. We will be able to make sure that the language of that is going to provide you with the certainty required for you to get your work properly completed and properly done."

You know, I want to also say that whenever I stand up and I challenge. . . . And I am challenging now, because there's never been a more clear example of the differences -- not just between government and opposition, but between the political parties represented on the opposition side of this House. Let there be no doubt, as one member -- and I am one member in this Legislative Assembly. . . . Our party, the Progressive Democratic Alliance, is growing and growing in great numbers, and is likely to grow even more after the kind of debate I just heard in this Legislature today.

There's never been a more clear line in definition. The only thing I can contemplate in my mind when I hear the rhetoric coming out of the benches of the official opposition Liberal Party is that it's not so much that they are anti-Bill 26 or anti-sectoral bargaining or even anti-labour legislation. They're anti-union.

I can tell you that most of the major construction companies. . . . Let's be clear. The ICBA of Mr. Hochstein represents, I'm told, somewhere between 8 and 10 percent of the industry. There's another 90 percent of the industry out there.

I looked at the Christian Labour Association of Canada press release today. They are an independent union. Let me tell you what they say: "The Christian Labour Association of Canada has expressed general support for Labour Code changes contained in Bill 26." This is their quote, not mine. It says: "The right of workers to choose between different types of unions is essential in a democratic system. This legislation provides room for both traditional and alternative approaches to construction labour relations." This is from one of the largest of the independent unions. They're saying: "You know what? This is not a bad deal."

CLAC, the Christian Labour Association of Canada, opposed Bill 44 vigorously and for good reason. Now they're saying: "This isn't such a big deal." It's a million-dollar

[ Page 8955 ]

Let me say. . . . When I do make the differences and distinctions between this party, the Progressive Democratic Alliance, and the Liberal Party, many people ask me. . . . I get asked all the time. I got asked just the other night during a speech I was giving in Qualicum Beach. They were saying: "Why don't you go back over and join the Liberal Party?" I said: "Because there is a fundamental difference in our approach, our philosophy. We are not anti-union -- right?" Today, let those who asked me -- and I hope some may be watching and possibly some may read my words. . . . Let this be evidence of why I can no longer be in that camp. That kind of rhetoric is just so unproductive; it is so unhelpful.

The other problem is that when I stand up I get accused of being a lap dog of those members opposite. It's like you can't have an independent point of view in opposition. If you stand up and challenge the official opposition and that point of view, it's automatically assumed -- because there is black-and-white thinking among some members; if you're not white, you're black and if you're not black, you're white -- that somehow we accept that point of view of the NDP opposite. . . .

I chuckle when I hear the members of the Liberal Party say: "The government over here, who protect their unionized workers and their unionized friends. . . ." You know what? I don't think there's been a government over here that's been more harmful to the labour movement in the last two or three years than these guys. People say: "What are you talking about?" I say: let's take a look at this for a minute. This was the government that removed the right to localized bargaining in the public sector and went to centralized bargaining. It was this government that took away collective bargaining rights at the local level. It was this government that, when the teachers were on strike, brought this House into special session and legislated them back to work. They took away their right to strike. This was the NDP government's back-to-work legislation. In fact, I believe I was the only member in this Legislative Assembly to oppose it.

It is this government that has now turned around and, in my judgment -- and it is my judgment, and we'll see when the Labour Relations Board rules -- completely violated the terms of free collective bargaining in the matter between the teachers and the trustees. I'll tell you why I believe that. I believe that because I know that when that Minister of Education and I sat in labour school together -- this goes way back when we were both members of a trade union in the college system -- and we were talking about free collective bargaining and the need for free collective bargaining and how that process works, I know how staunchly opposed we were to direct government intervention in the free collective bargaining system. I knew it was a tenet of free collective bargaining -- how important it is for there to be very clear lines drawn. Yet, this government directly interceded; they bypassed free collective bargaining.

I believe -- and it's only my belief, and we'll find out in time -- they've even violated the very legislation that enacted BCPSEA. But I'm not a lawyer; it's not for me to say. It will be for the Labour Relations Board to rule, and presumably we're going to hear about that. But that's my view today, and I think this government has violated that issue.

If I were a public sector worker today, I would be pretty angry at direct government intervention. I think the only reason they get away with it, frankly, is because every time they complain that this government is trampling all over union rights in British Columbia, this government sits back and chuckles and says: "Well, check out the other side of the House over there, guys. Do you like that system any better? Because if you want those guys. . . ." Just listening to today's commentary, it's no wonder the union movement is prepared to simply sit down, zip the lip and say: "Okay, I hear your point. Okay, trample over our rights because, my God, for all of the trampling on our rights you do, it would be a whole lot worse if we got the other side." I'm saying: hold on a minute here; there are principles that need to be dealt with and upheld, and it seems to me that we need to that.

Let me say that from my point of view and the point of view of our party, we recognize that we do have serious challenges within our economy. We recognize that the construction industry is a very important and integral part of it. We recognize that many of the key players -- indeed, most of the key players -- in the construction industry are already unionized. We recognize that most of those players want some level of stability, certainty and fairness in a proposition put forward with respect to labour legislation.

Most importantly, we believe that when legislation is introduced in the Legislative Assembly, we should be debating the language of what is actually introduced into the Legislative Assembly. We should not be debating what we had hoped would be introduced, what we thought might be introduced or possibly could be introduced or what we think, if we could only convince people it actually had been introduced, might somehow advance our political cause.

This is, for all intents and purposes, a modest amendment to the Labour Code. People in British Columbia who have not had the benefit that we have of reading Bill 26 and of looking at this amendment should not fear it. The employers who are listening to me today and the people who are members of the Employers Council and the senior CEOs of the major corporations should, I believe, have their people sit down and make a rational, dispassionate, sensible review of the words in this bill and understand it for what it is. It is a modest amendment and a change that should build greater stability into the system. It does not introduce sectoral bargaining; nor is it going to drive private home construction costs through the ceiling. It isn't going to send our economy into a tailspin. It isn't going to put masses of people out of work. It isn't going to be doom and gloom. And it certainly isn't an issue that is going to divide this province. My goodness, if we divide on an issue like this, and if we try to get everybody whipped up and hysterical over the language of Bill 26, I shudder to think what we're going to do when we're faced with really contentious issues in this Legislative Assembly, when we have a really hard issue to put our minds to.

We do not believe that we should try and cover what is essentially anti-union rhetoric in the guise of a belief that you're going to deliver something better for British Columbia. If you're anti-union, say it. Come out and say: "We're anti-union, we don't believe in the union movement, and we'd like to get rid of it." Make it clear. If you're not, then let's work constructively to build labour legislation that is fair for the employer, fair for the unionized worker and that will train the best-skilled British Columbians possible, so that together we build an economy and we don't, by our rhetoric, drive anybody with an interest in investing right out of the province.

[4:30]

[ Page 8956 ]

I've had some involvement in the construction industry -- not directly but indirectly -- over a lot of years. I say that this legislation, frankly, is long overdue. I know that this government, through a number of efforts over the last 15 years, has tried to bring in something to address some of the inadequacies, injustices and inconsistencies that the Labour Code had when it was applied to folks working in the construction industry.

I think we have to ask ourselves in this House, in the public, on the streets and in the workplaces: really, what are we talking about when we're talking about Bill 26? What we're talking about is finally correcting a situation in the Labour Code that has occurred for a long time and that has prohibited workers in the construction industry to in fact belong to a union when they choose to do so.

Let me also say that the Labour Code of British Columbia, since recent changes to it in this government's mandate. . . . Actually, it was the previous government to this one, but it was certainly the NDP government's mandate. With those changes that occurred, we've actually seen less time lost in the workplace due to work disputes, stoppages and strikes than at any time since before the Second World War. When the members opposite argue about economic instability and about the stability of labour relations in the province of British Columbia. . . . They made those arguments when this government was bringing in the changes to what is now the new Labour Code. They are continuing to make these arguments today, and I really think that the proof is in the pudding here. The prior changes that were brought into the code did not achieve the wrack and ruin that the members opposite were arguing would occur.

But there was a piece missing in those Labour Code amendments -- the Labour Code changes that came in in the early 1990s -- and that piece was around the construction industry. What happens in the construction industry currently is that when workers make the decision to join a union, those workers sign cards, the union is certified to represent those workers, they enter into the negotiating process, and because of a number of issues -- not the least of which is often frustration on the employer's side, by frustrating the process. . . . Also, what occurs in that negotiating process is that, in fact, the construction jobs end. The construction industry is unlike any other industry in British Columbia. The faster people work at their employment, the sooner they are unemployed and off looking for employment again. So what happens in that process is that workers make the decision to join a union, the union tries to negotiate an agreement with the employer, and -- boom -- the job is over and the workers go off looking for other employment. Those workers never get to deal with the situation that they decided they wanted to deal with -- that is, trying to achieve better working conditions, wages and benefit rates for themselves so that they can care for their families better. They make the decision to join a union, and then they never achieve an agreement.

That's what is changing through this piece of legislation. What will happen now is that when those workers, on a craft basis, decide to join a union, they will have a collective agreement in place. They won't have to go through that process. They will be able to work for the next two months; then the job is gone, and off they go looking for more employment. But they'll be able to work with a sense of surety and a sense of stability for their families, for their communities and -- I believe, overall -- for the construction industry in British Columbia.

Let me tell you about stability, or the lack of stability, in the construction industry in British Columbia. Construction workers, generally speaking, never work a full year. They may work five or six months a year; that's not real good in terms of stability. I know that the employment standards branch deals with outrageous numbers of complaints from construction workers who do not have unions, where their employers are simply not paying their wages -- where the employers just don't pay their wages, overtime or holiday time. There are all kinds of problems out there in the construction industry. When those workers make the decision to join a union, it's because they are fed up with having to rely on the Employment Standards Act. They want to have a proper union in place to deal with the situations they face in the workplace, at home and in their communities in looking after their families and being a part of the communities in which they live.

When we talk about this code and about how we got here with these recommendations, I am increasingly surprised at the opposition's angst, anger and -- I suspect -- sense of anxiety and ignorance on this issue. There was a panel that went around the province and heard submissions from people. The panel consisted of Stephen Kelleher, a noted and well-respected member of the labour relations community and past chair of the Labour Relations Board, and Mr. Stan Lanyon, another past chair of the Labour Relations Board and a noted and reputable person in the labour relations community. They went out and heard submissions from the people of British Columbia -- even submissions from the members opposite, I would hope, who had issues to deal with on these kinds of situations and wanted to have their voices heard as well -- and they came up with a series of recommendations. That is what is before this House today: those very recommendations that were picked up by that committee -- recommendations, thoughts and ideas to deal with the problems facing workers in the construction industry, recommendations that the panel agreed with and are now before the House.

I said earlier I had some experience with these kinds of situations. Not that long ago in Victoria there was a company called Kinetic Construction -- it's a matter of record. There are decisions on that company at the Labour Relations Board, and I was involved with those workers, along with the carpenters' local 1598 in Victoria and the labourers' local in Victoria as well. I met with those workers in my capacity, at that point, as secretary-treasurer of the Victoria Labour Council. Those workers wanted to organize and wanted to belong to a union. We met with those workers in a bar because they didn't want to meet at the workplace; they didn't want any union representatives at the company gate to talk to them about the benefits and give them some information about joining a union. We met with them in a quiet corner in a bar. They talked to us about the problems that they were having at their workplace. They were scared. They were scared to take the step to join a union because they knew the boss would go after them if they joined a union. I remember I was sitting in the bar, and the owner of the company came into the bar and sat down and started to talk to all the workers about the negative effects on that company if those workers were to join a union -- negative aspects.

There are members opposite over there who talk about the notion of so-called democracy at the workplace. There is no democracy at the workplace. When workers make a decision to join a union, that's the only avenue where they're ever going to be able to get any sense of justice at the workplace, to

[ Page 8957 ]

I understand where the members opposite are coming from. Many of those members have never had to actually go out to work. They've never had to rely on the benevolence of an employer who sometimes will pay you overtime, who sometimes won't, who sometimes will give you a day off on Saturday or require you to come to the employer's house and cut the lawn. If you don't do that, then you lose your job. The members opposite are smirking and smiling, but I will tell you, hon. Speaker, that that happens every day in British Columbia. The worst place that that happens is in the construction industry -- the worst place. The worst intimidation is in the construction industry. Let me tell you that this legislation, in my view, doesn't go anywhere near far enough. But it is a step in the right direction, a step to offer some justice for workers so they can be free of the intimidation that many workers face, particularly in the construction industry.

You know, I also hear from the members opposite about economic doom and gloom. In the early 1900s, there were members in this very chamber that were talking about economic ruination and doom and gloom if we were to move off the traditional hours of work and workweek of that time and move to an eight-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek. They argued economic doom and gloom and wrack and ruination. That was what they thought was going to happen in the province of British Columbia. In the early 1900s, workers used to work nine hours a day, Monday to Friday, and four hours a day on Saturdays. The members opposite. . . . I'm sure that perhaps some of their forefathers and foremothers were there then, and they are here today. . . . It's the same kind of argument that I'm hearing from that side of the House today around the economy.

You know what's really tragic about that? When the members opposite argue that somehow this modest amendment, applying only to industrial, commercial and institutional sectors of construction in terms of the Labour Code, is going to cause economic instability in the province that will be irreversible. . . . The tragic part of that is that there are actually people somewhere out in Canada -- largely, as I understand it, in the eastern provinces -- that sort of think that this might be true. The sad part is that what you members opposite are marketing out here, the economic doom, the wrack and ruination of the province. . . . We have a Labour Code that actually represents the interests of stability in the economy -- not only for business people but also for working people in the province -- and actually achieves a balance. We have that. You argue wrack and ruination, and you are doing a disservice to the people of British Columbia when you do that. The only wrack and ruination that's being marketed here in this province today is the wrack and ruination and the economic notions that are being driven out across this country and around the world by the members opposite.

We are doing very well here. We would do a lot better if you stopped telling the people of the world that the province of British Columbia is spiralling down the toilet, because it is not true. This legislation does apply to the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors. It will provide stability in terms of labour relations in the province. More importantly, it will provide the proper wages and benefits that working people need in order to survive in this province. You know, I cannot believe how over the top the members opposite have gone on this issue. I guess it's because there is no other issue that they can try and deal with.

All I've heard. . . . I was elected in 1996, as many of the members here were. Every time I come into this House, on very debate, on every issue -- virtually every issue -- all I have heard is doom and gloom. I don't know how many of you there are, but there are 30-plus Chicken Littles over there, yelling: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." You know what? Look around the province. We are doing very well here -- very well. Even in the face of the Asian economic downturn, we are doing very well. We are working hard -- and you members opposite should get on board with this -- to try to bring investment into British Columbia, while at the same time you members opposite are arguing that investment should not be coming into the province.

You're arguing that it should not be coming into the province. I've got to ask members opposite: how the heck do you go home to your constituencies on the weekends and stand up there and say: "You know what? We've spent the whole week in the Legislature arguing that investment should not come to British Columbia"? The Premier and others have been going out and arguing that investment should be coming into the province, talking to aluminum companies, to other companies and manufacturers -- to Bombardier about light rapid transit. They're working hard to bring investment into British Columbia, and the whole time you guys are marketing this message across the country that it is wrack and ruination here. Shame, members! You should get on board, get with the program.

[4:45]

Interjections.

S. Orcherton: Are you going to cool down now?

My view is that when we get elected to this chamber, we all have a vision of a province that has prosperity, where people are well looked after, where we are all proud to live, where we have a positive environment and all those kinds of things. I have believed -- but my belief is becoming some-

[ Page 8958 ]

These are minor, modest amendments to the Labour Code. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland all have compulsory accreditation models in place. Alberta and Ontario have virtually the same legislation in place, in terms of the labour code, for the construction industry. They have that in place. And you know what? Alberta is the province where I am sure the majority of members in this House would be much happier -- if they lived in Alberta and ran for that Legislature. But you know what? You're here.

You all talk about Alberta being the most wonderful place. Let's stop that and look at Alberta, which has virtually the same legislation. They have the same code amendments that we are proposing here in this legislative amendment.

Interjection.

S. Orcherton: Well, even Alberta. . . . It was in the paper today: they have a $5-an-hour minimum wage in Alberta, and they're thinking of increasing it. On C-FAX Radio today, when the question was posed to the Leader of the Opposition about the minimum wage, he said: "Well, I don't think we can really change that. We'd like to change it, but I really don't think we can change that." What nonsense!

These members opposite have not supported any positive initiatives that this government has brought forward in terms of labour relations. It's got nothing to do with the vision of British Columbia. It's got nothing to do with the argument that we should be arguing about, which is how we are going to get to a better place in British Columbia. It has everything to do with anti-ness and bias and the anti-unionism and anti-workerism that's rampant on that side of the House.

Interjections.

S. Orcherton: The members opposite says that it's untrue. Well, check in Hansard and see the comments that have been made here. This is unbelievable.

In closing my remarks, I just want to say that this is long-overdue legislation. It is not necessarily cutting-edge or radical in any sense. Other provinces have this in place. In my view and in my experience of dealing with workers in the construction industry who have tried to unionize and who have been intimidated and not been able to unionize, this will offer them the opportunity to be able to have a union represent their interests and represent them in terms of their wages and their benefits packages.

Finally, if I could just hammer it home once more, when these members opposite talk about some notion of democracy in the workplace, it is absolutely clear to me that they have never been in a workplace. They have never been under the thumb of an employer who doesn't treat them. . . . There is no democracy in the workplace. There are only mechanisms to provide workers with the ability to be able to arrest authority from employers at the workplace. This legislation offers fairness to people employed in the construction industry, and I support it.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move that we adjourn the debate.

The Speaker: Just prior to that motion, member, there is a request from the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: In the gallery today are 42 grade 7 students from Uplands Elementary school in Penticton. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Bruce Johnson, and several accompanying parents. I ask that everyone in the House please make these students from Penticton feel very welcome in Victoria today.

S. Orcherton moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. D. Lovick: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 7 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 4:54 p.m. to 7:06 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Employment and Investment. In this House, I call second reading debate on Bill 26.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading continued)

My orientation to labour doesn't come from a great family history of that sort of thing; in fact, the opposite is the case. I got involved in a union back in the good old days when W.A.C. Bennett took a good shot at the teachers of the day. It almost forced me to take a stand and decide that in the interests of survival in the workplace, it was probably a good idea that my colleagues and I got together to defend ourselves from the attacks. Of course, over the years it wasn't just W.A.C. Bennett; it was his son who then did it again, and so on. So I've never been sorry that at some stage in my life, I

[ Page 8959 ]

I listened with some interest to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, particularly when he made reference to the fact that the minister had referred to their attack as some kind of holy war or jihad. He took some exception to that. I thought that maybe the member attended the Colonel Khadafy school of labour fairness or something; perhaps that's where they got some of their instructions from. He complained that we had second reading the morning after the bill was introduced, and then for about two hours talked about everything except the substance of Bill 26. He didn't seem to want to attack that particular issue. He seemed to be content to go on with the same old stuff that I remember once saying I'd heard at least a hundred times in seven years, and with a lot of overdramatization as to what the effect of this legislation would be. So we heard the usual stuff: that the economy is bad because of labour, because of the Labour Code, because of unionized workers.

Since I got here in 1991 -- that fateful day when in a moment of weakness, I guess, I decided to run for this office -- the message to workers from the other side has been. . . . I want people out there to really understand what that message has been. It is coming from their interpretation that the economic challenges that we face are all the result of the Labour Code and unionized workers: if, during that time since 1992, you have organized to join a union for your own protection or applied some section of the code or accepted increases in the minimum wage or accepted a negotiated wage increase during that process, then you, the B.C. workers, are the problem. That's the message that comes loud and clear.

Never mind that you spend all of your income in the communities that you live in. Never mind that you support all of the small businesses in your communities with that salary or those benefits that you've achieved. You, the worker, are the problem. That's the message. And, of course, never mind that there are economic problems resulting from the Asian flu. That's all irrelevant. You, the B.C. unionized worker, are the problem. That's the message coming from the Liberals over there.

The second message to worker is -- and it's quite obvious from the conclusions that one would draw -- that if you give up your security on the job, if you give up your wages, if you give up the quality of life that you've achieved over the years, if you give up your right to join a group or a union for the collective benefit. . . . If you do all that, then the economy will improve. And if you don't do it, then the government should legislate all those things out of existence so that we can improve the economy. That's the message.

The folks over there are so convinced that you are the cause of the problem that they'll go to any length to create a war over this issue. There's no admission that the economic difficulties are in any way related to the fact that our Asia-Pacific customers are in economic difficulty and are not buying the products that we're producing. Well, you wonder: why all this anti-worker, anti-union rhetoric? I can only suggest -- and I agree with the minister -- that the Liberals over there got all dressed up and armed for a war, and by God they were going to have one.

The member for Vancouver-Quilchena says that Bill 26 is an assault on business. That's the inference there. Why doesn't he suggest that every one of these businesses that feel that this is really the case puts up a sign in their shop window that simply says that people who make less than minimum wage are the only ones who should patronize that business. That would almost be the suggestion.

It puzzles me that there is something so difficult about understanding that small business relies on consumers with good income. Let me give you an example. In my constituency, I have two major centres. There's Terrace, which is pretty hard hit by the slowdown in the forest industry these days. They're hard hit by a number of factors, one of them being that George Petty of Repap used certain business practices to borrow money, to the extent that it couldn't be repaid and the company went into great difficulty. So those business practices created a problem. Of course, there are also soft markets in the forest industry.

Besides Terrace, there is Kitimat, and Kitimat has good union jobs at Alcan and Eurocan. We're grateful for those companies, but we also recognize that the benefits and the good wages and the good quality of life didn't come from the benevolence of the corporations. It came because there were unions that fought hard for these benefits. So what's happened, of course, is that the wages that are paid in Kitimat are buffering, to some extent, the negative impact of the slowdown in the forest industry. You can read about this in the local Terrace paper.

[7:15]

So there are benefits all around. I can't understand why folks over there can't seem to get through their heads there are real benefits to having a unionized workforce that is reasonable -- and most of them are. They run their shops democratically -- far more democratically than that other side over there. They take the view that they're all bad and the cause of the difficulty we have here. So out of that come a lot of the comments in terms of Bill 26.

I noted with some interest today that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain tabled a petition, and the petition had 210 signatures. I'm reading from a press release put out by the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council: ". . .210 signatures were collected in less than two hours on a sunny afternoon on Saturday, June 6. That's roughly two signatures a minute, in spite of the fact that many people were away from home when we called. Of those who were in, we found over 90 percent were willing to sign the petition." I wonder: is the member going to represent these 210 constituents at some point? Oh yes, sure. He tabled a petition. It would be nice. . . .

[ Page 8960 ]

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

H. Giesbrecht: . . .if just once he defended their positions, or if he once said: "Maybe they've got a point. Maybe we should take a very rational view of this."

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. It's difficult to hear the speaker.

H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, I just wanted them to get it out of their system.

I went through my files, and I found interesting things there. I'm not sure that this is particularly relevant, but members might remember this document. It comes from the 1996 election campaign.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. All members will have an opportunity to debate this bill.

H. Giesbrecht: I was curious as to how far back this sort of anti-worker position had gone. I looked through here to see whether or not there was anything that would even talk about some kind of harmonious working relationship, some kind of understanding of workers and what their needs were. All I found in here were things like: they were going to eliminate the NDP's fair-wage policy; they were going to end the special Island Highway deal; they were going to end the health labour relations accord. They were going to just throw workers out on the street and never worry about their families. It's all here.

The other interesting thing -- because it keeps coming up in the discussion -- is that they were going to restore secret ballots and union certification and establish a balanced Labour Code. So I went to the report of -- as we affectionately refer to them -- the Three Wise Men, who put out the recommendations for labour law reform. These three people, in fact, were complimented by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, in another item that he read from something that they had written.

I found something in there that refers directly to the issue of the secret ballot:

"The introduction of the secret ballot vote into British Columbia labour legislation constituted a departure from the norm in Canadian law, where union support had traditionally been assessed on the basis of signed membership cards. The new 1984 provisions in this area mirrored American legislation where certification votes are the norm" -- you know, that bastion of labour peace, and social services, where 30 million Americans don't have health care.

"Along with the secret ballot vote came the inevitable pre-vote campaigning -- the member for Vancouver-Quilchena talked about this too. "While the statute still retained prohibitions against employer interference in the certification process, after the introduction of the vote, the rate of unfair labour practices by employers during organization campaigns increased dramatically. The rate of new certification dropped by approximately 50 percent."

We should remember that people don't form unions for no reason at all. If there's a great working relationship between an employer and workers, the question never comes up. It's when things get a little tricky that it does. Sometimes -- and I'm convinced of this -- the employer-employee relationship needs a set of rules to be harmonious. That's what labour legislation is all about.

Somebody also mentioned something about how great Bill 19 was. There's a quote in this same thing -- and remember, these people probably know more about labour relations in this province than that whole side put together. There's a quote in here -- I probably read this when I debated this bill -- that says: "While no one seriously attempted to defend Bill 19 as balanced legislation, some employers expressed opposition to certain parts of the legislation which invested significant power in the commissioner to intervene in collective bargaining." No one would seriously attempt to defend Bill 19 as balanced. . .

An Hon. Member: Even Lyall Hanson.

H. Giesbrecht: That's true. The member says even Lyall Hanson knew that. If you go back and look at the report that Lyall Hanson did -- was it in 1984? -- they make the same reference about the need for something for the construction industry. They didn't have the courage to make recommendations at the time, but it's that long that they've been dealing with it.

So I continue to be puzzled by this attitude over there. Nobody on this side has ever said that we're interested in hammering business in any way; nobody said that. We simply believe that you have to have a set of rules, because not all employers are great employers and not all workers are great workers. You need a set of rules to govern the relationship at the workplace. But for them, it's a joke. You wonder whether any of them have ever worked as an ordinary working person. I know they keep talking about how many businesses they've run and all that kind of stuff. But have they ever worked in a workplace for an employer that wasn't in some way somebody that they could ingratiate themselves with by adopting the same political line?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, the member has been recognized by the Chair. He must be given courtesy by other members of the House to complete his remarks.

H. Giesbrecht: If you go back to their election literature, the warning signs were certainly there. All through the last couple of years, when you listen to their statements and when you read their comments in Hansard, you don't ever find any mention of concern about workers at all. For the record, look at the positions. They wanted to get rid of fair wages. They wanted to end the health labour relations accord and put people out in the street. Not fair wages -- that's unheard of. Why would anybody want fair wages?

End the special projects agreement for the Island Highway, which gave local hiring preferences; oh no, we can't have that. Bring in more Alberta workers, so Alberta can have a

[ Page 8961 ]

Ever since I've been here, I've heard these Liberals -- and this is where it gets interesting -- railing at workers who have the audacity to expect a raise from the minimum wage or who want to unite with their co-workers to form a union. The audacity of workers to want that! And I've never heard a word of support from those guys over there. I used to have some concept of what Liberals were. In fact, I had friends, and we would have discussions about what Liberals were. I have not seen anything over there that even comes close to that. But that's okay; I think that what they're doing is sending a very clear message to workers out there. The message will get back to them, come the next election.

The other thing, of course -- and I should draw attention to this, because probably the most classic line comes from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson -- is that those over there identify themselves as worker-whackers. You have to whack workers to keep them in line. That's part of it, and certainly the message gets through loud and clear.

I must get to the substance of the bill. This morning I picked up the newspaper, and I found an article which I thought was really quite good and actually gave some substance of what Bill 26 is all about. It was in the Times Colonist. There you have some very interesting quotes. This is not by some rabid unionist. In the Times Colonist today, there are some comments from. . . . Well, the headline is "Labour Revisions Make Sense to Analyst." Now, I suppose an analyst is somebody who spends some time looking at the issues, knows something about labour relations, labour history in this province, and so on.

[7:30]

This is important. We hear a lot of comments from over there that sort of suggest they don't really understand how the construction industry works: "Why do you need a special set of rules for the construction industry?" Normally, you have everybody in a plant. They're there all the time, they're there for years and years, and it makes sense to have certain rules govern them. But here you get a sense of why this is different, why they're unique:

"Thornicroft said the amendments 'make a whole lot of sense' in an industry noted for project-by-project work and hundreds of small contractors. The changes affect about 11,000 workers out of 129,000 in the industry. The ICI section is 25 to 30 percent unionized."

"Last year about 700 newly organized workers in four out of every five new bargaining units in the ICI section never saw the benefit of a collective agreement because the project was completed before a collective agreement was negotiated. . . ."

I continue with the quote, and there's an interesting thing at the very end:

"The Christian Labour Association of Canada gave general support to the changes, saying they preserved the right of workers to choose between different types of unions, which 'is essential in a democratic system.' "

H. Giesbrecht: Yes, these are radicals.

" 'Key aspects of the changes are already in place in Alberta and Ontario,' said CLAC." So there is an admission that you guys are way off base. But you've got to have a war, so we carry on.

Then in the corner it gives some amendment facts. It says: the amendments focus on part of the unionized construction industry called industrial, commercial and institutional; the workers who build sawmills, schools and hospitals, shopping malls and office buildings; and the aim is to develop one master collective agreement that covers an estimated 11,000 workers.

Then, at the very end of all of this rational thought about what it actually does is a quote from the Leader of the Opposition. Now, this shows some real understanding: "This is a massive change to the Labour Code, and they know it," says the Liberal leader -- and I can't mention his name. That, in essence, is what sort of rational discussion was produced.

I found in my file a letter. Now, the letter wasn't to me; it was actually written to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. It's written by a contractor, and since I don't want to get him into any difficulty from those folks over there. . . . He'd probably get a nasty phone call from them, suggesting that he should never write anything supportive. There is an interesting comment in here, where he talks about the difficulties that unionized construction firms have on an unlevel playing field:

"Now the non-union worker, often driven by desperation, is in many cases doing work that he is totally untrained for and earning wages that, for the most part, are only slightly above UIC payments, while his employer is enjoying a life far beyond his expectations by winning contracts for just slightly less than the union estimate and thereby lining his pockets at the expense of the worker. Many of these non-union workers are undergoing many hardships due to lack of medical plans, indeterminate compensation benefits and, in general, very poor wages."

There's a paragraph at the end that says:

"Yes, I am very bitter about this situation, as I fully expected the NDP government to turn this deplorable situation that started with the previous administration around, but in fact they have stood by while the non-union workforce took more inroads than ever, with the only benefits going to the non-union employer. All we ask for is an equal footing. But this has been lost completely now, and drastic steps are needed to reverse the situation."

The members opposite like to suggest that there is something very different about this from what is happening in other jurisdictions. Let me give you some idea of what is

[ Page 8962 ]

So what's so different about this? Why do we have to be the bastion of anti-union. . .whatever? That sort of driving of that agenda, that anti-union sentiment, when every other jurisdiction has already been rational and has done something about it that's no different than what we're doing. . . . I mean, if Ralph Klein in Alberta. . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

H. Giesbrecht: . . .the great guru that these folks like to hold up as an example, can do it, then what's wrong with us?

So, hon. Speaker, it's there. Bill 26 recognizes the uniqueness of the construction industry. They've been asking for some assistance for a long time. It sets out a framework. . . .

Interjection.

H. Giesbrecht: I see my time has expired, unfortunately.

Some Hon. Members: More!

H. Giesbrecht: I would love to continue, but. . . .

G. Plant: Yesterday, when I was introduced to this bill -- actually, that was only yesterday, wasn't it. . . ? The people that said, "This is what this bill is about," commended to me a report called "Looking to the Future," a report of the construction industry review panel. They said: "You need to read this, because this report is a big part of what this modest change to the labour laws of British Columbia is all about. You need to read this report in order to see that this is really a very modest change in the way that we're going to regulate labour relations in British Columbia." This report -- from the government's perspective, I guess -- is the thing we need to look at, the basis for the way that the government has decided to deal with this issue. So I thought: "What the heck. I'll read the report."

I think it would be useful to members if I shared just one passage from page 46, because I actually think that the authors of this report were onto something when they said this:

"In the short term, the most serious constraint on availability of skilled workers [in the construction industry] is the expected strong demands for construction workers for planned major projects in the province of Alberta. Conservative estimates place planned construction projects in that province in the order of $40 billion over the next few years, leading to a significant demand for highly trained workers."

I think it is important that at some point we spend a fair bit of time looking at this bill from a labour relations perspective: that is, we look at what the law says about labour relations; we look at how this government regulates labour relations in British Columbia; we look at the problems of labour relations from inside the box of labour relations; and we ask questions of the experts who know about the field. We think about the labour relations issues, and then we look at Bill 26 from that perspective.

When I look at Bill 26 from inside that box -- that is, when I take it on its own terms; when I try to figure out what the labour relations policy at work here is and what the public policy things happening here are -- what I find, first of all, is this problem: there is actually nothing wrong that needs fixing on the current labour relations regulation of the construction industry. I have been listening for two days for the government to say what is wrong with the way the law is now. What is it that's broken? What is it that isn't working? I don't hear anything. I hear nothing that says: "There is something desperately wrong; this is what needs fixing." So if there isn't something that needs fixing, I'm not sure why we are even bothering to debate, let alone introduce, a piece of law -- let alone Bill 26.

When I look at it again from the perspective of a labour relations analysis, and I hear the government talk about the need for increasing stability, it seems to me -- with respect to those who hold the contrary view -- that this bill will not in fact increase stability. It will increase instability. Whenever you have a situation that is stable; when you have, in the context of labour relations, a balance that is working; when you don't see, day after day in the newspapers, accounts of wildcat strikes or reports about construction projects that are being held up because of walkouts and jurisdictional fights. . . . When I don't see any of that, I have to conclude that it's working. So if government decides in an ill-considered, sort of ill-thought-out way, "Let's interfere with this; let's change the balance; let's redraw the balance," I'm pretty sure that the result of that is not going to increase stability. In fact, it's going to make things less stable.

When I ask myself to look at the bill again on its own terms, to look at the words of the legislation, to listen to what the government says are the principles that are supposed to be at stake here, and to ask how this bill gives effect to those principles, my view. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: The courage to change. The member, not sitting in his own seat, holds up a pamphlet that says: "The Courage to Change." Wouldn't it be nice if he had the courage to change? Wouldn't it be nice if this government had the courage to change, instead of the same tired old rhetoric? Earlier one of the members was giving us a lecture about the 1900s and labour relations policy, as if that was the last day in history on which he formed his views on how you should regulate labour relations in British Columbia: some magical moment in 1904 or 1906. I mean, it was great to listen to, but I felt sorry for the member. He is sort of caught in some mysterious "X-Files" time warp when he really needs to maybe move forward. . . . Actually, you know what I also thought? I

[ Page 8963 ]

An Hon. Member: "I could have been a contender."

G. Plant: He could have been a contender. "I could have been a contender. I could have counted for something." Well, there's nothing wrong with the labour relations regulation in the construction industry in British Columbia. The government has failed to make a case that there's something wrong. All they're doing is upsetting a balance that's working just fine without this government's help. What this government wants to do in this bill to try and help that, in its feeble-minded, badly misguided attempt to respond to the evolving competitive aspects of this business -- the way the business is changing to cope with market conditions, the way the business has changed to cope with technological change as time has moved on over the last 80 or 90 years since the member for Victoria-Hillside was last paying attention to labour relations -- is to impose a new, artificial construct to organize the construction industry into little pieces, as if those little pieces -- one of them called ICI -- actually existed in the real world.

[7:45]

Actually, when I was being briefed on this legislation yesterday by some helpful people from the ministry, someone asked what happens in the case of almost every building being built nowadays in the greater Vancouver area: a little commercial bit at the bottom and three or four stories of townhouses on the top, or an apartment building with a few stores in the bottom. It's not really purely institutional or purely commercial or purely anything. It's a mix. What happens to that? What does the legislation say about that?

Well, the answer was pretty clear, and I'm sure the answer was right. The legislation doesn't say anything about that. We're going to let the Labour Relations Board figure that out; we're going to have litigation. Let's give the lawyers all kinds of work to do. I'm sure that while the construction industry is waiting for the Labour Relations Board to figure that out over the next year or two or three or four or five, people are really going to feel like investing in the construction industry. They won't have any clue what the rules are. And when you don't have any clue what the rules are, that's a great time to commit your capital and your human resources to investment. That's really the right time; that's a great way to approach things. Let's create instability; let's create uncertainty; let's create unpredictability. That's a great way to encourage investment; that's a great message to send to the investment community.

This is really just an introductory thought or two about the terms of this bill. Even on its own terms this bill is a pathetic failure. This bill doesn't even understand the reality of the construction industry. It imposes an artificial unreality on that industry in order to achieve certain purposes. Even at the best of times, I would be concerned about a bill that intentionally creates ambiguity, that is intentionally vague, that is intentionally open-ended and says: "We will let the courts figure it out" or "We'll let this tribunal figure it out." Here, unfortunately, we're going to give that power to the Labour Relations Board.

I have to say I'm a little bit concerned about the Labour Relations Board right now. I read in the newspaper today that there's another application against the LRB to have its decision set aside on the basis of bias. Well, we got two of those applications within just the last few days. I'm a little apprehensive that this tribunal may not be the kind of evenhanded, impartial, fair, balanced tribunal that we really want to have making these important decisions about how the workplace is organized in British Columbia.

When I look at this bill, again from inside the box of labour relations -- that is, before I even try and put it into the larger context, which I think is absolutely essential -- the fundamental problem is that this bill preserves intact the core of Bill 44. This bill has at its heart that which was at the heart of Bill 44. And what was wrong with Bill 44 is what is wrong with this bill -- that is, the imposition and the creation, under different words, of what will amount in fact and over time to sectoral bargaining.

Interjection.

G. Plant: The member asks how I can say that. It's a good question. The reason I can say it is because I've read both bills. What Bill 26 does is impose a model of sectoral bargaining on a sector of the British Columbia construction industry. That is exactly what was at the heart of Bill 44. That is what is wrong with this bill, as it was what was wrong with Bill 44.

But as flawed as this bill is when you look at it in labour relations terms, it is our duty in this House to look at a legislative initiative in its larger context, to look at what the government is doing in this bill in the context of the economy generally. This is clearly an aspect of the government's economic policy. This is clearly one part of the way in which this government seeks to intervene in the economy, presumably to give them credit for good intentions, to make things better -- although, frankly, their track record is pretty darn abysmal. But the point I want to start with is that I think it is essential not just that you look at this bill as an answer to a labour relations problem by labour relations experts, but that you look at it in the context of the economy of British Columbia as a whole. I am convinced that this bill will not improve the economy of British Columbia. It will make things worse.

For seven years this government has failed in every respect to manage the economy of British Columbia and to create prosperity. You know, earlier today -- in fact, over the last two days of debate -- I was interested to hear the government's response to that problem. The government has a new response to the problem of its mismanagement of the economy. Let me see if I can describe that response: "Please don't talk about how bad things are, because that will make them worse."

The member for Victoria-Hillside spoke for minutes. He went on and on, telling us: "Things are just fine in British Columbia." He said: "They're great." He said: "Look around. Things are wonderful." It was like: "How dare you insult our tremendous track record as a government?" Well, you know, I don't think that we'd be doing our job if we ignored the facts. You can't ignore the facts, and the facts are that this govern-

[ Page 8964 ]

I think that is a marvellous. . . . It's a new form of NDP spin: "Don't tell anybody about it, because it might make things worse." Well, hon. Speaker, everybody knows how bad things are. I must admit that for a moment I was almost flattered. I thought the member who made those comments was saying: "My goodness, the opposition is powerful." With one utterance of a fact about the economy, we can apparently spread the pall of gloom not just over the lower mainland of British Columbia but all across North America. People wake up. . . . The investment bankers on Wall Street wake up every morning, waiting with bated breath to know what the 33 members of the Liberal opposition of British Columbia are going to say about the B.C. economy. Well, you know, I don't think that's what they do. I think they wake up in the morning and they look at the hard, cruel facts. Those facts are hard, and right now those facts are cruel. An economy that was first is worst. No amount of NDP doublespeak, no amount of intimidation, can hide that reality.

I thought it was kind of an interesting image: here we have the NDP standing on the throat of the economy of British Columbia, leaning down into its face and saying: "Don't tell anybody. It'll just make things worse." Well, that is pretty much the picture, isn't it? They're right there on the throat. With this bill they're not just standing on the throat; they're jumping up and down on the throat of the B.C. economy.

The members opposite talk about perceptions and about how we can't distort perceptions about the economy. I think that perception has a role to play in all of this. The engine of economic growth, the thing that creates prosperity in an economy, is usually the accumulation of a thousand decisions by individuals to put their lives, their resources, their energy, their will and their intellect on the line -- to take a risk and make an investment for themselves, for their families or perhaps even for their communities. When people are thinking about whether or not to do that, it is pretty clear that they look at the economic conditions around them. They take into account the rules of the game for the economy in their communities. That includes the rate of taxation. That includes the way in which businesses are regulated. And yes, it is pretty darn clear that it includes the way in which we regulate the relations between employers and employees. If we don't do a good job of that, if we don't regulate those relationships in a way that is fair and balanced and that creates stability and predictability, then people will say: "I'm not prepared to risk my life, my energy, my capital, my resources, my family. I'm not prepared to put those things on the line, because I don't think that I have any security of outcome with respect to that investment. Who knows what will happen? It will be too expensive to carry on business. I may go down a road, and just when I think I've got a plan that's in place, that's going to work, the rules will be changed, and my assets will be taken away. Or who knows what will happen?"

Unless people have a perception that British Columbia is a safe haven for their investment, they will not make that investment. That is why I think that you need to look at this bill both as an expression of labour relations policy and as a larger statement about what this government's vision is for the economy of British Columbia. Nobody who is thinking of investing their life, their money, their capital, their human energy in this province. . . . None of those people are asking this government to change the Labour Relations Code. In fact, they are saying: "Leave the Labour Relations Code alone."

In relative terms, it looks like we have a form of stability in the labour relations climate in British Columbia. It may not be great. It may be founded on some rules that some people could fight about. We don't like the fact that unions are denied the right to vote in private on the fate of their employment location. But whether we like that or don't like that, the fact is that there is a form of stability in the labour relations climate in British Columbia. So why change that? Why poke a red-hot stick at that sleeping dog? It doesn't make any sense to me, and I don't think it makes any sense to anybody in the business community who is concerned about the economy.

[8:00]

Here's another great argument: "Well, hon. Speaker, you shouldn't worry about this bill -- about this kind of bargaining in the construction sector. Everybody's doing it. Why, they even do it in Alberta." I understand that argument; that's the argument about consistency: "We should do it in British Columbia because they're doing it in Alberta." I've got a great idea. I've got a few other things from Alberta that I'd like to do. Why not? After all, they're doing it in Alberta. They have really low taxes. They have really low corporate capital taxes. They have cut income taxes. They have done all kinds of things to stimulate investment.

Interjection.

G. Plant: Well, why don't we do that? Let's do that. I heard $40 billion. That's what Messrs. Kelleher and Lanyon said, and who am I to disagree with them? After all, they're the authors of the report. Well, I think that if you're going to take the argument of consistency, which I think is not a terribly good argument. . . . I mean, I've never really been impressed with the idea that we should do something bad here because they're doing it elsewhere. Really, the truth is that if we're going to take that argument -- if for once the NDP are going to stand up and say, "You know, Alberta is on to a good thing here" -- well, I agree. Alberta is on to lots of good things. Let's pick up lots of those ideas. In fact, I look forward to this government bringing in a number of other initiatives -- economic initiatives -- over the next few weeks and months and telling me: "Yes, this is exactly what they do in Alberta. It is a really good idea, because they do it in Alberta." After all, that's why they apparently like Bill 26: because they do it in Alberta.

Now, here's another great one. This is a bill all about the economy. This is a bill about changing the rules of labour relations in a way that presumably is going to have an impact on the economy. So is there an economic impact study? Oh no. Why would we do an economic impact study? We might

[ Page 8965 ]

You know, it's interesting. I read the construction industry review panel report. You know what I kept looking for? I kept looking for an explanation of why these things, these changes, were necessary. Yes, they talk about how some people wanted these sorts of changes and other people didn't want them, and others wanted more ambitious changes and other people didn't want those changes. They sort of followed some middle road, and I can understand that. I mean, that's the job of labour arbitrators -- to find the middle ground between opposing positions. But, you know, there isn't really a reasoned defence of why this bill is necessary. I haven't heard anybody explain how it is that this bill will in fact improve anything in the construction sector. They don't do that. They just talk about how it's a modest proposal, about how it won't have any economic impact, and about the other provinces doing it.

Oh, yes, there's another good one: "Small business is irrelevant." I can't remember who said that earlier in this debate. Oh, it was the Minister of Labour. He got all exercised about the fact that we were talking about small business, and he said: "Oh, small business is irrelevant to this issue." Well, I was interested to read in this report -- and I'm sure, hon. Speaker, that I'll only be reminding you of this from your reading of it. . . . On page 6, the authors of the report say this: "The business registry of Statistics Canada" -- now, that's the Minister of Forests' favourite source of statistics, isn't it? -- "suggests that 19,739 firms were present within the B.C. construction industry at the end of 1995. Many of these firms were small local companies with minimal assets other than the expertise of their principal owners. Of these firms, 13,700 employed between one and four employees." Well, that doesn't sound like irrelevance to me. The government's real agenda here is pretty darn clear. The Premier thinks that Bill 44 isn't dead; it's only resting. The Premier thinks that Bill 44 is on the way, bit by bit by bit, and that this is the first bit. We're going to get it; I'm certain of it. Bill 26 won't help a single worker in British Columbia. It will put workers out of work. It won't change the climate of labour relations in British Columbia except for the worse. It won't build a single building in British Columbia. It will poison the construction investment climate and bring construction to a halt. It won't restore prosperity; it will ensure recession. I think that for far too many British Columbians the sad fact is that the long NDP ideological dream has become a nightmare. It's getting awfully dark in here.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join this debate. I certainly look forward to expressing my views and, I think, those of many of my constituents in the discussion tonight. Like my friend and colleague from Richmond-Steveston, I was struck by some of the themes which have been repeatedly emerging in the NDP speeches in defence of this bill. I want to explore one of those themes a little bit, because I think the folks at home, as well as the folks on this side of the House, are going to be hearing a lot of this theme over the next few days -- and possibly weeks, depending on how long we go here. That theme from the NDP side is this: the opposition is responsible for the deplorable state of the B.C. economy. This is what they tell us over and over on that side of the House: we're a nattering bunch of nabobs, and as a consequence of that, we're bringing down the entire B.C. economy.

That seems to be the emerging theme on the other side of the House, and it's classic denial syndrome. The NDP are doing a great job. They're doing a wonderful job here in British Columbia. It's the opposition that's at fault. The opposition is bringing down all of the fine work that this government has done -- classic denial syndrome on the other side of the House.

If we have taxes in British Columbia that are much higher than in any other jurisdiction in North America, that's the opposition's fault. It's got to be the opposition's fault. Somehow it's not the government's fault.

An Hon. Member: We've been asking for it.

G. Abbott: Well, I hear people every day begging for higher taxes from this government, and this government has been kind enough to oblige us with taxes that are unequalled and unrivalled anywhere else in North America. It's one of those accomplishments by this government that they're obviously glad to share with us. It seems that it's our fault.

The corporation capital tax. . . . Interestingly, this is a tax that this government extended on a temporary basis, theoretically, in the first NDP government -- back, I think, in '92. This is a tax which penalizes businesses for having the audacity to invest in B.C. Obviously the NDP government thinks that it's a bad thing to invest in B.C., because the first thing that this government does when people have the audacity to invest in B.C. is turn around and tax them. That is the NDP welcome to business in B.C.

Whose fault is that? Clearly it's the opposition's fault, if we listen to the arguments that are being made on the other side.

An Hon. Member: Everybody says that B.C. stands for "bring cash."

G. Abbott: Bring cash -- that's right.

With the corporation capital tax, businesses are being penalized regardless of whether they're profitable, regardless of whether they're struggling, regardless of whether someone has -- through no fault of their own -- decided to put a lifetime of work and investment into a business. What does the NDP do? They turn around and tax the business, regardless of whether it is struggling, regardless of whether it's a new business that's trying to find its feet. Regardless of the situation, we'll tax that investment. That's the way the NDP welcomes business to British Columbia. But no, it can't be their fault that investment is not coming. It's got to be the opposition's fault. That's obvious. When we point out that this is a problem -- that it discourages investment in B.C. -- it's got to be our fault.

When we in British Columbia hear probably the most virulent anti-business rhetoric north of Havana, when we hear the Premier in the 1996 election roundly criticizing business for their unsocial attitudes. . . .

An Hon. Member: The audacity to make money.

[ Page 8966 ]

It appears, as well. . . .

Interjections.

G. Abbott: I'm hearing some bleatings from one of the 1890s Wobblies across the floor apparently trying to communicate with me, trying to. . . .

An Hon. Member: Not that old.

G. Abbott: Not that old. I was just suggesting your ideas are that old. You're actually quite a young man; it's your ideas that are ancient.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. members.

G. Abbott: The opposition, as well, is clearly responsible for those seven deficit budgets with which the NDP has dazzled the business world. Clearly we're responsible for those seven consecutive deficit budgets in British Columbia. We are also, apparently, responsible for the doubling of the debt that so impresses the outside investment community in this country and across the world. The doubling of the debt is clearly something which should be the responsibility of the opposition as well. I don't think there's any question about that.

As well, I think the opposition is clearly responsible for the fiscal deception which produced the two phony cookbook budgets that were coincidental with the 1996 election. Again, clearly we're guilty of that one, and that was something which very much impressed investors across Canada and around the world. The fact that a government would run for office on the premise that it had produced two surplus budgets only to find within days after the election that, oops, it seems we may have made a little mistake. . . . But that's the opposition's fault. It's a bad opposition. That's the reason we got those two phony budgets. If Aunt Jemima and Betty Crocker got together, I don't think they could produce a cookbook budget like the one that the NDP cooked up for the 1996 election. Not even those two eminent cookbook producers could come up with a recipe to rival the NDP's two 1996 election budgets.

[8:15]

If an insidious group were to sit down back in 1991 and say: "If we were going to systematically and thoroughly undermine a provincial economy, how should we go about doing it. . . ?"

An Hon. Member: They've got a manual now.

G. Abbott: Yes, they may have a manual now, but back in 1991 this insidious group would have to sit down and say: "How are we going to undermine the strongest, the number one, provincial economy in Canada and one of the strongest economies in North America? How should we do it?" This insidious group would sit down and think about things like this. They'd think: "Well, we've got to destroy business confidence. How do we do that?"

One of the ways we do that is with rhetoric. We can advance rhetoric that dwells on class themes and class divisions, that is critical of the business community and what it's trying to achieve -- critical of the whole notion of producing a profit rather than a loss. Certainly this kind of rhetoric would be a big step towards undermining business confidence.

What else could we do? One of the things we could do is throw a lot of red tape and unnecessary regulation at business. That would be a great way to undermine business confidence. Yeah, that's a possibility.

What else could we do? We could tax the heck out of the business community. That would be a way to do it. Certainly, if people. . . .

An Hon. Member: Tax everybody.

G. Abbott: Tax everybody. Tax business; tax everybody. Let's just go crazy. Let's throw on taxes that are unrivalled in any jurisdiction north of Cuba. That would be the way to do it.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: We'd have to think about that. So we produce the highest personal tax rates in North America, we drive up business and corporate taxes, and we level the most special tax of all -- the one that the members opposite obviously really cherish, the corporate capital tax. We'll put that in place, because that's a way of signalling to the business community that their investment is simply not welcome. As soon as it gets here, we'll tax it. That's the way we'll respond to it.

An Hon. Member: What bank was that?

G. Abbott: I can't remember what bank that was now. I remember something about that, but I can't remember it all.

So we'll do those things. Putting a tax on investment would certainly be a good way to undermine business confidence. That's a sure-fire way of saying: "We don't really want investment."

As well -- and we mentioned this a little bit earlier -- in order to undermine business confidence in the province, why don't we produce budgets that are phony and illusory? That would be a quick way to undermine business confidence.

[ Page 8967 ]

As well, let's add some more labour laws that are going to discourage people from investing in British Columbia.

These are all things we can do. Let's produce a very frigid investment climate. Let's kill jobs. Let's drive jobs to jurisdictions with better tax, regulatory and investment climates. These are quick ways to really turn the economy around and move from number one to number ten in a hurry. These are all ways we can do that. This insidious group looking at this in 1991 would certainly think of all these things.

They would also look for ways to kill small business, which, of course, is the source of most new jobs in British Columbia. Again, we'd want to look at taxes and regulations and all of the things that we could do to discourage small business. Theoretically, that's what we would do in 1991 if we wanted to destroy the economy of the province. If we wanted to move the economy of that province from number one to number ten, we'd sit down and do all those things: destroy business confidence, produce unbalanced budgets.

Who would do such a thing? It seems that this government across here is exactly the people that would do such things, because that's exactly what they have done since 1991-- all of those things. This is a government that has done the unimaginable. Who would have thought in 1991 any government, no matter how insidious, could move an economy as diverse, as rich, as powerful as British Columbia from number one to number ten. Who would have thought it?

Well, I guess these guys did, because they've done it. They have succeeded, through all the mechanisms that we've outlined here, in destroying the economy of British Columbia. It's typical, and apparently the opposition is responsible for it. By pointing out the obviously stupid, drastic and unreasonable things that this government has done, we are somehow responsible.

As well as moving us from number one to number ten overall, this government has given this province the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec. Now, this is quite an achievement by this government -- again, taking a powerful, diverse, rich economy with relatively low unemployment and making us the unemployment leaders west of Quebec. This is quite an achievement by this NDP government -- remarkable.

With their much-vaunted youth schemes, they have taken youth unemployment to 17 percent-plus in this province -- again, a great achievement by this NDP government -- raising the rates of unemployment way beyond anything anyone could have imagined back in 1991 -- a stellar achievement by this administration.

And, of course, they have produced an exodus of jobs from British Columbia that no one could have imagined in 1991. We've got jobs everywhere. We even have jobs moving to NDP Saskatchewan. That's the difference. The letters NDP don't necessarily mean bad. They may be an indicator, but they don't necessarily mean bad. But we have a government here that is so bad, even in relation to NDP Saskatchewan, that jobs are going to Saskatchewan. It's pathetic, it's terrible; it's ridiculous. But that's the situation that this government has put us in.

An Hon. Member: It's sickening.

G. Abbott: It's sickening as well. Jobs and businesses on the move -- Alberta-bound, Saskatchewan-bound, anywhere-bound -- to get out of this particular province and to get away from the ridiculous tax and regulatory policies of this government.

Now, the other thing which I want to talk about here. . . . This is also a government which, despite its rhetoric, ignores the democratic rights of both workers and businesses. You'll hear -- I've heard it earlier today, and I'm sure we'll hear it again and again -- how the NDP is the defender of the workers. It's not so; it's all crap.

I want to tell you about one particular example here. We've talked about this before in the House: New Forest Opportunities Ltd. This is an example of protecting workers' rights? I don't think so. This is an example of forest unionization regardless of what workers want to do. This is a government that says: "We don't give a darn about your democratic right. We don't care whether you want to organize or not. We don't care whether you want to be in a union or not. You're going to join a union if you want to work on an FRBC-funded project on the coast of British Columbia." That's what this government says. It's forest unionization; it's a complete abrogation of individual and democratic rights.

Actually, the Premier has a quote this morning in the Vancouver Sun, which I think goes to the heart of this issue. It's seldom that I quote the Premier for this purpose, but I'll do it now, because I think it underlines the fundamental hypocrisy which permeates the government across the way. This is the quote from the Premier: "These are questions of fundamental human rights, people's right to make a decision as to whether or not to join a union." Well, exactly: "People's right to decide whether or not they want to join a union."

Yet this is a government that, through New Forest Opportunities Ltd. -- which is a misnomer if I've ever heard one. It's a reduction, an elimination of opportunity, frankly, but that's the typical moniker. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: No Forest Opportunities would be more accurate. That's exactly what they have done with New Forest Opportunities Ltd. -- they have taken people's rights. And we absolutely defend their right to organize, to join a union -- if they wish. This government hasn't respected that. What this government has done is say: "Oh no, if you want to work on an enhanced silviculture project on the coast of British Columbia, you have to join No Forest Opportunities Ltd. You have to join the IWA. You have no choice." That's this government's idea of workers' rights. You join whether you like it or not -- typical NDP labour relations understanding and philosophy.

In the No Forest Opportunities model, I think there's something else. I appreciate you providing me with that, because I think it is so apt for the situation. I think that No Forest Opportunities Ltd. underlines another fundamental feature of NDP thinking in this area, and that is that nothing is worthwhile unless it is centralized, bureaucratized and unionized. Unless it is those things, it's not worthwhile. You can't have things like a silviculture industry that's not managed by the government. Oh no, that would be a terrible thing. I mean, that would be awful. People must be abused, or they must be suffering with low wages. They must be forced to starve out there. Clearly that must be the case if that's so. Well, I don't agree, hon. Speaker. I think that what we're seeing here in No Forest Opportunities is an example of the thought which underlines Bill 26 as well: unless it's centralized, bureaucratized and unionized, it ain't worth doing. Here's thinking that kills jobs, kills businesses, kills investments. This is typical NDP thinking.

[ Page 8968 ]

Bill 26 is more thinking along the same lines. Unless it's centralized and bureaucratized, it's not worth doing. There's no recognition of the unique problems facing individual businesses. Oh no, we wouldn't want that. We wouldn't want people thinking anything other than centralized models, because that's entirely the way this government thinks.

I think this was entirely the wrong time to introduce Bill 26. At a time when our economy is struggling and when business confidence is at an all-time low in British Columbia, at a time when we desperately need new confidence and new investment in British Columbia, the government decided to bring in Bill 26. I don't think there's any doubt that this is going to be another way in which we further undermine a difficult situation.

[8:30]

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Your Labour minister said he was a reasonable guy yesterday. He said he was a reasonable guy. Here's what Mr. Lampert had to say: "People look at labour law when they make investment decisions, and this just has another negative impact. People conclude that B.C. is a difficult jurisdiction to do business in. It's as simple as that."

Well, I think that's the point we've been trying to make here tonight. People do look at labour law when they make investment decisions; they look at labour law and at all the other elements which my colleagues and I have been outlining tonight. They look at all those things, including labour law, and they're going to be looking at Bill 26, as well, as another example of why not to invest in British Columbia.

I have another quote from Keith Sashaw, executive vice-president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C. Here's what he had to say: "This is the worst possible thing the housing industry could take at this time. . . . This legislation clearly demonstrates that this government doesn't have the faintest idea how the construction industry works." So Mr. Sashaw obviously has some reservations about Bill 26 as well. In fact, they seem to be pretty profound and compelling reservations about Bill 26. "This is the worst possible thing," he says, "the housing industry could take at this time."

We heard earlier. . . . I think it was the Leader of the Opposition who outlined the deplorable state of the construction industry in different locales in the province of British Columbia. Yet that doesn't discourage this government from bringing in more labour legislation that apparently nobody wants, apart from the friends and insiders of the folks across the way. It doesn't discourage them from bringing in a bill even though we're obviously going to see even more discouragement in the construction industry.

This is clearly the worst possible time for Bill 26. We've got a province that is reeling from NDP tax and regulatory policies. We've got one more element of insecurity, uncertainty and instability in an economy that's already plagued by the same.

I want to talk a little bit. . . . I'm probably running out of time here. I hope I have an opportunity again at some point to talk on this.

An Hon. Member: You never know.

G. Abbott: You never know.

I want to talk a little bit about the impact of Bill 26 on my critic area, Forests. I know some of the neo-Luddites across the way would probably say: "Well, what's that got to do with Bill 26?" It's got everything to do with it. Construction in the forest industry is a very important element in our economy. I can imagine why the folks across the way might have forgotten about it, because there hasn't been much during the tenure of this government.

An Hon. Member: They've been tearing it down.

G. Abbott: They've been tearing it down. They've been taxing the industry so heavily that they can't reinvest anymore -- that's the problem. So it's not surprising that they've forgotten how important it is. In Alberta, the folks would like to say, it's a very big deal. There's billions of dollars in new construction in the forest sector there. But here, no. So I can imagine them forgetting it, but they really shouldn't.

The forest industry is the economic backbone of British Columbia. The NDP has been systematically destroying that backbone with regressive, shortsighted and frequently nonsensical polices. It's unfortunate, because the forest industry can and should be the backbone of our economy for ten years, 50 years, a hundred years. Yet this government has done incalculable damage to the industry with its shortsighted and regressive policies.

I think some of those policies are exemplified in things like the jobs and timber accord, which is the NDP's version of neo-Stalinism, where we can say in Victoria, "Oh, there's going to be 21,000 new jobs created," as if with the stroke of a pen it's going to happen. Of course, that's absurd and nonsensical. On the other side, we have absolutely no understanding of the marketplace, no understanding of the impact of the cost of production on jobs and employment, no understanding of the need to be competitive in order to sell products in an international marketplace.

In the jobs and timber accord, we still find the NDP saying: "We will create 21,000 new jobs." They don't say: "We would like to create," or "We may create." They say: "We will create, regardless of anything else that happens." Unfortunately, the NDP's approach in the jobs and timber accord is entirely symptomatic of the way they deal with government: if you somehow create the illusion that you are doing something, it's going to be done.

We find the same thing with Bill 26. We find: "Oh yes, we are going to make the workplace more democratic. We're going to restore prosperity. We're going to do all kinds of things here in the province of British Columbia." Of course, it's all a lot of nonsense. The only thing this government is interested in is things which provide for more centralized control, reduce individual rights, and expand bureaucratization. Further, I think the specialty of this government is the politics of deception and illusion. It's here where this government shows its real talent, where they can create new regulations, where they can create new commissioners and advocates and bureaucracies that pretend to solve problems which they themselves have created. It's so typical of this government, and it's so sad. This is a government which really

[ Page 8969 ]

Deputy Speaker: Members, the Chair feels compelled to remind the House that we're presently engaged in second reading of Bill 26, debate on the principles of the bill.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, I guess I've been listening a lot, and I have not as yet heard anyone who has specifically dealt with sections of the bill and said: "This is going to be a problem because of this and this and this." All the opposition are talking about is the economy and forestry and. . . . They're into everything but the bill. It's become fairly obvious to me that they have not been able to find a problem with Bill 26.

I just want to make one other comment. We keep getting remarks about this side of the House, that we have friends in the labour movement. Well, I do have; and I'm proud to have friends in the labour movement. I've always supported working people, and I always will. I might just add that I have an excellent relationship with the business community. I can tell you that over half of my donations come from the business community, when it comes election time -- just for the opposition's information.

This labour issue, I think, clearly defines the difference between the government and the official opposition. We support working people, and they support the anti-labour community. Phil Hochstein has said: "We will oppose any legislation and will call it sectoral bargaining even if it isn't." He has said that.

The other thing is that I just read in the paper that they're going to start running ads talking about union bosses. You know, I mentioned one time earlier that anybody who uses the words "labour boss" or "union boss" is so anti-union. It's just automatic. When they say boss. . . . Nobody likes bosses. Everybody, when they hear those words, "union boss. . . ." They never say union official or union officer or union leader; it's always boss.

We've got Phil Hochstein, who is the anti-union boss; he's the anti-union boss in this province. I might just say that there was a comment in a paper, where the Leader of the Official Opposition was saying: "Hochstein is my kind of guy" -- right? I can recall when Hochstein appeared before Burnaby council in 1987, when I was on council there and. . . .

Interjections.

F. Randall: I'll give you the goodies in a minute. Hochstein came before Burnaby council, hon. Speaker, when we were bringing in our fair-wage bill, which is 11 years old now. His position was that there should be no fair wage, no minimum wage; let the market decide. If we can get people to work for $2 or $3 an hour, that's the position. So there was no concern about how people were going to pay the rent, eat or live. It's like the lowest common denominator. So that's the kind of person running around doing a job. . . .

I want to make another comment before I get into the bill. I just want to say that this Liberal opposition are not real Liberals; I know real Liberals. They are not real Liberals. In fact, they are as bad as, if not worse than, the Socreds were. I know that's going some. When you look at their attitude with regard to working people, it's pretty damned obvious. I thought they would try and hide it, but they are open about it.

The comments about one size not fitting all. . . . In the construction industry, there are standard collective agreements; there always have been. CLRA would negotiate with all the trades. Each trade in the construction industry would have a standard agreement. I don't understand where they get all this. . . . You don't have a different collective agreement with a group of people all in the same industry. How do you bid for the job? You've got to have a standard agreement, if people are all bidding for the same work. If you're bidding for the same work, you've got to have the same agreement; otherwise, it's unfair. So I don't know where this phrase, with regards to one size not fitting all, comes from. I think we all know that one size doesn't fit all. But in construction it's a different situation altogether.

I might just also say that there is absolutely nothing in this bill that gives anyone the right to automatically be union. Everybody has to get out and organize. That includes the building trades. The wall-to-wall rat unions are still allowed to work in the ICI area, if they organize the employer.

An Hon. Member: Rat unions?

F. Randall: Rat unions.

Interjections.

F. Randall: Well, I can tell you about the people that run those organizations. One head of such a union was charged and found guilty of stealing over a million dollars from the pension fund. And the employers are telling me that they are now stealing union dues. So you can laugh all you want, but that is the kind of organization. In Alberta, the labour board wouldn't even recognize them. They said they were employer-dominated organizations and wouldn't let them organize. I'm telling you.

Interjections.

F. Randall: Anyway, hon. Chair, there's an awful lot of noise coming from over there.

The ICI sector is the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector, and it's a pretty small area; it's usually the major projects. But that does not give anyone the exclusive right. . . . If you're in the ICI and you're a craft union, you become a member of CLRA -- a part of it. You have the standard agreement. The employer becomes a member of CLRA, because it's so important, when you're dealing with 16 building trades unions, to have a strong employers association. I can tell you; I've been through it all.

[8:45]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

F. Randall: . . .that this does not affect the housing industry in any way, shape or form -- regardless of all the boohoos. It does not affect roadbuilding work. None of the roadbuilding work is covered; nor is the pipeline work. That work is not affected in any way by this particular bill.

An Hon. Member: Put your job on the line.

F. Randall: My job is on the line. I mean, Christ, I can read better than you can, man. Anyway. . . .

[ Page 8970 ]

F. Randall: I'm sorry if I slipped, hon. Chair.

We are the only province in Canada without a construction section in our code. If you look at the history of this -- and it's in the report -- going back to 1987, Lyall Hanson made some recommendations. It's in the book for everybody to read, so I don't have to read it. There was also a report in 1992 with regards to the panel that dealt with labour legislation at that time, to deal with the construction industry. That certainly didn't happen right away; it took a period of time. Then it went on to the fall of '92. Finally in March '95, there was the appointment of the construction industry review panel. I won't mention who was on it; it is basically all the same names rolling around. Then Bill 44 was brought in in 1997, and the major reason for a lot of. . . . There was a lot of noise made about that, saying there was no consultation, etc. etc., and it sort of made me wonder, because I remember when Bill 19 was brought in. There was no consultation with labour to say: "What do you think about this bill?" It was drafted in a hotel room and just whipped in here. There was no consultation on Bill 19.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. I don't want to interrupt you, but I'm having trouble hearing you. The last two speakers were listened to in relative silence. I would ask that this member be given the same courtesy.

F. Randall: I might just say that Bill 19 did a pretty effective job of deunionizing the construction industry. It's not a place where a young person should look for a trade today. It's a pretty bad spot to try and make any kind of money. The wages have been reduced substantially, and you work maybe four, five or six months a year. So that's about an 11-year wait to get here today to deal with the construction thing, you know, from recommendations going back to Lyall Hanson.

Just looking at the bill quickly, just some changes. . . . Maybe you can let me know whether you agree with them or not. It was asked. . . . You know, "There's nothing here" -- right? Well, I agree; there's not lots there, but there's some housekeeping. For example, the first thing is to establish a one-person bargaining unit. That was an oversight; it's in the rest of the code, but it's not covered here, so it's a matter of making the code standard.

The other thing is the change in union representation. What this is doing is moving the open period, or the window, to July and August. The reason for that is there's nobody working, usually, in. . . . Most of those kinds of agreements expire at Christmastime, when there's nobody on the payroll. In the mining industry, for years and years the labour board has acted on what they call a build-up principle. In other words, if there's a new mine starting up, and there's only 15 people, you sign them all up, and you apply to the board and say: "Well, God, there are going to be a hundred people there in another few months." They will not accept the application. They say we have to wait until the majority of the workers are on the job. Well, that's the same thing that's applying here. If a contractor isn't doing any work in July and August, chances are he's not doing very much. So all that, again, is housekeeping in line with the code.

The next one is ratification of voluntary, recognized collective agreements. Now, we call those "vault agreements." They're known in the industry as vault, because they're hidden in the vault. What happens is that if there's an employer, and you're going out to organize that particular employer, and the employer doesn't want to be organized by a legitimate trade union, when they put the application in, or they're about to -- whatever stage it happens to be at -- they say: "Well, we've already got a collective agreement." This goes on very, very often. They open the vault, pull out an agreement and say: "We've already got a signed agreement with a rat union."

An Hon. Member: A varmint union.

F. Randall: That's a good word, "varmint" -- that's better. A varmint union. They actually backdate these agreements. So the purpose of this section -- for those lawyers over there -- is to make sure that those kinds of vault agreements don't exist.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I think the member is coming close to his conclusion. Maybe you could have the decency to let us hear it.

F. Randall: On the vault agreement, the purpose is that they have to be ratified, there has to be a record, and they must be filed with the labour board. Right now there's a provision that collective agreements should be filed with the board, but nobody files them. These people don't file them, and there's no penalty. So they just leave them in the vault and whip them out whenever they think they're going to be raided by some other union. So that's the purpose of that. It's just housekeeping.

Interjections.

F. Randall: Well, just a minute, now -- let's be patient here.

I think you're all familiar with major projects agreements. We've had them in the province, and there's a provision there to allow the trades to do that with CLRA. We've had them on the dams here for 25 years or more, and that's gone on forever. I don't see that as a problem. Everybody accepts project agreement ideas.

One good thing in here that is really important is the jurisdictional umpire. Lorne Collingwood is the jurisdictional umpire, and I would say he's been doing this job for probably at least 20 years that I know of, or maybe more. All disputes between the unions must go to the jurisdictional assignment plan. This legislation makes it mandatory that there will not be disputes between unions. They must go to the umpire if there's a dispute over who's doing what work. I support that. I think it's very good to have that kind of provision in there.

A bargaining council was legislated by the Social Credit government years ago. All the trades had to bargain jointly. That's the law -- right? And so the trades have been bargaining as a council and with CLRA. CLRA was the employers' council, and they were all standard agreements. The carpenters would have a standard agreement; the plumbers would have a standard agreement for all their people. This is exactly what's in here. For construction, the Labour Relations Association would be the association, and the building trades unions would have to bargain as a council. All negotiations concluded at once. It gets away from one union taking a strike vote, striking, and then another one -- the old leapfrog kind of

[ Page 8971 ]

There's not much in this bill, actually. I just looked through it, and I ran into blank pages. Because they were talking about the economy. . . . I don't know if they know it, but there's about 17 new hotels on the drawing board for Vancouver. The aluminum smelter is coming, maybe a copper smelter up around the interior somewhere, SkyTrain next year -- how about that? There will be $750 million convention centre right in downtown Vancouver and a real theme park that the opposition can visit when they feel like it.

I just want to also say that with regards to high-tech, there was an article in the paper recently by a woman who was out from the east, saying that B.C. was in first place in the high-tech field. It was a true story. We also had a meeting with MDS, who are big in the health care field. They will probably have revenue of $1 billion next year or the year after. They made it pretty clear to us that B.C. is just thriving in that particular field, and they don't understand why the media don't tell the story. I just want to raise those particular points.

The other thing is that there were comments made the other day about. . . . Somebody said the other day that there were 107 companies leaving B.C. Let me tell you -- I've just got to do this -- it depends on what you read. Here's a story in the paper regarding Finning Tractor. There were TV stories that said -- let me read it; you'll find out what happened. It says: "The Business Council of B.C. Chairman, Jim Shepard, will offer his views on what's gone wrong with the B.C. economy." I'm only going to take parts of it because there's so much.

Interjection.

F. Randall: Do you want me to read the whole thing? "The company has already announced that it will absorb a charge of about $15 million to reflect the cost of borrowing or moving its Canadian head office and 220 of its 600 employees from Vancouver to Edmonton." It talks about their profits in the year, how well they've done, etc., and I won't mention that. Earlier this year on BCTV "News Hour," for example, Shepard claimed that the NDP government views business people as a species of criminal -- can you imagine? Shepard's comments were included in a BCTV story linking Finning's head office move with the NDP government's attitude toward business.

What wasn't reported was that BCTV's theme, as well as Shepard's televised comments, contradicted Finning's internal communications to employees less than a month earlier. The BCTV story reported that Finning says it's been virtually forced out of B.C. into Alberta because of overregulation and an anti-business attitude in Victoria. The news story stated that Shepard came up against B.C.'s bureaucracy. Shepard told BCTV that someone suggested they take a look at Edmonton because a lot of their market is over there as well. BCTV viewers weren't told that there's no record of Finning ever contacting the Premier's Office or the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

The company stressed that it should not be seen as a rejection of B.C. but rather as a reflection of the economic boom in northern Alberta. BCTV reported. . . .

Interjections.

F. Randall: Patience, brothers.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

F. Randall: The BCTV report also neglected to mention a potential multimillion-dollar windfall for Finning if it sells its property on Great Northern Way. In fact, as far back as July 1994, the city of Vancouver's draft discussion paper on an industrial land strategy stated that Finning had already indicated it would abandon its site on Great Northern Way in 1994. According to Colliers Macaulay Nicolls, industrial-zoned land in Vancouver was valued at between $700,000 and $1.4 million an acre in 1997. Using the conservative $1 million-an-acre figure, it amounts to about $30 million. The city report mentioned that an unnamed biotechnology company is interested in buying 2.3 acres on the eastern end of the site to develop laboratory manufacturing and a general office.

So in short, it says that it's the shift in business combined with property value considerations that have influenced the decision, not Glen Clark. When asked about the apparent contradiction between Shepard's statement on BCTV and the internal document to employees -- and I didn't read all of that employee stuff, because you guys were making so much noise -- he was speaking partly as chairman of the Business Council and partly as chairman of Finning. What he was saying in regard to Finning's role, in the two minutes that was used out of the 20-minute interview, was that yes, the government had had some influence, but it was not the reason that Finning is moving to Edmonton.

[9:00]

I'll try to wind up and just say that the opposition haven't raised one issue in this bill that's a problem -- not one issue. I've been listening intently, because there are some Liberals that I've got a lot of respect for, but they are acting so anti-union and so unlike real Liberals that it really bothers me. I've got Liberals who work in my campaign -- real Liberals.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

F. Randall: I'm going to conclude, and I may get a chance to talk later on this.

Deputy Speaker: Would the member adjourn debate?

F. Randall: I move that we adjourn the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:03 p.m.

[ Page 8972 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING
(continued)

S. Hawkins: I want to ask the minister about a specific application. It's regarding the Grand hotel in Kelowna. I understand that they're waiting for approval of an application for the Lake City Casino to move to the Grand hotel. They're undergoing a huge facility renovation and addition. I understand that the application is in process. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me the status of the application and what's holding it back.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The application is in process, and I expect that we will have a resolution of that process within the next few weeks -- probably two weeks.

S. Hawkins: There was news in the papers, and it's my understanding that the Gaming Commission was concerned about an ownership issue of the pub that is leased in the Grand. There was a Hell's Angels connection. I understand from the Grand hotel that they understand this to be the holdup. Can the minister confirm that it's the holdup?

F. Gingell: "Holdup" is an appropriate term to use, I would think, with the Hell's Angels.

The Chair: Order, members.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm not going to comment on speculation on issues in the newspaper. What I will say is that the application is under review. That's not done by the Gaming Commission but, in fact, by the B.C. Lottery Corporation and the gaming audit and investigation office, which goes through all applications. They and the Attorney General's ministry are involved in looking at that right now. They are doing the appropriate work. Once resolution is achieved, then we'll be able to make a formal announcement.

S. Hawkins: The minister can appreciate what this is doing to the project. If I can use these words, it is holding up the project. I guess what we are attempting to find out is whether that is indeed the holdup to the application.

I understand that the minister has before him an option that was presented to the gaming minister to resolve the whole issue. If that is the holdup, the option, I understand, is that the hotel will buy out the pub owner. That should resolve the issue. If that isn't the only holdup, then can the minister commit to letting the Grand hotel know what the holdup with the application is? We can resolve this very quickly.

[2:45]

But at the same time, the gaming audit and investigation arm is doing the work that it's supposed to do. I'm advised that it will be done and completed very shortly and that in approximately two weeks, we will be able to have a decision. You know, we have been working with them all along to make sure that everything's happening as it should. I don't anticipate putting in place any roadblocks that don't have justification. It's our hope that everything's dealt with as expeditiously as we can and that we can get things moving as quickly as possible.

S. Hawkins: I appreciate that, and I do hope that it's going to move along in a quicker way than it has. I understand that the Grand hotel has made some major investments in anticipation of the casino moving there. I understand that they've added a whole new level of parking on the top floor of the parkade in anticipation of people using the pub and the casino.

I would put it to the minister again: if that is indeed the only holdup to the application being approved, there is an option before him. If he could go back and look at that, perhaps it could be resolved quicker than waiting for the investigation to complete. They could remove that hurdle by carrying on with the option that they put before the minister, which I understand is agreeable to all parties.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The work is underway. At the same time, I'm more than happy to suggest that if there are issues that need to be resolved and ways of resolving them to everybody's satisfaction, then I'm quite happy to see that take place.

F. Gingell: I hope I won't be repetitive with issues that were discussed this morning, but at the moment there isn't any way to go back to check. I'd like, if I may, to discuss some issues surrounding the assignment or awarding of a casino night to Delta Gymnastics. Now, Delta Gymnastics is an organization that has had many casino nights over the years and is well experienced in this exercise. They made an application, the purpose of which was to purchase a new floor exercise mat at a cost of roughly $25,000. They were awarded the night of December 27 at the Royal Diamond Casino.

Their understanding at the time was that the night resulted in a take of $350,000. They subsequently received a cheque for $10,260 as being their share, and they got some kind of a statement -- which I tried to get a copy of but haven't been able to obtain yet -- that indicated that the take for the government from that casino for the whole month was only some $362,000. It may well be that the $350,000 is the take for the one night, which has to be divided, and that the government's share of the total for the month was some $362,000, which on the face of it doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense.

They expressed their disappointment that they had only received $10,260, which was not sufficient for them to purchase this particular mat, although they have gone ahead and done that, taking the funds from their operating budget, which has caused them some substantial, shall I say, discomfort. But they were told that there would probably be some more money to come. They have since been told that there

[ Page 8973 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is a bit difficult and a bit complicated. The member is outlining a problem to me. He indicated that there was a statement that went out that he doesn't have access to, and I don't have access to it. In general terms, I can say -- particularly because he's given me a specific date -- that the way that it will work is that between November and January 14, which was when the Owen-Flood decision came down, the moneys that would have accrued to government went into a trust. On the 29th of this month, a judge will rule on the disposition of the moneys in that trust, and they may very well get more moneys from that. That's where they would in all likelihood get the money from.

F. Gingell: The night that they had was December 27, so it clearly falls within that time. I presume, then, that the communication that they've had that there is a possibility of more funds is related to the fact that after the decision comes down, something will be done. Has the Gaming Commission -- or whoever will make the decision about how those moneys may be divided -- arrived at those conclusions yet? Surely Justice Owen-Flood isn't going to say: "Okay, send a cheque for $4 to this organization and send one for $20,000 to that organization." There's going to have to be some subjective decision-making by someone.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, it's a little complicated, in that the judge hasn't ruled on the distribution of the funds in the trust. He may in fact add some conditions to how the money should be distributed. However, the way it is anticipated is that if -- and this, I understand, is a casino charity -- during this period of time, November to December. . . . Let's say just for the sake of argument that this particular charity got 10 percent of the proceeds. The anticipation is that when the judge makes the ruling on that portion, he may earmark to casino charities, that they would get 10 percent of that. We expect that it will be a proportional allocation.

F. Gingell: These papers that I'm using as a reference are a letter of May 8 addressed to the Gaming Commission. In it the statement is made by Carlene Lewall, who is the club coordinator: "This week I found out that the remaining money will not be forthcoming." From this discussion, I take it that it is not accurate. Whether or not they get further funds and how much they get will depend upon the decision that will come down on June 29.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct. The judge hasn't made any ruling, so there's no ability to disburse any of that money.

F. Gingell: At some point since this all came up in December, when they had the casino, and prior, I believe, to May 8, they have had communication, or someone has been in touch with them, relative to an audit concerning this particular casino. Are there any issues relative to this operation that bring questions, in any fashion, to the validity of the operations that have caused an internal investigation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just a quick clarification. Is this an audit of the organization itself, regarding their use of proceeds? Or is this participating in an audit of the casino night?

[3:00]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a routine practice, hon. member.

F. Gingell: This morning during the time I was in here, the minister spoke about a process of appeal -- that if any charity that had participated in charitable gambling was dissatisfied with the results, they had a route of appeal. I presume that that route of appeal, though, will not apply to those organizations who are dissatisfied and who were allocated nights between November and January, during this interim period. Will their only means of satisfaction be as a result of the decision to be handed down by Justice Owen-Flood?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The appeal process was in place during the period of the organization's casino night. If they were dissatisfied with the money they received, they could appeal that. However, the issue around moneys in trust. . . . The appeal process does not apply to that, and that will be a decision of the court.

F. Gingell: Do I take it from that answer, then, that there are two packages of money: one that's tied up waiting for a court decision and another that may be available to satisfy appeals by charities that were not satisfied with the allocation they received?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There aren't two pots of money. They access the revenue stream in the same way as everybody else. They would be given additional access. The money that the judge will rule on is separate from the main stream of the charity flow. Right now, it's casinos going on as usual.

F. Gingell: So I take it that the source of the funds to satisfy an appeal dealing with dissatisfaction would be the community chest -- the current package of funds.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the old days, they would get more access if they had a successful appeal. They would now get a larger cheque.

F. Gingell: Does an appeal have to be made in a specific manner? I mean, this letter you received on May 8 is clearly an appeal; it may not be worded in that fashion. Can the minister advise me if the letter from Delta Gymnastics is considered by the Gaming Commission to be an appeal and is being treated in that fashion?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Included in the package that you get when you make your application are instructions as to how you make an appeal and how you access the appeal process. In the case of this particular application, I don't know whether the letter that you've raised was treated as an appeal or not. But certainly I can get clarification from the Gaming Commission as to whether there was an official appeal launched or what has happened.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

F. Gingell: The second letter they sent me was a letter to the Gaming Commission dated June 11, which said: "On May 8, I wrote a letter to you, along with a casino application. I was very disappointed to have the complete package returned to us." So I presume that they made an appeal in effect by applying again, for another day. If that's not the case, I should advise them to get their appeal in as expeditiously as they can.

[ Page 8974 ]

F. Gingell: My colleague the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi handed me this appeal hearing, and I presume those are the rules that apply. So what they should do, first of all, is to apply for a $500 grant from the community chest to make an appeal. For a charitable organization, that's an awful lot of money to appeal an application. Has the Gaming Commission found that this $500 application fee requirement has been a deterrent to organizations making appeals?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There used to be an appeal fee of $100. The commission found that it was overwhelmed with frivolous requests, so it was changed to $500. What happens in the appeal process is that it's heard by a tribunal of three commissioners. They in fact go out to the location to meet with the group and go through everything, so there is a cost associated with that. But at the same time, if the appeal is successful, the $500 is refunded.

F. Gingell: I appreciate the assistance the minister and his staff have given me. I will be contacting the gymnastics group and advising them of the means by which they can proceed.

One last question: does the minister have any feeling about what percentage of appeals are successful? Do you refund many of the $500 fees, or do you keep most of them?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Twenty-two percent are successful.

A Voice: Is that all?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think that in the case of most appeals, 22 percent is probably not a bad record.

D. Jarvis: This morning I was talking to the minister in regards to. . . . We were discussing people involved in charities and all the rest of it. I understand from my staff that the minister took exception to one statement I made. Not my staff, actually. . . . One of the people on staff suggested that I probably misinterpreted the minister. But not having the Blues in front of me, who can say whether I misinterpreted the minister or not?

It was ostensibly about. . . . Here I go again, trying to interpret the minister. It was something along the lines that he felt that the members of the societies and the groups that were involved in charities were perhaps a little happier now that this new situation has been put forward and that we have relieved them of some of their burden. The case that we have heard is that people who have been affected by this new change in the non-profit societies feel they've lost control, and that there is quite a bit of resentment from people. We've heard that they cannot deal with, say, their own responsibilities now -- where they were before. They actually, believe it or not, enjoyed fundraising. Now that has been curtailed considerably, to the point where they wonder why they're even on these boards anymore. I guess part of the enjoyment they had in their association with a group has been taken away from them. As I said, they've now lost the motivation, and there doesn't seem to be any more enterprise on their part -- PTA groups, for example. The initiative of the volunteers has been killed.

Without going into a long foray on the ills of expanded gambling and the way the NDP. . . . I just want to say that this ostensibly is now the difference between free enterprise and socialism, if you want to call it that. In free enterprise, if you need more money, you could get out and hustle and you'd make more money. Everyone was happy doing that. They enjoyed doing that -- at least the people I associate with most of the time. But with the system we have now, it's a classic case of socialism, where you stand in line -- like most NDP policies -- and wait for your money to be sent to you.

I asked a question about his consultations with the charity groups with regards to the new trust agreement, and the minister more or less insinuated that he had talked to most of them, or to a group of them. So I am wondering if he could say which charity groups or how many of them actually approved the new trust agreement.

[3:15]

But on the issues around whether we have taken away the incentive or made boards redundant. . . . That's not the case. It has nothing to do with free enterprise or socialism. A charity can go out. . . . Gaming revenue is not intended to be the sole source of income for a charity or a community group. It's intended to be one of a number of sources. To say that the changes we've made take away the incentive is just not correct. You can still go out and raise funds. You can raise funds in a whole host of ways. Many charities do that. They look forward to doing that, and they'll continue to do that.

Some charities and some organizations exist to raise funds -- service clubs, for example -- and they can get volunteers to do services for a whole period of time. Others exist for a more specific event or purpose, or a one-of-a-kind facility or project, and they go after funds from a variety of sources, not just from charitable gaming. They hold car washes, and they approach local businesses and community associations. They solicit funds from a diverse array of groups. That takes a lot of effort, work and planning. There are plenty of avenues and opportunities for people to stay involved and raise more money, and the more that they work, in all likelihood, the more money they will bring in. So that avenue is very much alive and well.

I understand where the member is coming from. I've given the explanation for the changes that we've made and what I think has been the result of them. I guess I'll just have to leave it at that.

[ Page 8975 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Harry Elliott, the executive director of the Gaming Commission.

T. Nebbeling: Welcome. Maybe through your participation we will have fewer questions that cannot be answered. That will help in moving us forward. Instead of being here for another two weeks, we may be able to reduce it to a week.

I'm going to take a little bit of an exception to what the minister just used to illustrate the elimination of volunteers participating, for example, in charity casino activities. From time to time the minister has used the argument, as he used it today, that the relief for most of these organizations in not having to come out in the evening and work until 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning was seen as a big improvement. I have always argued with the minister on that point, and I'm not going to argue against that principle. What I will do, however, is illustrate an opposite situation to what the minister just gave, to question whether the minister's viewpoint is the correct one.

We have volunteer firefighting departments -- not in my own community, but in the Sea to Sky corridor. These volunteer firefighters, besides working and training together, have actually organized casino nights two or three times a year in the past. The casino nights were always for the purpose of raising funds for a particular project. Sometimes it would be for a self-serving project like the need for the Jaws of Life -- a piece of equipment needed to assist in extracting people from vehicles. At other times they had as their objective a donation to the burn unit in Vancouver, another very worthwhile project. For five or six weeks, volunteer firefighters would sell the concept of a casino night and entice the community to come out that evening and put money on the table and raise some funds for these particular objectives.

I would like to ask the minister: under the new guidelines, can volunteer firefighters in a community still do these kinds of things? Can they still have two or three of these nights to raise funds for objectives that are not necessarily in their own interest? The burn unit in Vancouver is not for firefighters; it is for victims of fires. It is an objective that has been adopted by many firefighters. How would the minister deal with that type of situation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I just want to clarify one question for the member. The member is talking about a casino night in the community of Lions Bay as opposed to a casino night in. . . . Is it at a. . . ?

T. Nebbeling: At a casino.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's an existing casino -- all right. I just want to make sure, because I know that sometimes you hold. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Like smokers. . . . The Lions Club in Port Coquitlam used to put on what they would call a gentlemen's dinner, and there were card tables and casino games.

T. Nebbeling: No, I'm talking. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: Okay. We're talking about a regular. . . .

T. Nebbeling: Broadway in Vancouver. . . .

The Chair: Perhaps the members could go through the Chair and wait to be recognized.

T. Nebbeling: Sorry, Mr. Chair, but you were busy talking to the Clerk.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If they want to hold it at a casino in Vancouver, the answer would be no, they would no longer have to come together. They could in fact make an application to the Gaming Commission for funds to fund the project they're trying to do. However, if they feel that the social part of this is important to them, there are a number of options where they could still raise funds and come together as a social group -- as a group of volunteers, if they want. They could hold a ticket raffle, for example. They could get a social occasion licence, which is what I was seeking clarification for. The Lions Club, for example, has for many years in Port Coquitlam -- I know because I have bought tickets -- held a social evening where there are cards and casino games. They could always get a bingo licence and have volunteers at a bingo-licensed event.

T. Nebbeling: The point I'm trying to make is around the elimination of volunteer participation in running the casinos -- not other forms of gaming. I know they can have a raffle, and they may well have a raffle. I know they can have a bingo night; they may well have that. But it's a whole different thing than casino night.

Dollarwise, there are a lot more dollars when there are table games and card games than when they just play bingo. The point is that these firefighters, in this particular case -- and there are other organizations doing the same -- were able to bring people out to a venue where not only a lot of money was developed for a program but, at the same time, it gave these firefighters that opportunity to have a different relationship with the community. It was a bonding thing. It is a volunteer fire department. So to keep these firefighters also interested, it's interesting to have these opportunities once or twice a year.

We have killed that opportunity. I know there are still some other ways of raising some funds. But that is not dealing with the emotional aspect that I believe the volunteer participation in gaming, in running the casinos, has really contributed towards. That was just to illustrate how I feel we are damaging some opportunities, where we may be keeping the casinos from having people who traditionally wouldn't come to a casino but would come out because it was for an organization's benefit. This type of visitor component will stop.

What I would like to talk about briefly -- and that was really my intent -- is linked bingo. Can the minister give me an overview of linked bingo? How is it run? Where is it run -- the whole mechanism behind linked bingo? And what kind of money does it pull in?

[3:30]

[ Page 8976 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess in same ways it's almost like a computer connected to a central net, if you like, or a central terminal. Each bingo hall has the screen and the terminal that tell you what numbers have been drawn up on the screen. Each hall around the province will have that, so each hall is able to plug into it.

T. Nebbeling: Where is this operated from -- Richmond?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The central bingo system is located in the Kamloops operation.

T. Nebbeling: So it's an electronic form of bingo. How does this work within the bingo halls? These are attached to bingo halls, I believe. How does this operate? Where does it come in? When does it shut out? How is it advertised? Are there special nights only for linked bingo and other nights for regular bingo?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a daily event. If you go into the bingo. . . . Actually, I have; it's fun.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Another time -- exactly.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, I thought he said "another time." As the minister responsible, I have to find out what's going on in these different venues. You never know, hon. member. One day, if you guys ever form government, you could find yourself in this spot and going out to see what takes place.

Anyway, it's a daily event. You can buy tickets starting at ten in the morning. They are on sale until 8:15 p.m., and then at 8:30 that night the game starts.

T. Nebbeling: How long has linked bingo been part of the bingo halls?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Since October of last year.

T. Nebbeling: How does the money made by linked bingo get divided? Does the bingo hall operator get a percentage?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The operators get 30 percent, the B.C. Lottery Corporation gets its expenses, and the rest goes to the consolidated revenue fund. It goes back through the trust and then from the trust back to the bingo hall. By bingo hall, I mean the charities at the hall.

T. Nebbeling: Thirty percent for the operator. . . . I didn't hear the percentage for the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Its actual expenses.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister give me a general idea of what that percentage is? Are we talking about 4 percent off the top or 40 percent off the top?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's approximately 12 to 14 percent.

T. Nebbeling: Who provides the equipment that is needed to operate linked bingo?

Hon. M. Farnworth: B.C. Lottery Corporation.

T. Nebbeling: Then is there a percentage of the approximately 14 percent? Call it management fee or operation fee. Of the percentage that the B.C. Lottery Corporation takes, is a fixed percentage allocated towards the cost of the equipment, or is it just put in the bingo hall without recouping any of the cost of the equipment in the bingo hall? Maybe I can clarify. If it is 14 percent, is 10 percent of that, for example, the rental or lease fee for the equipment? And is 4 percent the actual costs related to bingo cards, phone lines and whatever? How is that 14 percent broken down?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hopefully, this will do it. In each bingo hall there is approximately $10,000 worth of equipment. There are 80 halls around the province. The cost of that is amortized over three years, so that takes up a chunk of the money. Then the rest would be things like the cost of supplies, paper, promotion and personnel.

T. Nebbeling: Personnel -- you mean in the B.C. Lottery Corporation, not in the bingo hall. Yes? Okay. What has been the gross take of linked bingo so far, provincewide?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Projected for '97-98, from October 1997 to March 1998, is $10.4 million.

T. Nebbeling: Could you give me that time span again? Was that from October 1997 until March 1998?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

T. Nebbeling: So that's actual, then.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, the actual from October 1997 to March 1998 -- from the introduction in October '97 to March of this year -- was $10.4 million. The projected for fiscal '98-99 is $23 million.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister also tell me what the net transfer has been from B.C. Lottery to the consolidated account or general revenue, where it goes. . . ?

The Chair: The member wanted to continue?

T. Nebbeling: If I could. I'm talking about the period from October 1997 to March 1998, reflecting $10.4 million gross -- to make it easier, so that you have actual numbers rather than trying to do a projection for 1998-99. What is the net amount that has been transferred since March 1998 to consolidated revenue?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's about $2 million, hon. member.

T. Nebbeling: We've grossed $10 million. We give the operator 30 percent; B.C. Lottery Corporation takes 40 percent. Is the 14 percent taken from the top or after the 30 percent?

[3:45]

[ Page 8977 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's one important component we haven't really discussed, and that is called prizes. They are included in the $10.4 million, and about $5.4 million of that would be paid out in prizes.

T. Nebbeling: Once again, the 14 percent that B.C. Lottery takes, approximately -- is that taken from the $10 million or from the amount that would be reflected after the operator has taken their 30 percent? Is it 14 percent of $10 million or 14 percent of $7 million?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It works out to about 14 percent of gross.

T. Nebbeling: So if we take 14 percent of gross, then will the balance be $9.2 million? We start at $10.4 million, so we come to $9.2 million. Is the 30 percent for the operator taken from the $9.2 million? That's also taken from the $10 million. Okay.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You have to take off prizes first. So if $5.4 million has gone in prizes, that leaves $5 million. Of that, 30 percent will go to the operator.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe I'm confusing it a little bit, but the minister stated earlier on that the 40 percent that the Lottery Corporation takes comes from the $10 million. Or is that also from the $5 million?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is 14 percent of gross.

T. Nebbeling: So that equals 28 to 30 percent of net. The B.C. Lottery Corporation takes about 30 percent of the net after prizes have been taken off. That's a considerable fee for administration, in my opinion.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They pay their expenses; that's all. They don't take any profit.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to take the same amount of money. First of all, can the minister give me the formula used in the charity bingo halls as far as the split is concerned? How much goes to the operator, how much goes to the charity operations, and where does the balance go?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The arrangement in the charity bingos is a contractual agreement that's negotiated between the association and the operator. In terms of the prize board, between 50 and 60 percent of gross must go to prizes, and a minimum of 25 percent of gross must go to charity.

T. Nebbeling: What I'm trying to work out here -- what I want to find out -- is: if linked bingo had not entered the charity bingo hall and the clientele of the bingo hall still spent that money, how much would actually stay with the charity organizations if they didn't have to compete with the linked bingo?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They get the profit from linked bingos, so it's an asset to them.

T. Nebbeling: I understand that the money ultimately finishes up with the charity organizations, but there are a number of steps now between the recipients -- the charity organizations -- and the amount of money that is being grossed collectively. I'm trying to find out if the linked bingo component were not in there. . . . That means there would not be a 30 percent fee on the net profit after prizes have been paid. There must be considerably more money staying with the operation itself, be it the charity organization or the organization that runs the bingo.

I believe there are commercial operators and there are charity operators operating their own casino. So again, I would like to go through the exercise. If we take $10 million, and we do not have the linked bingo component to cover the expenses and the administration -- whatever label you give the money that B.C. Lottery takes out of the system for whatever purpose -- how much money would stay with the charities without the linked bingo component?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Probably less money, because there would be fewer people playing. The reason that we have linked bingo is because it's popular. Since the introduction of linked bingo, there has been a marked increase in attendance at bingo halls. And the fact is that one of the reasons they come out to play linked bingo is because there is the ability for the bingo hall to do two things: one, offer a larger prize pool, which attracts more people to play; and two, play shoulder games on the linked bingo, so that they can run other games in conjunction with the linked bingo. The experience has been that linked bingo has increased participation in bingo, thereby increasing the size of the pool that's available.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to belabour the point, because now it becomes a hypothetical thing. What would happen if linked bingo was not there? What would happen if we made traditional bingo more attractive? What would happen if we increased the value of the pot? I mean, I can find other arguments for how we can increase the attractiveness and popularity of traditional bingo. I don't want to go into it hypothetically. Because we are there, they get more money.

Just as an example, when the $50,000 prize was announced with the linked bingo system, that, I believe, did entice a fair amount of money to bingo halls. It led to a crash, and that by itself is not what I call positive news for the bingo players. A lot of people were very angry. However, I am not going to go into what hypothetically could be, would be or should be.

What I do want to know is how linked bingo works within the policy that has been established through the adoption of the principles of 207(1)(a), whereby any form of electronic gaming must be for the sole benefit of the government. This is the policy that has led not only to the introduction of the slot machines but to a justification for taking over the casinos. How does this compare to what linked bingo is doing? And how can linked bingo, also being an electronic form of gaming, be acceptable under 207(1)(a)?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue around the money is a policy issue decided by government. We've said that the profit flows to the charities at the particular bingo hall. The issue around linked bingo being under 207(1)(a) is because it is required by the Criminal Code of Canada; it has to be conducted and managed by the Crown. Under that section, that's how it is. We could not, for example, turn it over to the charities even if we wanted to, because it would have to be operated under 207(1)(b), and we're not able to do that.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe the minister can explain for me how a facility that operates under the 207(1)(b) conditions can suddenly accommodate activities that are under 207(1)(a). That is the first part of the question.

[ Page 8978 ]

T. Nebbeling: So the charitable organizations are involved in the production of a bingo activity that is controlled electronically -- be it from Kamloops or wherever. Is that not a violation of section 207(1)(a)? If I can explain, the reason I'm asking this is that when we have heard the government justifying what happens in Surrey and the takeover of the charity casinos to put them under the auspices of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, through ownership. . . . I believe that is all triggered by the fact that in these so-called charity casinos that became government-operated casinos, where electronic pieces of equipment that had a gaming element -- the slot machines or the VLTs, or whatever you want to call them. . . . That was the reason -- at least, I believe it was -- that the government took over these gaming facilities. Why would that same principle not apply to bingo halls that are operated by charity organizations and that accommodate this kind of activity? Is there a double standard here?

[4:00]

T. Nebbeling: I agree fully: I'm not a lawyer. I don't want to be a lawyer, the way lawyers get hit on all the time in this House. But I do read.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Besides, you probably make more money being a non-lawyer.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe the minister is speaking for himself. I wouldn't know about that. But come and visit me in my house in Europe.

Like I say, I'm not a lawyer, and I have to go by what I read in the papers and in press releases. If the minister feels that the principle that I talked about, covered by subsections 207(1)(a) and 207(1)(b), was not the reason that the Surrey action was taken, then maybe the minister can explain to me what the reason was. I'm asking this because press releases that I did read indicated very clearly that in order to comply with the Criminal Code of Canada and with that section, this action had to take place, and it did take place. Again, if the minister doesn't think it was for that particular reason -- compliance with the Criminal Code, because there was an electronic type of gaming in that facility, which violates section 207(1)(a) -- then what was the reason for Surrey?

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think you probably got the same information I just got -- that we've got to adjourn at 4:45 p.m.

The issue in Surrey is not the conduct and management. The judge ruled that we were properly conducting and managing gaming in Surrey, whether it was the slots or the table games. The issue relates to the changes that we made in moving gaming from 207(1)(b) to 207(1)(a) and how that relates to the jurisdiction as regards the ability of Surrey council to pass a bylaw. That's the main issue.

In terms of the issue around "conduct and manage," the judge said we were doing the right thing. In terms of that bylaw, the position of the government is that the changes that were made, were made after the court decision and needed to be taken into account. So the declaratory opinion was to say: "We made these changes, and this is what we're going to do. Are we going down the right path?" That's the basis of the decision.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not really looking for the legality of the move, because as I explained to the minister, I am not a lawyer. I'm looking for the arguments used at the time when all these steps were happening with the transfer -- the different steps. It didn't happen in one overnight step. The argument was clearly made that introducing electronic equipment into a facility that operated a charitable form of gaming was the reason that the charity casino component had to be turned into a government-operated casino. Why is a charity bingo hall operating an electronic type of gaming during a specific part of the day not violating the rule that was used? I'm not talking about what the judge endorsed and what the judge felt was the right thing. Technically it may be the right thing, but that was not the reason for doing it. The reason, as I explained before, was that the introduction of an electronic type of gaming into a charitable casino was against 207(1)(a).

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the point I'll make to the member is that he's incorrect in his argument. The issue around conducting and managing is that in the bingo hall, the game is run and managed by the B.C. Lottery Corporation in the same way that Club Keno, 6/49 and pull-tabs have also been in bingo halls for years, and they are all electronic games. They all operate under section 207(1)(a). The Lottery Corporation is in control of them.

T. Nebbeling: I'm going to move on, because we're not going to find a common ground -- that's clear. Like I say, I'm not a lawyer; I'm just asking the questions. The minister has basically told me that in charity casinos you could have had slot machines, just as you can have linked bingo in a charity hall. That's what the minister believes to be the correct position, and staff nod their heads -- I think, in the affirmative.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue wasn't around whether slot machines could be in a charity casino or not. The issue has always been around the bylaw in Surrey, and that's what is being taken to court.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister inform me if slot machines can operate in charitable casinos?

Hon. M. Farnworth: A slot machine can exist in a casino, but it has to be conducted and managed by the Crown. You could put a slot machine into a charity casino, but it would have to be run by the Crown. It could not be run by the casino operator or a charity group; it has to be run by the Crown.

T. Nebbeling: I'm now going to switch from that part to the Gaming Commission. I'm going to have a number of questions in that area, including the review of the terms and conditions of licensed charitable access to gaming revenue. There are two documents. There is one for licensed and one for unlicensed charitable access to gaming revenue. What are the critical differences? I'm not talking about the principles and what drives the differences, because I take it that that, again, is in the Criminal Code, in the section demanding

[ Page 8979 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Through a licensed operation I'm required to have a gaming licence, and I'm required to have volunteers. The unlicensed is direct access. When I make an application, they make a decision, and then I'm either approved or not approved.

T. Nebbeling: That means that the conditions under which you apply. . . . The categories that you can apply under and the conditions that these sectors represent are identical.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Correct.

T. Nebbeling: We have talked a couple of times about how many charity organizations there are. Today I think the minister mentioned 6,000 or 7,000 a couple of times. I'm not trying to set you on the number. In the past, if you look at some of the press releases, we talked about 8,500 or 9,000. What is the correct number?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Last year there were 5,788 licences issued. If you want. . . . I think you're going to ask me for the breakdown.

T. Nebbeling: No, that comes later. The breakdown is. . . .

The Chair: Member. . . .

T. Nebbeling: Sorry -- through the Chair to the minister. He enticed me to speak up without having been recognized.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: They are not going to like you for doing that.

Maybe the minister can clarify this. There's a new form of how charity organizations can actually tap into funding. In the past, as we have discussed before, you applied for a night or two nights or three nights -- whatever was allowed -- and then after you had worked, you were entitled to a sum of money. That no longer is the case. Regardless of what you do, you apply for a grant. Is there a specific time frame in which organizations have to apply, or can they apply for funding any time in the year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If you're applying under direct access, you can apply only once a year, and you're encouraged to make your application to cover the entire year.

T. Nebbeling: I understand. I'm not talking about how many times you can apply, but whether there is a window of opportunity for organizations that they have to apply in, be it October, be it September. . . . I think you understand what I mean.

[4:15]

T. Nebbeling: So when we talk about 5,788 licensees or charitable organizations, we are talking about every organization, regardless if it's a direct-access funding seeker or an indirect-access funding seeker.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer, for the year '96-97, which is the year we have the figures for. . . . That would be the number of licences granted in all forms of gaming activity in the province. As we discussed earlier, your organization or my organization, for example, could hold one or two or three different types of licences under that particular approach.

T. Nebbeling: That actually was going to be my next question: if one organization has the right to three evenings, is that still one application, or is that three applications?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It actually varies, so you could make a number of applications, but you could in fact get a different number of nights. In part it depended on the amount of money you were applying for, and that was converted into nights on the expectation as to how much money you would make on a particular night.

T. Nebbeling: Where I was really going was to make. . . . I'm just trying to focus on that 5,788. It was '95-96, you said?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was '96-97.

T. Nebbeling: It was '96-97. These are actually registered organizations, and they do not represent a number of nights that can be tripled, quadrupled. Okay, fine.

Can the minister inform this side how many new organizations on average come into that number on, let's say, a monthly basis? How many new applications come to the Gaming Commission requesting first-time funding?

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Yes.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can't give you the figure on a monthly basis, but on an annual basis it is about 1,000 coming in and about 1,000 going out.

T. Nebbeling: So although we have that number today based on '96-97, it's pretty close to the number of organizations that today would have to apply once the whole pocket of charity organizations have to apply through the grant system. . . . That would still be in the order of approximately 6,000 organizations.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess that's probably a pretty fair assessment in terms of the number that are out there. But it will also depend on the amount of money that is asked for. You get some charities that ask for a lot of money. It depends on who comes on and who goes off. Some can ask for small amounts. The actual end-of-the-day number will vary. I think it's around 6,000.

T. Nebbeling: I do not understand that last statement from the minister. What I'm really looking for is the number of

[ Page 8980 ]

I don't understand where. . . . I'm looking for the number of organizations, and the minister keeps coming back with advice from his staff that it may be more complicated than just saying that it's 6,000 organizations, because some organizations, due to a larger amount of grant money they're looking for, represent -- what? -- more work, a right to more evenings. . . . That's not really what I'm interested in. I want to know the number of organizations.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess it depends on the number. . . . The point I'm making is that the number of charities that come on each year varies. It's roughly 6,000. All I'm saying is that the amount of money they ask for varies. So in terms of the overall money that's available, that's what's there. But in terms of the number of charities that come on and go off, it's roughly 6,000 in '96-97, and that's most likely the number now.

T. Nebbeling: One of the statements the minister made in response to my question -- is there is a particular time frame for organizations to apply for funding? -- was: for certain groups right now, yes, because they are already into the process; the organizations that were traditionally getting funding through the charity casinos now have to apply to become beneficiaries of the grant. Then the other organizations ultimately will be put into that same grouping as well. So everybody is equal; everybody has to apply for a grant.

Now, the response I got from the minister -- if I'm wrong, correct me, please -- was that they can apply any time they want. Would that not create a horribly problematic situation where, let's say, charities apply in April, May or June, when the full amount of $125 million is available, and everybody is saying, "Well, this should make out. . .so grant the money," and then you come to October, November, December, and suddenly everybody realizes that there is little money left? Would that not lead, then, to those organizations that apply later in the year most likely not qualifying for. . . ? Well, they may qualify for the full amount of money, but it will not be available, because what remains in the fund would not cover all these applications in later stages.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The money doesn't go out. . . . Okay, let's say we get a whole slew of applications in; you don't put the money out all at once. It's basically allocated on an equal basis over the 12-month period. It's looked at on a regional basis and in terms of the community that it comes out of, so there's a whole. . . . You don't just say, "Okay, we've got ten applications in that have asked for $50 million, and $50 million has gone out," and then a thousand applications that have come in are fighting over what's left.

T. Nebbeling: I think I know where the minister is going. I still think it is problematic when that openness is there. Is the minister trying to say, then, that they look at the amount of organizations that could apply and each unit that these organizations represent? Some organizations need one unit, which is just one evening; other organizations, in order to fulfil their financial needs, may need the receipts of four evenings. So do you divide $125 million by what the organization believes will be the total need? That means that some organizations will get. . . . If it's $125 million right now and you have 6,000 people who will apply, if you divide that, it would come to about $21,500 per applicant -- if you divided it equally amongst them, regardless of what they asked for.

Now, obviously that would create problems, because if you gave the first recipients $21,500 because they asked for it, when you get the guy down the road -- or the organization -- that wants $250,000, that means that that organization needs 11 or 12 units more of these $21,500 units.

How are you going to manage the funds in the early stage when the pot is full, when you get these applications? I do not believe that you can tell them: "You have to wait until the end of the year until we know exactly how many applications will come in this particular year." How are you going to deal with these organizations that are looking for, say, $45,000? Are you going to give it to them? Or are you going to say, in order to keep control over the total requirement of the fund: "You have to wait until the end of the year so that we know exactly how much everybody is asking for, and then we can split it evenly according to the formula that was based on these units"?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I've a couple of points. First, there isn't sort of a pot of $125 million sitting there right now. I mean, it comes in over the course of the year. Second, not every charity accesses it through a casino. You have a large number of charities that are accessing it through bingo. Over and above that, there are the ticket raffles, and they are a separate entity altogether. So you access it through two ways.

[4:30]

T. Nebbeling: I'd like to remind the minister that one of my earlier questions was indeed: how many of the 6,000 charity organizations -- we know that number now -- actually relied on the charity casinos for their funding and how many relied on the bingo halls for their funding? In the first place, it is the charity casino volunteers that have been taken out of the system that are qualified to apply. That's why it was very important for me to hear that number, and I wasn't given it because you haven't got that number. Let's say that this is 2,000 charities out of the 6,000, that in the past the 2,000 participated in charity casino events and that's how they qualified for money.

What I'd now like to know is: are these 2,000 organizations going to be told by the Gaming Commission when they can apply for a grant? Or are they going to do what I think is smart: apply the moment the new year is in place? So you may be inundated in April or May -- whenever the book year goes for you -- with 2,000 applications. The only way you're going to avoid it is by telling the charity organizations that now have to apply this way when they can apply. If that's the case, what kind of administrative nightmare is that going to create?

[ Page 8981 ]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Actually, hon. member, I said I have 5,788 -- and I can also give you the breakdown on what that is -- and you said: "No, I don't want that now. I'll ask. . . ."

T. Nebbeling: It's a misunderstanding.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Okay. The breakdown in terms of numbers -- out of 5,788 -- was: 1,914, bingo; 2,809, casino; 973, ticket raffles; and 92, other.

You're able to apply once a year when you go to direct access. There are a number of ways to ensure that the scenario that you paint won't happen, for two reasons. One, you have to apply within six months of the beginning of your organization's fiscal year. Unlike the provincial, federal or local government, it isn't March 31 or January 1 for all. They're all across the calendar. Many organizations have their fiscal year start July 1 or when they were incorporated. So you have to apply within six months of the date of your fiscal year. So that's going to ensure that there is a spread-out there. All the charities that historically rely on casinos, for example, would be notified that it's now direct access.

T. Nebbeling: Again, I'm not going to argue with the minister about when the majority of organizations have their year-end. I think you will find -- from my experience, I can say this -- that most organizations take the comfortable date of December 31 as year-end, and January 1 as the beginning. That goes a little bit opposite of the government, where it's at the end of March. The point is that there is going to be, at any given time in the year, a number of grant applications for funding that could exceed the amount of money that would be available for that month, if you want to go that way.

If you say that we're going to go with $10 million a month in order to make sure that through the month we have a stable amount of money available, you may get on the first of January. . . . They may have six months, but I can guarantee that any organization is going to get in their application as fast as they can, because there is always the belief that the earlier they are in, the more they get or the sooner they get their money.

I think you're going to see the situation arise where indeed more applications come in than there is money available for that given period. That must create administrative nightmares. I'm not saying that the ministry or B.C. Lottery Corporation or the Gaming Commission ultimately will not pay out, but I'm trying to figure out what the administration is going to be to manage the whole operation. I think this is one of the areas where we can see a real nightmare developing, and it will require a lot of manpower to deal with these kinds of issues. That's my number one concern.

The second question I have -- we can still go for a while -- is: how many people in the past worked for the B.C. Gaming Commission dealing with applications for events -- bingo and raffle and lottery events? How many people were actually involved in working with the applications, allocating the right time and the right place and then notifying the people -- the administration of the applications?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a couple of points. One is the issue the member raises around there being more applications than there is money at that particular time. That has always been the case, whether you changed the rules six weeks ago or not -- last year, two years ago, three years ago. That has always been the case. In terms of the number of staff involved in processing the applications and in administration, there are 21 staff today who would process all the applications, whether they are bingos, casinos or what have you.

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:40 p.m.

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 7:09 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING
(continued)

T. Nebbeling: Before we had a small recess to deal with dinner and some other activities, I made some introductory remarks on the Gaming Commission and some of the things that I need some answers on and some of the things that I am not comfortable with at this point. The minister regretted, in a sense, asking for a recess, because he wanted to respond rather than leave. If the minister still wants to respond to the remarks I made, I will happily give him the opportunity. Otherwise, I can go on and ask some further questions.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I went for a run, so I've completely forgotten what it was, where we left off and what we were talking about. The floor is yours.

T. Nebbeling: The minister committed to do a couple of things for me that, hopefully, he hasn't forgotten. I will remind him of the commitments that he did make.

Just to refresh the minister's mind, we were talking about the staffing elements -- I think a light just went on. I think some of the concerns that I expressed were about staffing. I'm particularly talking about staffing up until now. I don't think the minister was totally in agreement with some of the assumptions I made. I was focused, in part, on the fact that today there is an assumption that the commission has an understaffing problem and that that, in part, is the reason we see a fair number of concerns expressed by charitable organizations. The time it takes to get decisions is already quite excessive.

My last question to the minister was: does the minister contemplate further staffing increases? If not, why does the minister think, with the amount of applications that this team has to face, that the backlog will be cleared?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The comments that I would make to the hon. member is that there hasn't been a significant increase in the volume of work facing the commission. There is the processing of the applications that are already in the system, but it's nothing out of the ordinary and not unusual. In fact, they're not anticipating a big volume increase, and so we feel

[ Page 8982 ]

T. Nebbeling: The difference that I see occurring is that in the past, the workers in the commissioner's office would see an application, and I presume they would check the objectives of the charities and see if they fit the criteria. If a permit was actually given either to operate a casino event or to participate in a bingo event, everything was on its way. After the organization had participated in an event, a certain amount of money would be made available to that organization -- what they, in a sense, earned. That's quite easy to deal with. If the criteria fit, you gave a permit, they did their event, they got a percentage of the take, and then they went home. That applied to the 2,800 charity organizations that were involved in charity casinos.

[7:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have to disagree with the member. The process now is no more subjective than was the previous process. In fact, the process is exactly the same. I mean, you would send in an application. It would be looked at as to whether you qualified for the money. You would come in and be asked: "How much money are you trying to raise? Do you meet the test of the criteria? Are you eligible? Okay then, how many days do you have to have to realistically get that amount of money?" Then you would get your licence. That licence could be for a date three or four months down the road.

Now you're judged on exactly the same criteria. It's on the basis of whether your project fits the criteria, where your charity fits in the guidelines and in terms of the evaluation of money. Someone judges it all the way along. Then you get the licence for the number of nights based on how long it would take to get that amount of money. Now you send in your application. It's judged the same way in terms of: "Okay, it meets the criteria." It's approved for X amount of dollars, and away it goes.

T. Nebbeling: I want to come back to that point. However, I want to introduce another element that may need some clarification and will help me to accept your answer. Or maybe I'll want to go a little bit further.

An organization applies for $40,000. The individual who looks at the application looks at the criteria and says: "Yeah, it fits. You're going to go in that casino. That $40,000 will take two nights to earn." Two nights are approved. But they turn out to be lousy nights, and all they raise is $18,000. So this is a serious shortfall. Or maybe they raise $28,000; it's still a shortfall. What is the charity organization to do? Do they just have to adjust their programs that will be funded by that money, or does the lottery company give them a licence three or four months down the road?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a couple of points. There was the old-old system, where what you got was what you got. If you got two nights and you had two good nights, hey, you were fine. If you had two bad nights, tough luck. Then they went to pooling, and again, it's similar. But now everyone shares equally, so no one's getting the big. . . . And that smooths some of the bumps out. But if your two nights were not great, you've still got a proportionate share. Let's say you were planning on getting $40,000 and you only got $28,000. Well, that's what you got; that's it. Now if you are entitled to $40,000 by the criteria, in all likelihood that's what you would get. You're not going to get the good nights and the bad nights.

T. Nebbeling: Then I'd like to go back to the previous question. I thought it had worked exactly that way with the pooling. We had this situation in the past where you got a percentage of the pool for the evening. If it made up the money that you wanted, that was great; if not, well, that was too bad.

That is no longer there. Now you come with criteria, and if the criteria show on paper that you can justify having $40,000. . . . But the amount of money applied for in total by all the charities will in all likelihood exceed the amount of money that will be available. So the individual adjuster or the person who refused the application will have to make a judgment call. We know we're not going to have all the money to give everybody everything they want. That will be the reality of life. That individual who looks at the proposal for the funding will have to make a judgment call: "If this merits 100 percent of the $40,000, then come hell or high water, we're going to give it."

I can also see that because of circumstances, the person going over the review will have a mandate to somehow cut wherever it can be cut, because they count all the financial requests. And that will happen, especially when you talk about grants. I've never heard of grant programs that are not oversubscribed as far as requests are concerned.

I believe that the individuals who do the evaluation will have a different role based on the financial requirements no longer having been backed up by a system that justified the amount of money requested -- based not only on the criteria but also on what the activities in the casinos created. That is no longer there. The individuals will have to come up with something that justifies an amount of money that the system can afford, but that may not necessarily be the amount of money that has been asked for.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Whether it's days or direct applications, the process hasn't changed; the evaluation system hasn't changed. In fact, on the issue of demands versus money available, there has always been more demand for money than there has been money available.

T. Nebbeling: I was aware of that fact. If the funds that these organizations were earning through participation in a charity casino event or a bingo event did not add up to the amount they wanted, it's like the minister said: too bad. But at least the organizations knew why they didn't get the full amount of money -- they either just picked two lousy nights, or for whatever the circumstance, they didn't make the pool contribution.

It would be very nice if the minister's staff could wait for the question, rather than constantly throwing their eyes towards the ceiling. It's becoming a little bit annoying. And the one I'm talking about knows who I'm talking about.

[ Page 8983 ]

Again, we're not going to find common ground. Time will tell if my concerns are right. We're either going to have a backlog, or we're going to see more people being hired. That's all I'm trying to find out. What is the commission's mandate? Is it to keep the same staffing, or is it within the mandate to hire more people? That's what I'm after, because I fear that charity organizations which have to come to the commission for funding approval are already beginning to see some time delays that they weren't counting on.

Once the initial review has taken place, what happens with the application? When it's rejected or when it's approved, what would be next?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If there's a rejection, whether you apply for direct access or for a licensed event, you're notified of the rejection of your application. Then you can access the appeal process if you want. It's the same for both direct access and licensed events. If you go through the criteria for a licensed event and you're approved for your licence, you get a licence that says what days you have to show up -- a bingo with the number of volunteers. If it's direct access, once it's approved, it goes to the trust that sends out the money, which is deposited either by cheque or directly into the account of the charity.

L. Stephens: I have a follow-up question along the same lines that the critic has been talking about. This is about a letter that I received the other day from the Rotary Club of Langley central. They received a letter from the B.C. Gaming Commission telling them that all of their bingos were used up in the first year of a two-year licence and that no dates were scheduled for the second year of their licence. I wonder if the minister could comment on whether or not that's usual. If it is, how can they receive further dates in the second year of their licence? Again, as most of these kinds of service clubs do, they've made commitments to the community for different charitable projects.

Hon. M. Farnworth: When they get a two-year licence -- in this case, it's the Rotary Club -- they make their application and they're given the two-year licence. When they're given that two-year licence, they're also given the dates that they are able to use that licence. Now, it's unusual that those dates may come in one year, but the fact is that when they're given that licence, they're given the dates they can use that licence. So they should plan accordingly.

I mean, in most cases, it is over. . . . You would get your licence for two years. Let's say it says eight dates. Then you would have eight dates over the next two years that you could plan on; you're getting them. In the case of this organization, it appears, from what you told me, that they got all their dates in a one-year period. I can look into the details as to why that would be, and I'm willing to do that. But at the same time, when you get your dates, you should plan accordingly.

[7:30]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, there is an appeal process that they can access, and it's the same one that we've discussed before. There is a $500 fee, and the appeal tribunal will go out to the location, meet with the people and discuss the problem. They make a ruling, and if they rule in your favour, then you get more dates.

L. Stephens: Oh, $500 is kind of steep to. . . . It's pretty steep to simply ask for an appeal or to have someone have a look at this particular arrangement that they have. The second thing is: why would they be given all their dates in one year? If they've got a two-year contract, why would they have them all in one year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: On the appeal. . . . It used to be $100, and they were flooded with frivolous requests. So they raised it to $500, and if you're successful on your appeal, you got your money back. That's the reason for that.

As for why the dates are all in one year, I don't know why that would be. As I said, I'd have to look into the specific case. It is unusual. Usually they are spread out over a two-period, but you are told when you get your licence: "It's for two years, and here are your dates." I guess it is unusual; I'll look into it. But then the organization is also aware, so it would not come as a surprise to them that there are no dates in the second year.

L. Stephens: I thank the minister for his commitment to look into this, and I will get this particular information to him and ask him to do that.

I suspect that a club like this, when they received their dates, would just assume: "Okay, this year we have these dates, and next year we will get however many." I would be surprised if many of them really took a close look at exactly whether or not they were getting. . . . I would presume that they would presume that those dates were for that year only and that the following year they would be getting X number of dates as well.

I haven't seen the letter. I don't know what kind of a letter they received or whether or not it specifically says, "These are your dates for the two-year period," and whether that is really drawn to people's attention. If it isn't, I would suggest that perhaps that might be part of the letter that goes out. But I thank the minister, and I will get him this letter. I would appreciate it if he could look into this situation.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to go back, then, to what we were discussing before. Is there a directive to staff on a time frame to deal with an application from the day it comes in until at least the first decision is made?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll start with the licensed side of things. A bingo hall is licensed for every two years, and the process for relicensing starts six months prior to the expiration date.

T. Nebbeling: So it's a six-month process?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

[ Page 8984 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair. We're terrible.

T. Nebbeling: I am not. You are. [Laughter.]

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Through the old access system, you got a letter of acknowledgment, and then it would depend on where you were in the province in terms of how you got slotted in, because it was in relation to the ability to access a casino. On the lower mainland, for example, it's currently about three months. On Vancouver Island, 14 months is not unusual.

With the direct system, again you'll get a letter of acknowledgment. The time period should be much shorter, I suspect, than 14 months in the case of Vancouver Island, and it could be shorter than three months for the lower mainland -- or it may be three months. We'll get a better sense as we go along.

T. Nebbeling: Through the Chair to the minister. You see, I know the rules.

I will keep that as information. I'm not going to pursue that direction, because obviously there are changes in the making. Down the road, I may well ask another time.

Let's look at direct access, which we can anticipate to be shorter. Is there a rule that says there must be an acknowledgment of the application so that an organization knows that the application has been received and is being considered? Is there anything in the handbook or is there a directive from management to staff to try to get that out, say, within 28 days -- anything of that nature?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As soon as we receive the application, then they will automatically get an acknowledgment letter.

T. Nebbeling: Then the next step will be the evaluation. Let's say that the evaluator looks at the application, doesn't think there's merit to it and feels that rejection is in order. Will that immediately be conveyed to the organization? Or does that application go somewhere else before the applicant is notified?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The process is a little different. The application comes in, and a licensing officer reviews it; if they decide to reject it, the licensing officer rejects it. That then goes to the manager of licensing, who also reviews it in conjunction with the licensing officer to review why the decision to reject was made. The manager of licensing then takes it to the executive director; they have an informal committee to go through why it was rejected. The executive director personally hand-signs every rejection letter, as he has authorized it. Then it's sent to the applicant. On average, this is done within about a month of receipt of the initial application.

T. Nebbeling: Does the minister, by any chance, have the number of the applications that have come in since the changeover, for this very reason? In the first place, how many rejections have been introduced? How many of these rejections have had a reversal in the decision at the end of that one-month process?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are no figures under the new system, because they haven't done it yet. But I'm informed that the executive director would, on average, not sign any more than 20 rejection letters in a month.

T. Nebbeling: That's 240 in a year for a caseload of approximately 6,000 applications. I know the minister said this earlier on, but I just want to ask this question quickly again: does the 6,000 include the ticket raffles and other forms, or is that just the charity casinos and. . . ?

[7:45]

T. Nebbeling: I'm going to get away from that now, because I've got a feeling that the process is intended to be quite fluid -- the decision comes in a relatively reasonable period of time.

Before, when the various levels of review had taken place and the applicant had been given favourable consideration for a number of evenings of activity. . . . Like the minister said earlier on, it may be an allocation that was three, four or five months ahead of the time when the applicant got their approval. Now that we are talking, in direct applications, about dollars and cents, and there is no further need to work in the charity casinos, for example, the people that used to no longer do that. Now, when the approval is given, is that money made available immediately, or is there again a staggered system, where the dollars may not come for three, four or five months?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The applications come in; they'll be evaluated. The plan is in fact to do what we do now: do them on a monthly basis. So you'll get a slew of applications that are processed over the course of a month. Let's say it's January, and the applications are processed. Then the approved applications are forwarded to the trust. The trust is the actual issuing authority. When it gets them, then they release the funds.

T. Nebbeling: Then just as a conclusion on this particular segment -- not the whole gaming industry, but what we have just been talking about -- I am concerned that that could cause a situation where funds are allocated and committed in the early stage of the book-year, whereas towards the end of the year we may have a situation where there's just not enough funds to deal with all the applications that come in later, because you will receive applications over the whole year. It is my hope that we don't get into a situation where applications in the early stage of the year do indeed get the funding that is merited by the criteria, and then later in the year suddenly everybody realizes that too much has gone out.

I believe my colleague has some questions he would like to ask now, and then I'll come back to the commission itself. That will be today and tomorrow.

J. Dalton: I'm happy to participate here and try to get some background. . . . I am a member of the North Van Kiwanis, and I've actually had the pleasure of being a volunteer participant in casinos, although I know that I won't be able to do that anymore, because the government has changed the process. It was always the anticipation of my club, and of many other charities throughout the province, that after we

[ Page 8985 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are not aware of any delays that apply to moneys earned in casino nights in February.

J. Dalton: I haven't heard from my colleagues, although being a captive of this place I haven't been able to get to my Tuesday night meetings to actually find out whether everything is aboveboard. I needn't tell the minister -- and all my colleagues and everyone will endorse this -- that the service clubs of British Columbia rely almost strictly on the proceeds of casinos and other events to do the good community projects that they do. In fact, I'm very happy to say that on Saturday evening I'll be at the Handsworth Secondary graduation ceremony, where my daughter is still a student but not graduating this year, handing out the Kiwanis scholarships. I wouldn't be able to do that without the proceeds from these casinos, so hopefully those issues have been resolved. I presume, as well, that the amounts of money that were anticipated have gone to the charities.

The other thing. . . . If this has been covered, then the minister can say so, and I can check it in the Blues. But Jacques Carpentier, the champion of all people's causes and somebody we can all bless for his tenacity over the years. . . . I understand that he's now back in the B.C. Supreme Court with a lawsuit. Can the minister bring us up to date on what the issues are? I don't want him to comment, of course, on the essence of the lawsuit itself, but on what the issues are and how that might play out.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm mindful that there is a case before the court. The issue revolves around the 2 percent licensing fee that the government has taken since the establishment of gaming, since at least 1987, and from bingos prior to that. I think the lawsuit goes right back to the mid-seventies. The case is an interesting one, because -- as I have said publicly -- it actually has national implications. I expect that it would eventually go to the Supreme Court of Canada, in that just about every province takes a licensing fee of about 2 percent.

J. Dalton: I thank the minister for that background. Nobody would quarrel with the right of the government to take a reasonable processing fee. I guess the issue -- and, of course, the courts will have to deal with that -- is how much is being taken by the government and how much should rightfully go to the charities, which we all recognize are doing good things in our community and must have some assurance that that funding will not only be stable but be on an ongoing basis. I think we can all agree on that.

If I could, I'd like to move to the North Shore in particular and the question of casino locations. We hear rumours and other things on the North Shore as to whether the various first nations may or may not be anticipating locating casinos on the North Shore. Can the minister advise us as to whether there are any applications pending, for example, in the Squamish valley with the Squamish nation or in the Capilano reserve or in the Burrard or elsewhere on the North Shore?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are none.

J. Dalton: Would I take it, then, that if are none, that means that we wouldn't expect to see any? Or does that mean that because of the jurisdictional issue, the first nations may end-run the provincial government, as I presume they are entitled to do, and establish a casino site -- whether it be in the Squamish valley, in Brackendale, down under the Lions Gate Bridge or in the Burrard -- who knows?

A Voice: Indian Arm.

J. Dalton: Indian Arm river valley, along with the hydro site. . . . Yes, things like that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's only one process by which casinos will be approved in the province, and that's the RFP process. As we covered earlier on in the issue, I think there are 37 proposals being reviewed for consideration. None of them are on the North Shore.

J. Dalton: Perhaps a more generic question: has the ministry had any legal opinions as to whether, if first nations wish to end-run the provincial process, the province would have any say in preventing that? Or would they be powerless, as they are in other areas, to prevent such applications -- or even such construction -- from going ahead in the absence of the province? I might even ask whether the municipalities would have any say in neighbouring aboriginal communities putting a casino right next door to, say, West Van or North Vancouver.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't deal with legal opinions within my ministry; legal opinions are held within the Attorney General ministry. Such inquiries around legal opinions should best be directed to the Attorney General.

What I can tell you is that there is an RFP process in place, which is how new casinos will be approved in the province. It has worked well so far, in that there has been participation from both private sector and aboriginal proposals, and the proposals are being evaluated. One of the requirements has been community support, and those proposals that are being considered also have community support. Those that do not have not even been considered. Three proposals have been approved so far: one in Prince Rupert, one in Wells and one in the Kootenays. The one in the Kootenays is a partnership which involves five first nations, the local community and a hotel. As I said earlier on, there are no proposals from the North Shore, and none are being considered.

J. Dalton: The minister made an interesting observation about legal opinions. Of course, he's quite right, at least in theory, that they should be provided by the Attorney General ministry, which is in charge of justice issues in this province. But maybe these ministries don't always talk to each other effectively.

Just to give a comparison, last week I asked the Forests minister in his estimates whether a blockade in the Chilcotin plateau by some first nations people was being addressed by his ministry -- he's also the MLA for the area -- and he said he's monitoring it. I actually happened to have. . . . Off the record, so to speak, on the helijet on Friday morning I asked the Attorney General whether he was doing anything about it. He was aware of the issue, and he said he's monitoring it. So I get an answer from the Minister of Forests, the MLA for the area affected, that he's monitoring the situation, which I think is potentially very serious. I get an answer from the Attorney

[ Page 8986 ]

[8:00]

Could I ask: the one in the Kootenays -- have any of the affected municipalities in the area had a referendum or any way to judge public opinion as to whether or not that casino is favoured? Or is it something where the first nations have put an application through and the government has said: "Yes, that's fine"?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue around local government approval is left to the discretion of local governments. Some have done it by resolution of council; some have done it by referendum. How they arrive at that is up to them.

I can tell you that in the case of the proposal in the Cranbrook area, it's been fully supported by the mayor and council there. In fact, I think it's probably a really exciting proposal in terms of what can be accomplished. Not only is there the issue of the local government and the private sector being involved, but there are also five different first nations coming together in a cooperative effort. I think that is one of the reasons why this particular proposal will be successful and is ready to be up and running.

J. Dalton: I have one other question to ask. The casino for Prince Rupert, as I recall from reading the media coverage on this -- is that not going to be on a ferry running up and down the coast? If so, how do we deal with approval, municipal or otherwise, for how that one functions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Indeed, it is on a boat. It will indeed be going up and down the coast, and it indeed has the approval of its home port of Prince Rupert. The council thinks it's a wonderful idea. It'll dock in Prince Rupert. You'll get on and go up and down the coast on some destination cruise or some mystery cruise or to an inlet somewhere and then come back to beautiful Prince Rupert. They think it's swell.

J. Dalton: Do I take it from the minister's response that this casino mystery ship -- maybe it'll be the boat we're about to launch on Saturday, if it floats -- will leave the port of Prince Rupert and never touch ground again until it returns to Prince Rupert? Therefore no other jurisdiction -- Indian, non-aboriginal or other -- would have any say as to the operation of the casino on board?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will dock at numerous communities -- not lots, but a number of communities up and down the coast. They are all looking forward to it, and they're quite happy with it.

J. Dalton: This may be more hypothetical than real, and I'm sure the minister will respond regarding it. But let's say that this casino ship -- it sounds like more of a pirate ship to me -- leaves Prince Rupert and docks at Namu. Namu has conducted a local referendum, and they don't want casinos. Is that ship allowed to dock at Namu, and will Namu then be able to shut down the casino while it's in port? I'm a bit confused here. I can't even imagine a casino ship floating around in the waters off British Columbia and running an operation here and maybe not running one there. Who gives approval -- other than the minister, I suppose?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I notice that my colleague from North Vancouver is smiling, and I just want to say that I appreciate that. I'm in a good mood this evening too.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Anyway, the answer to your question is: it's much the same. . . . That's not a problem. The places where it's docking. . . . The communities are happy that it's coming.

But let's say you have to dock at any port in a storm, as they say, and you have to dock somewhere where the locals are hostile, and you don't want anything. . . . You'd just turn off the machines, in the same way that a cruise ship right now is in the terminal. The machines are turned off while it's docked, and depending on the jurisdiction that it's in, when it pulls away it can. . . . If you're in the States, for example, you have to be X number of miles away from shore before you turn on the machines. In some areas all you have to do is cast off.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour has got it bang-on.

J. Dalton: Another aspect of this. . . . Maybe this is more Tourism than it is a Ministry of Employment and Investment aspect, although I think they should be related: does this ship only leave for Prince Rupert? What about winter traffic, for example? What about people who have to get to Prince Rupert to take advantage of this floating casino? Has the ministry put together any business plans as to whether this thing is viable in any way? It seems to me that that's not exactly the ideal destination, although I'm sure the Minister Responsible for Northern Development -- who happens to be the MLA for the area -- might take a different view. I would think that this thing might be a dead-end street -- or a dead-end ship, so to speak.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's part of the RFP. A business plan is part of that. At the end of the day, this is a free enterprise operation in that sense, and as such it can succeed or it can fail. I would also point out that in the overall concept of what the company is offering, the casino is actually a very small part. It's an attraction in the whole package.

J. Dalton: Can the minister say whether this is a year-round proposal in the RFP, or is it seasonal in nature?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Year-round.

J. Dalton: Maybe just one last point; I don't want to belabour this one. We'll have to see whether this is a Titanic or

[ Page 8987 ]

The government has some vested interest in it. This is a new concept that the government's now launching into -- to have destination casinos. I think it would be a very poor message for the minister to send out if this one fails -- because he's only got two others in the hopper at the moment. So has the government given any consideration or, having given approval to this one, which I think maybe has some loopholes in it. . . ?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is, as I said, a free enterprise operation. If you like, it's a boutique casino. It's something different. It's geared to a niche market, and in this business you role the dice and you take your chances.

D. Jarvis: I was reading some of the aspects of the administrative review hearing, and I want to inquire as to what an administrative review hearing is. The first section states: ". . .a licence or a direct charitable access application denied by the commission due to eligibility. . . ." [Laughter.]

When the minister contains himself, I wonder if he could give me some explanation as to what ineligibility is interpreted as.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, this is all through the Chair. On the topic of ineligibility, there are set out a series of criteria by which each application is evaluated. Basically, if you fit the criteria, away you go. If you don't fit the criteria, you're ruled ineligible. And so you would receive a letter saying that you are ineligible, and that would be how ineligibility is arrived at.

D. Jarvis: So that famous E-word -- ineligibility -- how is that stated? Anyone that you send out a brochure to, and all the people that are required or. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just so I don't have to say the word again, I'll spell it this time.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I-n-e-l-i-g-i-b-i-l-i-t-e-y. Forget the "e"; the "e" shouldn't have been in there.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Namby-pamby. . . . Anyway, it's getting late. While we're dealing with the particular issue that this member introduced, there are 11 different categories. If you fall into the categories, then you are eligible; and if you don't fall into the categories, you are ineligible. And if the member wants, I can go through the 11 different categories.

[8:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: What happens in this particular case is that you have met the criteria and are eligible -- as opposed to being ineligible -- so your organization is legit. Its purpose and existence and its reason for wanting the funds are fine. You go out and get your licence. You hold your fundraising event. Or you will get moneys under direct access, if it's through a casino now. If in a subsequent review of your funds and what you did with them, the purpose for which you were using your funds was found to be. . . . You know, if you didn't meet the guidelines, or you went and spent it elsewhere, and you didn't use it for the purposes that you said you would, then that would apply in having it revoked.

D. Jarvis: So you have an ineligible list and another list for those that don't meet the criteria. Is that not right?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Within each category in which you would be eligible to have a licence or direct access, there are various ways you can spend the money. It varies from category to category. Misappropriation of funds, for example, could involve criminal charges, and that would be dealt with. You could have your licence revoked. If you spent it on projects that were not eligible, then you could run afoul of the guidelines and have your licence revoked. If you weren't meeting a number of purposes for which the money was designed for, or if you were using it to pay people and your category didn't allow for that. . . . Any one of a number of violations like that could potentially result in your licence being revoked and your becoming ineligible.

R. Kasper: I have a few questions around casinos and the bet limits. I've been known to go to the odd casino and partake and talk to a lot of the people who play there. What I have to ask is in relation to the bet limits. Prior to the Lottery Corporation taking over responsibility for casinos, there were changes made that allowed individual casinos to raise the bet limits. That was at the discretion of the individual casinos; I'm assuming that it was whatever the market could bear. What I'd like to know is: how will the bet limits get raised in the future? I'm talking table play, because some casinos may have a $10 or $25 or $100 or $500 bet limit. I'd like an answer to that question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think we can both . . . . Anyway, the answer to your question is that the bet limits were raised about a year ago, and there are no plans to raise the bet limits any time soon. Things are always reviewed, and customer demand is always taken into account. We look at things such as we discussed yesterday, in terms of new games and things like that. But, quite frankly, we've had new betting limits in place for just over a year, and there are no plans to raise them.

R. Kasper: What are the bet limits for roulette, for example, under the current rules?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will have to get the information for you from the standard casino operating manual, which has

[ Page 8988 ]

R. Kasper: Just to follow up. . . . So there are no plans to make changes to the bet limits. I just want to get this on the record, because I think it's important, seeing that the government's initiative is to have a modest expansion of gaming activities in the province. One of the objectives. . . . Well, I guess there are a number of objectives, one of which is to encourage B.C. residents to participate in gaming activities within the province as opposed to outside the province.

It's my strong contention that, based on the information I've gathered from people who participate in casino activity, the bet limits are somewhat restrictive in relation to other jurisdictions and that, in a number of cases, people go to other jurisdictions not only for vacation time or whatever recreational activity they may pursue but because of the options available as far as bet limits in relation to the types of games they play.

My question is: is the Lottery Corporation, through the ministry, going to partake in a survey to get a better flavour and feel as to what the customers want? I think that's important, because we're not advocating increased gaming activity but being more responsive to the needs and desires of the customers who are partaking in that activity. I think it's only fair. So my question is: are we going to be doing some form of consumer survey? I think it's important to partake in such a survey in order to get relevant information.

Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the ongoing things that we do like to do is to survey the attitudes of customers -- whether they're about casinos or bingos -- and look at ways of improving things. With that you also have to strike a balance in what changes you do make. I can tell the hon. member, when it comes to bet limits, that they were raised a year ago. There are no plans at the present time to raise them. In terms of where they are right now -- in terms of neighbouring jurisdictions -- the fact is that they were raised and that the closure of casinos across the line resulted when they were raised. So the feedback we have is that, from the point of view of people crossing the line into Washington State, the bet limits are adequate. Again, though, I would say that we are always surveying or that we want to survey the needs of our customers.

D. Jarvis: Of course, hon. Chair, I violently disagree with the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca about opening the gambling limits up to as high as you can get them -- which he would probably like to see. It's the sign of a true gambler.

It reminds me of when I was a young man. I was in Kitimat when it was first starting, before there were any police there. There were just security police. We had gambling tents there, and it was pretty wild. I would watch them come in and just throw their paycheques into the crap games. Of course, that's how they built Kitimat; none of them could afford to leave. So you know, hon. Chair, how I feel towards gambling.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. To the vote.

D. Jarvis: Not gambling is part of my religion, basically, because I don't like to lose. You can't win in that game. No one has.

Going back to the review hearing and calling for a little order in the room, there was another statement in here on the. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order.

Member, continue.

D. Jarvis: Yes, I will. It's getting late, I guess.

There's a statement here that would fit in well. It's about disciplinary action by the commission against a charitable fund. Can you sort of illuminate in some way what you mean by disciplinary? You can slap them on the wrist, or you take away their licence permanently?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell you that it doesn't involve the strap.

D. Jarvis: It doesn't involve the strap, the minister says. Seriously, I wonder if the disciplinary action. . . . You've got all these other criteria in the eligibility end of it, but what does disciplinary mean? Isn't that ostensibly the same thing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a couple of points that I would like to put on the floor for the hon. member's consideration. In terms of disciplinary action, there are four violations. You could either suspend events that may be. . . . Let's say you've got eight days booked, or you have eight events. You could suspend those remaining dates, for example. You could revoke a licence. You could suspend the granting of any licences for up to a year. Then there are obviously offences that would be of a much more serious nature, in which case they would be violations of the Criminal Code and in which case the RCMP would investigate, take over and recommend charges accordingly.

D. Jarvis: Just to go a little further, it says here: "Actions which cannot be subject to a review. . . ." Anyway, it says: ". . .policy decisions of the commission." Well, is what we were talking about beforehand not part of the policy of the commission?

[8:30]

D. Jarvis: Another aspect that cannot be subject to a review is the expiration of a charitable gaming application. So in other words, they have their applications in there -- say, for two years -- and don't they start to renew them. . . ? I thought I heard you say that probably at the 18-month or the six-month limit, before it expires, they make application again. So I don't quite understand. At the expiration, when you ask for renewal, is there a certain percentage of those that do not get renewed again due to eligibility or the policy of the commission?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Let's say, in the case of the bingo association, it has a two-year licence, and it's coming up for

[ Page 8989 ]

D. Jarvis: Just one further question: can you explain to me the "extent of access to charitable gaming funds" that it says is ineligible for a review? The statement is: ". . .extent of access to charitable gaming funds. . . ."

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the hon. member that as of Wednesday -- Wednesday past as opposed to Wednesday coming -- that is now an appealable item. It is no longer "ineligible."

K. Krueger: It's nice to see one another across the floor of this room again. Last year at this time we both wore different hats. I was the official opposition gaming critic, and the minister was the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Since then, of course, in what has become a familiar role to him, he has taken on something of a clean-up position, and we appreciate his good efforts there. I've gone on to the Labour and Aboriginal Affairs portfolios. Yet many of the ministries seem intertwined, and certainly both the minister's past and present portfolios and my critic roles all touch very heavily on the whole gambling expansion and gaming issue.

Harking back to last year's answers, I recall appreciating the minister's very direct and straightforward responses to questions, assuring municipalities and the official opposition and, of course, the public -- all of British Columbia -- that the wishes of municipalities with regard to gaming expansion would be respected, that new venues wouldn't be opened in municipalities that didn't want them and, presumably, that slot machines wouldn't be installed in municipalities that didn't want them.

If, in my questioning, I'm getting into areas that the minister has already covered, I apologize for that, because I've been completely engulfed in the Bill 26 debate and my Labour portfolio. I'll just scuttle off in another direction if that's the case. The first question I want to put to the minister is: does he still feel the same way now that he's responsible for gaming in British Columbia, and gambling expansion under the direction that this government has taken? Is he still committed to not in any way obliging municipalities to allow gambling expansion venues that they don't want?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The same policy that I talked about, and that we talked about last session when we wore different hats -- and I won't comment on whether they're black hats or white hats -- is still in place. In fact, I think the RFP is an example of how that has worked, in that only applications that do have local government support are being considered. That is crucial in the evaluation process. In fact, I think we've covered this part already, in that there were 12 applications that were rejected because they did not have local government approval.

K. Krueger: With the recent event whereby, as I understand it, the B.C. Lottery Corporation bought out the assets of the independent casino operators who operated those venues on behalf of charities -- while there still was what we knew up until recently as charitable gaming in British Columbia -- my information is that the B.C. Lottery Corporation now owns every deck of cards, every table, everything that is in place in those casinos. Perhaps the minister could just confirm that for me. With that having happened, and with the municipalities understanding that the B.C. Lottery Corporation is now the holder of those casinos and isn't, therefore, necessarily subject to compliance with municipal bylaws, there has been a fear on the part of municipalities that that fact will be used to override municipal bylaws and to allow activities within gaming casinos that weren't allowed for private entrepreneurs in those very same facilities within those municipalities. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, yes. The same policy that was in place a year ago is in place today. The issue around the 16 or 17 existing casinos is still there. I think eight of those existing casinos have slot machines in them. I believe the remainder do not at this time. We maintain that the decision about which games are played within a casino is the jurisdiction of the province. That has not changed. That is one of the reasons why we are in court seeking a declaratory opinion as to the changes that we have made. I would imagine that issue will be resolved over the next few months.

K. Krueger: I'm not sure whether the minister is just being extremely careful with his words or whether the immediate future or even the somewhat distant future might hold something for municipalities that we're not talking about here tonight. I'd like to get a little more direct in our questions and answers. First, if a municipality is opposed to any further casinos opening within its boundaries, I understand the minister to have said that the policy hasn't changed, and there won't be any new venues opened within those boundaries. Does the minister expect that to continue to be the case, or are there changes in the offing whereby those decisions will be made by the provincial government -- and potentially in such a way that they override municipalities' wishes?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Let me be clear. The policy has not changed; it is the same policy as it was last year. The issues -- where there are still outstanding issues to be settled -- are in the existing casinos in the province and, more specifically, primarily the ones in the lower mainland. Those issues are still to be determined, and we've been clear on that.

There is an RFP in place that will see the creation of a number of new casinos. They have gone through an extensive process that involves community support. There have been a number of casinos that have been released already -- three, to be exact -- that have community support. That is one of the reasons why they were approved.

In the case we're talking about, the North Shore, there are no proposals from the North Shore, so there will be no casinos approved on the North Shore. Likewise, my own community of Port Coquitlam currently does not have a casino in it. Unless the city of Port Coquitlam expressly said -- and there's no other proposal call out there right now -- that they would like a casino, they will not get a casino. We will not be putting casinos into communities that do not want them. We're talking about the new casinos here; we all recognize that the issue around existing ones is still there. I can't be any clearer than that.

K. Krueger: I appreciate the clarity of that answer, as I did last year with this minister's answers to questions.

[ Page 8990 ]

The whole gambling expansion process has been something of a moving target for all of us, I think. It certainly has been from the point of view of the official opposition. I think that the various ministers, including the present Minister of Employment and Investment, clung fairly steadfastly to a resolution that new casinos would not be allowed in a location where they would jeopardize the viability of existing casinos -- which, of course, we called charitable casinos at the time, but they aren't really that any more. The question is: if an existing casino is operating -- now under the auspices of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, of course -- and there is an application for a nearby venue that would obviously affect the existing venue, is it still the provincial government's position that that new facility would not be allowed?

The Chair: Noting the hour, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, the answer. . . . It is an important issue, and it is very much taken into consideration in the granting or creation of any new casino. It is very much one of the criteria: what is the impact on the local market in terms of what's already existing there? Yes, that is taken into account.

In terms of the earlier part of the member's remarks, other municipalities can comment, but they do not have veto power. That is as it should be. If I lived in Burnaby, for example, I would not want Coquitlam holding veto power on a decision of the Burnaby council. And likewise, if I lived in. . . . Having grown up in the rivalry that exists between Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam on so many issues, and likewise on the North Shore, I couldn't see the North Vancouver council being appreciative of West Vancouver holding the hammer as to what they can and cannot do. And likewise in Port Coquitlam; they wouldn't be happy with the idea of Coquitlam holding the hammer. But you can comment, and that is also taken into the mix, so both those points are addressed in the proposal evaluation.

[8:45]

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:47 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada