[ Page 9013 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

D. Jarvis: It is a great pleasure to announce the Member of Parliament for North Vancouver, Mr. Ted White, and his wife Sue White. Would the members please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Madam Speaker, I rise today on a sad note. Last week Kay Stockholder, the president of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, passed away after a courageous battle with cancer. I had the opportunity to meet with Kay on many occasions and as recently as March to hear her views and the association's position on very difficult issues. I appreciated her position on a range of issues affecting British Columbians, such as legal aid, the police public complaints process and a sex offender registry. Kay was a champion for advocating freedom of expression and civil liberties for all British Columbians. She was passionate, tireless and committed to her work. She will be greatly missed by all British Columbians. I ask the House to join me in conveying our deepest condolences on her passing.

V. Anderson: I would like to ask the House to make welcome students from Sir William Osler Elementary School in my riding of Vancouver-Langara. Eighteen students are here, along with their teacher, Ms. Flynn, and those who are accompanying them.

Hon. I. Waddell: I rise today to welcome one of my constituents, in the gallery, who has become a very good friend. Would the House please welcome Kehar Sekhon.

G. Hogg: We have three guests in the House from the Shawnigan Lake area. Two of them from Discovery Elementary School, Sara Kubica and Erin Chessal, are skipping school today to learn about how we in the House operate. They are accompanied by Sara's mother C. J., who is their mentor and tutor for the day. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Giesbrecht: Visiting us in the gallery today are Joe Cooper, who is the business representative from the Allied Hydro Council of British Columbia, and Bruce Ferguson, who is president of Labourers Local 1611. They are here to listen to the debate on Bill 26. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

T. Stevenson: I would also like to join in the condolences for Kay Stockholder. She was a great, great friend of gay and lesbian people and a strong advocate for us. I go back a number of years with her; she was my first-year English professor at UBC. I offer my condolences to her family.

G. Janssen: Visiting us today from the beautiful Alberni Valley are Beate and Henny Granneman. I ask the House to make them welcome.

G. Abbott: I rise today to introduce a special constituent from the Shuswap. My son Brant is seated behind the protective glass; I think it's more to protect the Hansard folks from him than to protect him from the vigorous debate that will undoubtedly ensue here today. I'd like the House to make Brant welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1998

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

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to introduce Pension Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998. This bill will amend the four public sector pension plans -- the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Teachers) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act and the Pension (Municipal) Act -- as well as the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, to extend pension benefits to same-sex partners.

These amendments are a response to the growing number of court and human rights decisions that recognize same-sex spousal relationships. The amended legislation will affirm a fundamental principle of this government: that all British Columbians must be treated fairly, regardless of their sexual orientation. The government of British Columbia will not sit by and wait for our courts and our tribunals to force us to catch up with the changing social values; instead, we are going to amend the public sector pension legislation now because it is the right thing to do. College instructors, teachers, public service employees, municipal workers and members of this assembly will now be protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation in the allocation of their pension benefits.

British Columbia is the first province in Canada to bring legislative changes to extend public sector pension plan benefits to same-sex partners. I'm pleased to announce that through these amendments, the government of British Columbia confirms its commitment to justice, fairness and equality.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF LABOUR BILL ON B.C. ECONOMY

Hon. D. Lovick: We are bringing forward the measure with regard to Labour Code amendments because, first, it is

[ Page 9014 ]

The second point to make is simply that introducing this legislation will have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem that the member alludes to. I've attempted to explain that on numerous occasions. The problem is that members opposite, as I have pointed out before, are bound and determined that there will be a war; they continue to throw gasoline on the fire. Sadly, that shouldn't be the case.

The legislation will be absolutely neutral, as far as we can make out, with regard to investment and economic activity.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I heard exactly the same reassurances by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin when he was the Minister of Labour in 1992, and now we're in a recession.

But it's not just that people in B.C. are leaving the province; it shows that a record number of people are not coming here. The number of people coming to British Columbia, moving to British Columbia, is at its lowest level since 1982 -- the heyday of the last recession in the province. Can the Minister of Labour tell us what studies, what analysis, his department has done to measure the impact on British Columbia of the bleeding off of so many thousands of our highly skilled and highly trained workers to other provinces? What effect is it going to have on the economy?

Hon. D. Lovick: One truly has a sense of déjà vu in this House. We did have that question last week ad nauseam. I would answer the question again the same way I did: our projection is that the bill will be absolutely neutral. We did indeed listen to the concerns of business. We responded to the three points made specifically by the Business Council of B.C. regarding the ITAC board -- the training and apprenticeship business -- regarding sectoral bargaining, and also talking about maintaining that level, competitive playing field in terms of the construction industry in the province.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: In April, B.C. Stats reported that last year British Columbia lost 7,600 people to the province of Alberta. They called this "the largest new outflow to Alberta in 20 years." At the current pace, we're scheduled to lose 18,000 workers to Alberta. I have a copy of a newspaper article that shows that Bob Nicoll, a senior research consultant with Alberta's Ministry of Advanced Education and Career Development, is actually holding seminars on Vancouver Island encouraging people about Alberta's investment boom and how to take advantage of it and recruiting construction workers to go to Alberta. Can the minister tell us how anything he's brought in is going to stop the bleed-off of skilled workers from other parts of the province and how it's going to turn the economy around?

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, my cold is too heavy for me to be combative, so I will try to be pleasant and polite.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you, members. It's nice of you to finally acknowledge that. I will try, rather, to be very nice and make just this point: this is an amendment to the Labour Code; it is not an economic plan for British Columbia. It is a very small amendment to the Labour Code, which deals with a subset of a subset of a subset in terms of the construction industry. All reasonable examination and reasonable analysis leads to one simple conclusion. We already have master agreements in place that are carried out by the Construction Labour Relations Association and by the Building Trades Council. All we are doing is expanding this ever so slightly. It is not a big issue. I'm sorry the members refuse to accept that rather simple conclusion.

M. de Jong: My father, when he decided to come to this country and this province, attended seminars about the promise that B.C. held. Now we're having seminars that encourage people to leave, to seek opportunities elsewhere. That's an embarrassment. Over 3,500 more people left this province than came in the first three months of this year. My question to the Minister of Employment and Investment is: what's the figure now? Is it 6,000, 7,000, 8,000 or 10,000? How many more people have fled this province in the face of the NDP's attack on just about everything they hold sacred? When will this minister stand up for the people that want to earn a living in British Columbia and withdraw this labour bill -- advocate the withdrawal of this labour bill?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Every day we listen to the opposition and their doom-and-gloom mentality. They say how things are nicer in Alberta and that everyone is leaving for Alberta. Well, you know what? Since February, 37 percent of all the new jobs in Canada have been created right here in British Columbia. The help-wanted index is at its highest level in years. Just for the benefit of the members of the opposition, that's about the intent of companies that intend to hire new workers.

British Columbia faces many challenges from what's happening in Asia, but we're not facing any challenges from the opposition.

M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, people are voting with their feet, quite frankly. The B.C. stats reveal that people are leaving this province. For the first time in 16 years, more people are leaving than are coming to the province of British Columbia -- and it's the job creators, the investors and the skilled workers. They don't see a future in this province under this government. If he wants to reverse the outflow of capital, of ideas, of entrepreneurship, he's got to get out of the way of the workers and the people of British Columbia. It's time for him to stand up for the people he's supposed to represent and advocate the withdrawal of this labour bill. If he won't do that, then let's have an election, and we'll see how many of those people who he relies upon are supportive of this government.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again the oppositions slags this province, and once again. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: For their own political gain.

[ Page 9015 ]

I'd just like to point out that the member says that the people of British Columbia are voting with their feet. A couple of points. First, more people are moving to British Columbia than ever before. The population of this province is growing. Second, businesses in Alberta are voting with their wallets and investing here in British Columbia. The day after the Labour Code. . . . High-Alta Capital plan to double their sales and investments here in British Columbia and make an investment of $6.7 million in the Okanagan region.

G. Plant: This is one occasion when I think I'm with the Minister of Forests. I think I'll believe the government statistics, and the government statistics say that people are leaving British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: By the thousands.

G. Plant: By the thousands. In fact, last week we learned that Campbell River has seen its housing starts drop by 91 percent from the first quarter of 1997-98. We know why housing starts are so low in Campbell River: everyone's going to Alberta. In fact, they don't have to worry about guessing their way there; they get to go to seminars. They get to be told by people: "We want to bring this information to Campbell River for people who want to go where the work is." Well, my question for the Minister of Labour is this: what has he done to provide and create a positive economic climate for the hundreds of workers in Campbell River who are leaving an economy that has failed them and moving to Alberta?

Hon. D. Lovick: The Minister of Labour is part of a cabinet that made a number of decisions to try to encourage investment in this province, to try and improve the business climate to make it more business friendly. From my particular perspective, in terms of the Ministry of Labour, we did a number of things. For example, we looked at making changes to the Employment Standards Act so that we could accommodate the legitimate concerns of certain businesses -- notably, the high-tech sector.

I'm happy to note that we also listened to the position pointed out by the Business Council of British Columbia when they talked about changes to the Labour Code. They asked for three things specifically, and I'll repeat them. They asked, first of all, that we put the issue of training and apprenticeship in a body that is arm's length from government. We did so; it's called the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. Secondly, they asked that we maintain the competitive environment, so that workers belonging to all three kinds of unions could indeed continue to do so -- that freedom of choice would be granted. Thirdly, they said, "Please don't bring in sectoral bargaining," and we did that as well. Its seems to me that we have done what they asked.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Yes, the minister is a member of cabinet. For six or seven years it's made all kinds of decisions, and the result is pretty clear: we're on the verge of a recession, and thousands of people are voting with their feet and leaving the province.

The unemployment rate on Vancouver Island stands at almost 11 percent, and North Island is even worse. In the face of high taxes and overregulation, in the face of a job-killing labour relations policy, can the Minister of Labour give me one reason why the workers of North Island should not accept the invitation and go to the province of Alberta?

Hon. D. Lovick: I would just point out to the member opposite: God help anybody who went to Alberta and there was a crash in the oil and gas boom there. It was only about two and a half years ago that Calgary was the bankruptcy capital of Canada and Albertans were coming to this province in record numbers. We shouldn't forget that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: As well, I would just point out that if those workers happened to be laid off and were unemployed, they wouldn't get a lot of comfort from social services in Alberta or from the fact that Alberta has, I believe, the lowest minimum wage in Canada. That's not the kind of place I would want anybody to go to.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, there is another question coming. Let's have some order, please.

C. Clark: Among the statistics that the minister does not mention is the fact that housing starts in British Columbia have gone down by 7,000 over the last year. According to Greater Vancouver Home Builders, that means 17,500 jobs. If the minister wants to put that in context, since 1993, if you look at the spinoff jobs -- two and a half for every job -- that is 43,500 jobs lost in the housing sector alone. Can the minister tell us why, instead of doing something to stop this hemorrhage in the job market sector in British Columbia, he is introducing changes to the Labour Code that will only destabilize the economy and make this problem much, much worse?

Hon. D. Lovick: I've just been handed a briefing note, and I want to quote it into the record. It may give the member some comfort. "In contrast to Canada as a whole, in which there was a decline of 3.6 percent in residential building permits, the value of residential building permits in British Columbia rose by 8.1 percent in April."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The minister will wind up his remarks, please.

Hon. D. Lovick: I will wind up. You know, hon. Speaker, anybody who has ever watched proceedings in this House knows full well that they are seldom, at least from that side, about substance and about principle. They're about theatre, and they're about tactics. The tragedy is that it's even bad theatre, friends.

Petitions

Interjections.

[ Page 9016 ]

M. Coell: I rise to present a petition from 172 residents in my community, requesting that the government act on. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Let's hear what the petition says.

M. Coell: . . .treatment services for substance-abuse people who cause car accidents and death.

Orders of the Day

[2:30]

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

An Hon. Member: Peace River South?

Interjections.

J. Doyle: . . .was in Revelstoke, and he said that a Liberal government should, to quote what he said in Revelstoke. . . .

Interjections.

J. Doyle: Did I say Peace River South? I apologize to the member for Peace River North. Peace River South. . . .

Interjections.

J. Doyle: I apologize. Anyhow, the hon. member, who is not present in the House today. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke mind just taking a moment. I need to talk to the rest of the members, who are being a little overly noisy. If you'd just take it easy, we'll get to hear what is being said.

J. Doyle: When he was in Revelstoke in November of last year, the hon. member -- the brand-new Liberal MLA -- said that the B.C. Liberals would not have bailed out Evans Forest Products in Golden. That is another example of bashing unions and communities, the B.C. Liberal way. Our government did not change our minds, like you. We backed up Evans Forest Products, and we backed up the communities in the north. We didn't change our minds like the B.C. Liberal opposition.

Another example. Even on the minimum wage. . . . Some B.C. Liberals said they ran for office in the past election because the minimum wage in British Columbia was too high. This is what they think of B.C. workers.

The former B.C. Liberal member for Richmond-Steveston said in this House that unions were bad. Union workers, he said, did not work as hard as non-union workers. I ask the members opposite: just what do you think union members do with their union-wage cheques? You know what they do, hon. Speaker? They buy houses; they buy cars; they go on holidays; they eat in restaurants. Yes, they spend their money in the communities in British Columbia in which they live.

Let us look at how the B.C. Liberal opposition treats the staff who work for them. They pay them poor wages. Let's look at the opposition when it comes to themselves as MLAs, compared to how they treat their workers. The B.C. Liberal opposition over there take the fair wage that they get as B.C. MLAs, and they take all their benefits: B.C. Medical, paid by the taxpayers; extended medical paid by the taxpayers. . . .

Interjection.

J. Doyle: Even as I speak, hon. member, the opposition B.C. Liberals are signing up for the pension plan. Of course, that's the one that they signed for before the last election, saying that they would never take that pension plan. As we speak, the same Liberal MLAs that said they would not take that pension plan -- including their leader -- are now signing up for the pension plan. Shame on them!

Do we remember how the Leader of the Opposition treated the House Leader last year when there were some discussions going on about a pension plan for Liberal MLAs and all other MLAs in the House? This B.C. Liberal opposition believe in one law for B.C. Liberal MLAs and another law for their own workers.

I would say also, hon. Speaker, that it's time for the B.C. Liberal opposition to retire their plaid shirt. Do you remember the outing that plaid shirt had during the last election? It had its outing in May 1996. The people of B.C. knew your stand when it came to B.C. workers and its union workforce; they know whose side you are on. Their idea of how to look after labour is, to quote from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson -- this is in Hansard, July 9, 1996 -- to "whack them." And if they don't listen, you whack them again and again. And if they still don't listen, "you turf them right out." That is the same member who on April 2, 1997, during a speech on the budget, referred to union members in our province as "union goons." That's what the opposition thinks of labour and union members.

Why don't the Liberal opposition just add a tenth point to their nine points of light -- that being that they just plain don't like unions and workers? That's what you say again and again in this House and in the speeches you give in the province. I would ask you to put that in there, because that's what you say every day, again and again, even when we're speaking of minimum wage.

[ Page 9017 ]

Some other people have used this in the past, but I would say that I know some Liberals, and those people over there are not Liberals. I would say they should have a competition to find their real name. It sure shouldn't be Liberal, the way they act and vote in this House.

I would say to the opposition, read Bill 26 -- read it. Throw away your old speeches that you had for Bill 44. God forbid if the present Liberal opposition ever form a government in British Columbia. They will enact legislation straight from the right-to-work southern United States: Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi. Of course, there'd be no minimum wage, they hate this minimum wage so much.

I would suggest also. . . . At the same time as they want to bash workers and they feel the minimum wage is too high, they feel it's fine to give a doctor $1,000 a day to be on call. The same people that want to give doctors $1,000 a day to be on call feel the minimum wage is too high. Whose side are they on?

I would suggest to the official opposition that when you visit a community, just don't listen and talk to the chamber of commerce; talk to workers. Get down to the local labour hall; listen to those people. Don't just talk to the chamber of commerce; talk to the workers too. I would bet you that even former Premier W.A.C. Bennett would be horrified to listen to this B.C. Liberal opposition. Mr. Bennett brought in the Allied Hydro agreement for all the work in the Columbia basin -- the Hydro agreement on lines being built out of there. Our government used that agreement when they built the Island Highway.

I say to the B.C. Liberal opposition: open your eyes, turn on the light and read Bill 26. If they read the bill, they will find that a separate section is added to the Labour Relations Code regarding the construction industry, as other jurisdictions have done in Canada both provincially and federally. The section establishes a multi-trade, multi-employer bargaining structure in that part of industrial, commercial and institutional construction which is certified by craft bargaining units. Participation in a bargaining structure is mandatory for both craft bargaining units and their employers. The joint council model would not apply to other construction areas such as residential. It does not apply to non-union or industrial-union, organized contractors in industrial, commercial and institutional construction. The plan for resolving jurisdictional issues must now be included in all collective agreements involving craft bargaining units, to promote industrial stability. An industrial, commercial and institutional contractor that is newly certified by a craft bargaining unit will automatically be covered by the standard agreement, except that provisions must be made to accommodate projects bid on or before certification.

All construction workers can freely choose between non-union, craft union and industrial union models. The waiting period, when employees can switch between unions, will be July and August, when the greatest number of employees are working. Voluntary-recognition collective agreements must be ratified by the employees to ensure that their wishes are respected. Unions applying for certification will be required to show fresh support when they make application to the Labour Relations Board. Hon. Speaker, I suggest that this is good legislation. I am pleased to support this legislation.

S. Hawkins: Last week the Minister of Labour said that he had heard from businesses and employers in the province, that he had consulted them and that he had heard them. He may have heard them, but he failed to listen to them. We know that because I wasn't able to go anywhere during the last few days when I was home that I didn't have some employer or small business person come up to me and say: "Isn't this government listening? Bill 26 is the last thing this province needs." Unlike everyone else in the province, this minister has the distinction of being the only one who believes that it is not going to do anything to the economy. Unbelievable!

We have a Minister of Small Business who sits over there and says that small business is the engine. . . . He realizes that small businesses are the job creators, that they are the engines of the economy. But we have a Minister of Labour who brings in one of the most ill-advised, narrow-minded, investment-killing, job-killing and small business-killing bills we've seen in the last few years. Unbelievable!

Our economy is in recession. We're on the brink of recession. This minister doesn't understand. We've been sitting here for three days, debating this bill. This minister doesn't understand that. He says: "Don't talk about the economy. This bill is not about the economy." Well, where do workers work? They work in businesses which drive the economy. This minister doesn't seem to make that connection. Unbelievable! For three days we've been trying to get through to this minister that this bill is about the economy. He has his head in the sand, and he just refuses to listen. We hope he listens, but again, I think he's going to fail to listen.

We've been telling this minister and this government that this bill comes at the worst possible time. We've heard reports that the Atlantic provinces -- Newfoundland -- are outperforming our economy this year. Now, that is incredible. We are a wealthy, resourceful province with individual enterprise, especially in the constituency that I represent. We are not wholly government-dependent in the constituency that I represent. People do have a sense of individual enterprise. We rely heavily on small business to be job creators in the riding that I represent.

And you know what? I mean, maybe the minister doesn't believe. Maybe I should invite him to my constituency, so he can actually hear the people that create jobs in my constituency, because everywhere I went. . . . I got stopped when I was shopping for groceries in Overwaitea, when I was on the golf course, when I went to see a play in Kelowna this weekend. People are saying to me: "You take that message back. You stand up, and you tell the government they are wrong to bring in Bill 26. Bill 26 is going to damage our economy, our business. It won't affect only the industrial construction, but it will also impact on residential." These guys just don't get it, hon. Speaker. You know, instead of actually consulting with people, they chose to ignore people; that's wrong.

[2:45]

[ Page 9018 ]

Then, hon. Speaker. . . . Maybe I shouldn't be surprised anymore. You know, we saw an auditor general's report that estimates that the government spends $2 million to $3 million of taxpayer money a month on government advertising -- I guess it's to tell everybody what a good job they're doing. We have a government now that. . . . Yesterday I saw an ad in the Province, a half-page ad that was advertising the government's position. Well, if their position is so good, if it's sellable to the public and if the public is buying it, why do they have to advertise it? Why do they have to spend public dollars?

We have the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, which is putting out full-page ads trying to get their position out, because they think the government doesn't listen. And we have our government spending their money -- taxpayers' money. . .

An Hon. Member: Our money.

S. Hawkins: . . .our money, trying to say it's a good solution.

You know, the ad is fairly misleading, because it says that the problem is "outdated labour rules in unionized construction," and the solution -- the socialist solution -- is to "bring B.C. rules in line with Ontario, Alberta and the rest of Canada." It's misleading because it doesn't say that those provinces have the secret ballot for union workers; it doesn't say that. You know what? B.C. doesn't have a secret ballot.

If Ontario and Alberta labour codes are so good, bring them all in. Let's bring the Alberta Labour Code here, because -- you know what? -- we know that Alberta's booming. I went home for Mother's Day, and I was absolutely surprised. We lived in Alberta for almost eight years; we lived in Alberta at a time when the economy was down and then saw it boom again. There were hard times there. But, you know, Alberta has done okay. In May when I went there, I couldn't believe the boom. I think I saw two for-sale signs in the area in Calgary where I was driving. I mean, that just absolutely amazed me. Roads that weren't paved when I was living there three or four years ago are major roadways now. Where my parents lived was sort of on the edge of the city. There are huge housing developments way past there.

It's interesting that this weekend, when I was watching the news, a story that struck me was one that was mentioned earlier today in the House. That was about Alberta companies coming and doing seminars on Vancouver Island -- the member for North Island should pay special attention to this -- in Campbell River and saying: "You know what? Alberta has a huge problem. You know what the problem is? We've got too many jobs; we don't have workers." Gee, I wish B.C. had that problem. I wish we could say that we've got too many jobs here in B.C., that we don't have enough workers. That is what Alberta is doing here. They're coming to B.C. and asking for our skilled tradespeople, because they're booming.

What makes me really sad is that the husband of one of the workers in my office was unemployed here for a long time. A year ago he left British Columbia and set up in Calgary. He took one of their daughters with him. So she's living in Kelowna with one daughter, and he's got the older daughter in Calgary. You know what? I'm very sad, because I'm now losing a worker in my own office. She is leaving and moving to Alberta with her husband, who has work there for the next three years or more. I've seen my friends leave; I've seen my business friends leave Kelowna. It hits close to home when we see our own friends and employees leaving this province.

It's no surprise that they're leaving. British Columbia has gone from number one to number ten in Canada in terms of economic growth. That's not something we can be proud of at all. There are a lot of reasons why that has happened. We've been losing investment, and I think we'll continue to lose investment, because the government just doesn't get it. We need to be attracting business investment; we need to be attracting that kind of investment so that we can create jobs in B.C. We need to say to investors: "We're open for business. Come on in; we want you." I understand that Alberta is celebrating over $34 billion in capital investment. Boy, if we could brag about that. . . . I've heard figures -- and I could be wrong, hon. Speaker -- of something like $700 million for B.C. What a shame! We've been losing jobs to Alberta, Ontario and Washington State because of the gross incompetence of this government.

Earlier this year we saw these splashy headlines and pictures on the front pages of the papers of the Premier meeting with business leaders and saying: "I'm going to listen to these business leaders, because I am the new sensitive, caring kind of Premier. I understand the economy, and I'm going to listen to business leaders." I understand that business leaders told him two things. One was that taxes are too high. If you want to get business investment back, you'd better do something about taxes. What did we see when the budget came down? They tinkered with it. I mean, they did basically nothing. For personal taxes alone, people don't even get a break until January, and then it's a minuscule break. What they did was up the fees so much that people are paying more in fees and everything to this government than they are getting from a reduction in taxes.

The second thing I heard that business leaders said to the government was: "Don't tinker with the Labour Code. Leave it alone." We went through this last year. I guess I could say that maybe they are a bunch of slow learners, but I thought they had learned. We went through this last year with Bill 44. It was tabled, and then the uproar started. The business community wasn't happy. They felt that they hadn't been consulted, and they weren't. This government said that they would pull that bill so that they could consult some more with the business community; that's what they said. You know what? A year later, in Bill 26, we have the son of Bill 44 before the House.

The minister wants to work with the business community. That's what he says, but all he does is dump on them all the time. I just don't understand. I don't think they've learned from their mistakes. I hear the minister going on and on about how this bill isn't about the economy. We've heard those arguments from that side of the House.

Hon. Speaker, I have an article, a quarterly economic letter from the Hongkong Bank of Canada, which the NDP are very familiar with. It's interesting -- they pick and choose; they cherry-pick about what they are willing to accept and what they aren't. But here is the "Quarterly Economic Letter" from the Hongkong Bank of Canada about the economic outlook in B.C. I quote from it. It was from May, 1998, so it is fairly recent. They say: "It is in British Columbia where things

[ Page 9019 ]

That's coming from the Hongkong Bank of Canada. It's not coming. . . . Those aren't my words; that's coming from people who. . . . Investors read that. Imagine how they feel about investing in B.C. when they read that "government policies which investors see as favouring organized labour, combined with high tax rates and seemingly inept management. . . ." "Well, gee, I really want to invest there. You know what? I think I'll go to B.C. and invest there. They have policies that aren't very favourable to business, and they'll tax me to death. The province isn't very good at managing its finances. Hey, that's a place where I'd like to invest." You know, it doesn't make sense.

Bill 26 is just another failure factor to add to the NDP's failing attempts in what they say will revive the economy. Now, if they accept and this Minister of Labour accepts what his colleague the Minister of Small Business says -- that small business is the engine that drives the economy, that small businesses are the business creators -- then how come they're not listening to business right now? How come they're not listening?

You know, the construction industries are small businesses. The construction employers run small businesses. For the minister's information, I'll be reading from small businesses involved in the construction industry that say they will be affected. Bill 26 is going to do to the construction industry what the NDP has already done to the forest industry and the mining industry. They've decimated those industries. Their government policies, their red tape, their interference, have decimated those industries. They weren't satisfied with ruining just those two. They've decided to move on. Where we see success. . . . "Ho, ho, ho; we'd better not let them get too successful, you know. We've got to stop that. We've got to do something."

So Bill 26, thanks to the Minister of Labour and his colleagues over there, is going to drive the economy down to lower levels and bring on the recession that everyone's been worried about. We are on the brink of a recession. Everybody has been worried sick about it. But it's not just me or the opposition trying to get this government's attention. Many people and businesses and my constituents are speaking out. We hope he's listening, because we know he wasn't listening before.

[3:00]

You know, it makes sense to me. But if the minister doesn't want to listen to that, here is the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce. They wrote a letter to the minister on June 1, before the bill was even introduced: "Re: B.C. Labour Code." This is Steve Thomson, who is president of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce -- which, by the way, is the largest chamber in the province and has, I believe, over 1,800 business members:

"There is no other piece of legislation that has the same potential as the B.C. Labour Code to drive job-creating investment away from this province. Given the significance of this legislation, coupled with the looming shadow of a provincial recession, we urge you not to introduce any more Labour Code amendments that would further undermine investor confidence, such as blanket certification provisions, within any sector of the economy.

"The needs of business to innovate and adapt in an increasingly competitive world marketplace are realities that none of us in either business or labour communities can afford to ignore. Simply put, the laws of economics cannot be legislated, and existing job-creating investors -- as well as potential new investors -- are increasingly looking elsewhere to locate their businesses. The corresponding loss of employment opportunities, government revenues" -- which they should be interested in -- "and related economic benefits cannot be ignored when changes to the code are contemplated.

"For all of these reasons, please exercise the leadership required to resist pressures for change which may serve the short-term interests of some of your constituents but which, in the long term, will undermine the general interests of British Columbians."

They really tried hard to get this minister's attention. In May, a month earlier, they wrote this, and again, they hoped that this got the minister's attention:

"We want to reiterate our position that the chamber is not against unions but against poor labour laws. At a presentation to the labour review panel last fall, we expressed our concerns that the legislation would create unbalanced labour laws and prevent employees and employers from negotiating conditions of employment. This would negatively impact job growth and the economy in general. We continue to support balanced legislation.

"The chamber also asked the panel to consider ways to facilitate a more collaborative and less confrontational relationship between business and labour, which is certainly not exemplified in this latest tactic against our business community.

"There are a number of key points to remember. This issue is not about unions; it's about bad public policy. The provincial government's proposed labour legislation is flawed. It hurts the rights of workers and job creators alike by taking away their right to freely negotiate a collective agreement suited to their individual needs. B.C.'s Labour Code was completely overhauled in 1993 and is already more than fair to unions. No changes are needed."

I have another letter, hon. Speaker. The Canadian Home Builders Association. . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 9020 ]

This is a press release issued the day the bill was tabled. It's from the Canadian Home Builders Association of Kelowna. Ray Wynsouw, the president, said:

"B.C.'s Labour minister is wrong when he says the residential construction industry is exempt from the amendments introduced today to B.C.'s Labour Code.

"The Canadian Home Builders Association of Kelowna says the flaw in the minister's argument is that the typical home builder also performs work in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sectors of the industry targeted under the new legislation.

" 'Imagine a window installer whose crew works on a new retail space in the morning and then a residential subdivision in the afternoon,' says Ray Wynsouw, president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of Kelowna. 'The same crew does the same job on both projects. Residential workers would have to negotiate a separate agreement, but the likelihood is that all workers in the company would end up with the mandatory industry agreement that applies to all firms certified in the ICI. . . .' "

S. Hawkins: Just listen. He's had his time to talk, Hon. Speaker. I'm trying to read him what people are saying. Obviously he hasn't read this. If he would just listen. . . . We know that the businesses are feeling that no one listens, because they're running full-page ads to the Premier and to this government, saying: "We want the government to work with us, not against us. Stop your changes." I'm trying to put on the record for them what they're saying, because they don't feel they've been heard by this government.

I will read the last paragraph again, and I hope he listens this time:

" 'The same crew does the same job on both projects. Residential workers would have to negotiate a separate agreement, but the likelihood is that all workers in the company would end up with the mandatory industry agreement that applies to all firms certified in the ICI sector or something very similar,' he noted."

I've just seen a report that says that housing starts in May of this year were 42 percent lower than in the same month last year. It's from CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It came out on June 8, 1998. I'm trying to personalize this to my constituency. The monthly housing starts in Kelowna are half of what they were last year. Earlier we heard the Minister of Employment and Investment stand up and brag about Kelowna and how it's booming. You know what? That's in spite of this government. We have a lot of people in the valley who value individual enterprise. In spite of the heavy-handedness of this government and the red tape and regulation that they've imposed on business, in spite of the taxes they've imposed on businesses, and in spite of the labour burdens they've imposed on small business, those people are committed, and they're trying to make a go of it in my constituency.

But they can only go so far. What we've seen is that the housing starts are down by 50 percent compared to last year. It's 90 percent in other parts of the province. Campbell River is 90 percent down. That is shameful. We see people, as we heard earlier, voting with their feet. They're leaving this province, this beautiful province that you always thought people came to rather than left. I'm from a province that is relatively poor. I grew up in Saskatchewan, and I know what it's like to have to move away from home to find a job. I had to move away from Saskatchewan to find a job in Alberta. Then I came to B.C. seven years ago. When I came to B.C., there were no jobs here for me. I had to retrain, and I did retrain.

I feel for young people today, and I feel for displaced workers who find themselves in a position where they've always lived here. . . . This was the province that everyone came to; this was the land of prosperity and wealth. You know what? Guess where they're moving, hon. Speaker. They're moving to Alberta and to Saskatchewan.

And what did I read in the paper? People are moving to Winnipeg. Winnipeg is booming -- Winnipeg and Saskatchewan. They're moving to Saskatchewan -- and an NDP government, I might add, that has tabled its fifth balanced budget. You know what we've got here? We've got a government that has left its. . . . It's something historic. We always hear the government talking in historic terms. It's something historic for this province: the seventh deficit budget was tabled in this House in March of this year. It's unbelievable -- unbelievably shameful. That was historic.

I have other letters from constituents in my riding, and I sincerely hope I get the opportunity to stand up again and read some of their comments. Earlier, the minister had indicated in the House that he felt that he had heard some voices of reason. One of the voices of reason was that of Suromitra Sanatani, who happens to be the director of provincial affairs for the B.C.-Yukon chapter of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Here's a quote from this voice of reason, who the minister obviously thinks is a very reasonable person. She has a guest column in Mehfil Magazine, which is an Indo-Canadian magazine, in the June 1998 issue. I was fortunate enough to get it in the mail yesterday. She says:

"While other governments of various political stripes are getting their spending in line, the NDP in B.C. have brought in seven deficit budgets since being elected to office. Deficits mean more debt and taxes tomorrow. By contrast, Alberta's government rolled back the provincial income tax to 44 percent of the basic federal tax. Ontario's recent budget announced that the promised 30 percent income tax rates are coming ahead of schedule, and both Saskatchewan and Manitoba have announced income tax cuts of 2 percentage points. The fact that Saskatchewan. . . ."

S. Hawkins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm sure I'll get an opportunity to stand up and speak again, and I'll make sure I raise some of the voices from the constituency. I will not be supporting this bill.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The minister will come to order.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. de Jong: Just over a year ago I had the pleasure of attending at the Mennonite Educational Institute when that facility was opened. Today I have even more pleasure introducing about 60 students, who are here with their teacher, Mr.

[ Page 9021 ]

The Speaker: In the debate, I recognize now the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: We're here today to talk about Bill 26. . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: Good.

R. Thorpe: But let's just step back, if we could, and see where we really are today in British Columbia.

Hon. D. Lovick: In other words, another speech that never mentions the bill -- right?

The Speaker: The minister will come to order.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry. My patience. . . .

The Speaker: The member has the floor. The minister will have an opportunity to rebut all these remarks at a later date. Member, continue.

R. Thorpe: Thank you, hon. Speaker; I do appreciate that. You know, the minister did say he was feeling ill earlier today, but now he's demonstrating that illness here. Perhaps he could relax and give his body a chance.

Anyhow, we are here, and I want to talk just a little bit about where we are today, and then I'll talk about where we're going. You know, it's about our economy. If we don't have a strong economy, how are we going to provide the schools for our children? How are we going to provide the hospitals for those who need care in the hospital? Under this government, we've seen our economy go from number one to number ten. We've seen unemployment rise to just under 10 percent, the highest west of Quebec and twice as high as any other western province. We see youth employment today just under 19 percent, the highest west of the Atlantic provinces. That is shameful, given the riches of this province.

[3:15]

Over the last four or five years, 391 businesses have left British Columbia. With that departure the capital goes, the entrepreneurial spirit goes and many of the skilled workers go, creating undue and unnecessary long-term hardship for the province of British Columbia. B.C. Stats, as was said earlier today, says that we now have our lowest migration since 1982, with a net loss of 3,500 people coming to British Columbia. What's happening is that 8,700 British Columbians are going to Alberta. It wasn't that long ago, hon. Speaker -- and I'm sure you can recall it -- that there was a slogan: "Go west." The slogan we hear in British Columbia today is: "Go east." How could one government led by one man do so much damage to this great province -- taking us from number one to number ten? What an accomplishment. What a sad, sad accomplishment.

What we should be doing, and what we should all understand. . . . It's about the economy; it's about jobs. But with this NDP government it's just broken promise after broken promise after broken promise. I don't want to get into the long list of broken promises. That's why so many British Columbians are so concerned about this bill: we never get the whole story with this government. Some people may recall the broken promises related to Bingogate or to Hydrogate or to two balanced budgets; the breaking of the Criminal Code of Canada; the promise to build new schools, which have never been built; the promise to reduce portables across British Columbia. In fact, they've increased 100 percent. But we don't hear this government talk about those broken promises, nor do we hear about the broken promise that they were going to cut waiting lists in hospitals. I know personally that this government has lengthened waiting lists in hospitals, because I deal with constituents every day that are ignored by this government.

I'm not talking about those broken promises. But what about the promise that was made in the most recent throne speech: "These challenges call for a renewed commitment on the part of government to listen to British Columbians"? We have to ask ourselves: is this government really listening to British Columbians? Are they listening to the small and medium-sized business owners who will create the jobs in the future? I look forward to the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, who committed -- on February 26, 1998, in Kelowna -- to be a strong advocate for small and medium-sized businesses in the province of British Columbia. . . . I hope he has more courage than he did with Bill 14. I challenge him to come into this House and defend those small and medium-sized businesses against Bill 26. Let us see if the man who made the statement on February 26, 1998, in Kelowna is really going to advocate for those small and medium-sized business owners. Let us see if he will stand up with this opposition and with the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who are asking that Bill 26 be stopped.

In the throne speech, hon. Speaker -- and I know that you're interested in this -- it says: "My government is determined to respond to these challenges by taking necessary steps to build a strong and competitive economy." That was the promise. More gobbledegook from this government and more broken promises.

Over the last few days, we've heard the minister talk about how proud he is of this bill and how he has truly consulted with British Columbians from the east to the west and from the north to the south, with small businesses and medium-sized businesses, and yes, even with some of his union friends. But just for the record, let's see what some of the small business organizations across British Columbia have said about changes to the Labour Code. Let us start with COTA, the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. I think it's important for the minister to listen to this: "No changes to the Labour Code."

Let's hear what the chambers of commerce throughout British Columbia had to say: "No changes to the Labour Code." Let's hear what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had to say: "No changes to the Labour Code." Let's listen to what the B.C. Real Estate Association said and to the thousands and thousands of individuals who work in that industry throughout British Columbia and who represent the families who aspire to have homes, who represent the families who want to sell their homes and perhaps move into new homes: "Any changes to the Labour Code will negatively impact housing affordability." That's not what we need in British Columbia today.

Interjection.

[ Page 9022 ]

What did the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia say? "No changes to the Labour Code." Let us listen to what the Restaurant and Foodservices Association of B.C. said: "No changes to the Labour Code."

Before some of the members leave, perhaps they want to listen to what an organization from. . . . Let me see. What riding is this from? Oh, Kootenay -- a government-held riding. Let us see what they had to say. "Is it any wonder that British Columbia is finding it increasingly difficult to encourage the establishment, retention or expansion of businesses when business persons and entrepreneurs are faced with such a regulatory climate as the government" -- this was written to a government member -- "of which you are a member, has created?" They say in their closing paragraph -- as some members leave the House: "Stop tinkering with regulations for purely political purposes, and let's get down to returning B.C. to its rightful place as one of the engines of Canada's economy, instead of its current placing at the bottom of the provincial economic activity heap." That is from the Sparwood and District Chamber of Commerce. That was written to the member for Kootenay, and we look forward to the member coming in and speaking on behalf of her constituents. I'm sure she'll want to read that letter into the record.

Let me make a few comments on what people in the riding of Okanagan-Penticton are saying. I listened to the people in my riding, and I sent them a notice asking them to "please share your views with me." Of course, I'm not going to identify any of these folks, because we know how this government works. Let me just quote: "I personally know of people who are not expanding their businesses or starting a business in B.C. due to the policies of this government."

Another one says: "Small business cannot afford any more costs. Please reduce, not increase our costs." Another one goes on to say: "It rules out any new jobs as promised and will curtail new enterprises." Another small business operator says: "Increased cost and regulation and the threat of unionization are extremely detrimental to the survival of small businesses like ours." Another one I'd quote is: "This could put some small businesses out of business. Small business cannot afford this extra cost." This is what constituents in the riding of Okanagan-Penticton are saying to this government; these are the messages that my constituents have asked me to bring into this House and share with the government.

The last one from my riding that I'd just like to read into the record is: "This just adds to the overburden imposed by our Big Brother provincial government. . .to impose on all businesses, showing the lack of foresight and uncaring attitude this government practises." Quite frankly, that is shameful.

And now today -- and my colleague from Kelowna mentioned it earlier -- in the paper in Penticton, the builders -- the people who are actually in the business of building homes, who understand what is happening. . . . These are not fearmongering people; these are people that are working hard every day to look after their families.

An Hon. Member: You're fearmongering.

R. Thorpe: I'm reporting the facts, if the hon. minister would like to listen.

Let me just say that the Canadian Home Builders Association for the South Okanagan -- and I have attended many of their meetings, and I know many of these individuals -- are saying that the cost of houses could go up 15 percent. We have the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec, thousands are moving to Alberta, housing starts are down and now this government has the gall to not even listen to the people that do it for a living. That's unacceptable. The gentleman who leads this organization goes on to say: "We see that this is just the thin edge of the wedge that will ultimately migrate right across the board to the home-building industry as well. This legislation is totally unwarranted, and it will just undermine the affordability of housing in the province."

If this government would get off its pedestal. . . . They think that they're looking after the working people of British Columbia when in fact it is them, that NDP government, that is penalizing and destroying the dreams of young people and people who aspire to have a nice home for their families. This is a government that promised to listen, but who did they listen to? If you are a small or medium-sized business owner, the NDP did not hear your voice, nor do they care. It's just another broken promise in a list of broken promises. And we know where that list started -- but we're not going to get into the finances of the province now; we'll have opportunities later.

I've given you but a few voices calling for this NDP government to stop Bill 26 and the payoff -- the payoff to the nineteenth member of the cabinet.

What are the major investment papers of the world saying? You know, there's two that are very highly respected. When you mention the American ones, of course, the government goes kind of snafuey on you over there. . .

An Hon. Member: A little sensitive.

R. Thorpe: . . .a little sensitive, because they have a hard time dealing with the facts. But you know, we do live in a global community; there is competition for the investment.

[3:30]

You have to understand the importance of the Wall Street Journal. All the major investment dealers in the world read this each and every day. All the leaders of major companies that are searching the world for locations to invest in read this paper every day. The last paragraph is, to say the least, depressing: "But many remain troubled by the province's track record and its continuing budget deficit. 'Until the government does an about-face on high taxes and [restrictive] labour laws, I think its actions are window dressing. . . .' " That's the Wall Street Journal. I bet you that really makes global investment players feel comfortable about coming to British Columbia.

Remember, hon. Speaker, why we need that investment -- because when people invest today, it creates jobs tomorrow. And when we have jobs tomorrow, people pay taxes. It reduces our social costs, but more importantly it helps us

[ Page 9023 ]

Often you get attacked when you just quote from the New York papers. So let us see what the Financial Post -- the premier investment paper in Canada -- is saying. The headline says: "Rocky Labour Relations Cloud B.C.'s Business Climate." Well, isn't that just going to make all the investors across Canada rush out here tomorrow and put more money into our economy. It closes: "The government would have been wise just to leave its labour laws alone and spend that political energy on issues that would improve the business climate."

But of course, they choose not to do that. They choose to drive our economy down from number one to number ten. They choose to continually drive down working people and families of British Columbia's standard of living. It should be going up, not down, but it's going down under this government and its policies. What's happening to people's take-home pay? Down and down and down. At the same time, this government increases fees and fees and fees. They are not looking after working people. In fact, they are abusing the working people of British Columbia. Taxes continue to go up, and of course, the saddest reality of all is they do not understand the economy. They do not understand business; they do not understand what investment is. Thus, we have the results that we have: a disaster here in British Columbia today.

The minister talked about a balanced approach, about a reasonable approach, about a modest approach. He talked about trust; he talked about promise. If it could only be so. But it can't be so, because we know the record of this government. We know that this government has lost the trust of British Columbians. We know that it's not if they're going to break another promise; the question is when. We know that the promise in this Bill 26 is not a promise. We know that this government will break it.

You know, there was a cartoon in the paper. . . . I think it was the late Premier who said that they couldn't run a peanut stand. I realize the current operator of the NDP peanut stand doesn't understand how to run a business or build a business. But he does know how to destroy a business and that very well could be from eating the peanuts himself. But surely the NDP and the Premier understand that it's about investments for jobs. Surely they understand that no investment means no new jobs. And surely they understand that we need those new jobs to protect health care and education. Or is it the goal of this socialist government to ensure that there is no new investment in British Columbia and that there are no new jobs created in British Columbia? These very policies haven't worked in countries like Russia or Cuba, and they certainly aren't working here in British Columbia.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: Some members over there laugh. Well, James Carville said: "It's the economy, stupid." Perhaps some of the government members should be listening to James Carville. It's the economy, stupid!

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: It's too bad that you don't understand. I guess that's why you now have a new portfolio.

If it's not broken, why is this government going ahead and trying to fix something that's not broken? Why are they doing that? Is it political? Surely it's not because of the politics. Surely this government is not just doing this to shore up its leader and the Premier within his own constituency group. Surely it's not because these are the folks that financed his leadership campaign. Surely we're not putting the whole province at risk because of that. Are we?

So often in this debate they selectively they use what used to be the dreaded A-word; now they selectively use the A-word when it's appropriate for them -- and it is "Alberta." And they talk about how we're so comparable to Alberta. But they don't talk about the secret ballot, do they? I don't understand this government that's supposed to be for working people. That's what they say. So why are they against a secret ballot? It's part of democracy. What part of democracy are they against?

So it's not really about the Labour Code of Alberta. Or, as one of my colleagues said earlier, "Just bring it on over, and let's put her in," and perhaps we will get $40 billion in investment. But the way we're going now, we're just going south and south. As I said earlier, the old adage of going west to get a job, to get your future, is now go east. Go east to get a job. That's very, very troubling for the young people of British Columbia.

In my community of Summerland, and in Peachland and Penticton and Naramata, more and more of our young people are having to go to Edmonton and to Calgary. When I was home this weekend talking to people about this bill, I was most disturbed when I heard of three major companies in my riding -- three major companies -- that are so fed up with the actions of this government that they are seriously thinking of moving -- two to Alberta and one to Washington State. And that's wrong. Because who is hurt in all of that? The entrepreneurs, the investors, they're going to survive. But all three businesses are union plants, and those workers are the workers that are going to be put out of work. Their families are going to have to face hardships. That is wrong.

I hope as we continue through this debate that we will see this government start to listen; that they will want to show British Columbians that this is not about politics, that this is really about caring about British Columbians and British Columbia families and caring about the unemployed youth and the unemployed families of British Columbia, caring about the growing wait-lists in our health care system and caring about undue hardships that are being put on people in the British Columbia education system. Surely this government will come to its senses about the son of Bill 44 and do the right thing with this bill, which they did last year with Bill 44 -- and that's to withdraw it. If they are truly listening to British Columbians -- not just listening to their friends but truly, truly listening to British Columbians -- they will withdraw Bill 26, because we do not need that in British Columbia right now. People are telling us that the investment climate does not need this negative impact.

The issue is not just Bill 26; more importantly, it's about what we should all be doing: focusing our resources on the economy, creating jobs and creating an investment climate for today and for tomorrow. This government must stop their policies now. It's about giving to families in British Columbia. It's about giving families a chance to get to work so that they can provide for their children. Surely they can get over the fact that they must stop their politics and that they must stop now.

Bill 26 is the thin edge of the wedge. The Premier and the NDP know they can't impose Ken Georgetti's entire agenda all at once, so they are imposing it piece by piece. Our economy here in B.C. is on life support, and introducing Labour

[ Page 9024 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: You know, I'm sitting here listening to the members opposite, particularly the member who just finished speaking, and I'm wondering if we're talking about the same bill. One would think, listening to them, that the sky is falling. Chicken Little says: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." Well, hon. Speaker, this does not apply to a vast majority of the sector that the member was talking about.

This bill -- Bill 26 -- applies to the part of the construction industry called industrial, commercial and institutional. ICI construction workers build sawmills, schools, hospitals, shopping malls and office buildings. They do not -- I repeat, they do not -- build condos or houses or roads. When you listen to the members opposite, they try to instil an element of fear in every taxpayer and homeowner out there -- the thought that they too could see their housing costs rise in the province. Well, it just isn't so.

[3:45]

In 1996 the member for Vancouver-Quilchena stated: "This government should rewrite the Labour Code to recognize that the vast majority of workplaces enjoy a cooperative spirit between labour and management, and it's not the class warfare that the union organizers in this province are trying to perpetuate." [Applause.] It's amazing that the members over there actually applaud this. There's four of them sitting there, and four of them applaud this. I'm sure they would all be applauding the fact that they see union organizers as people who are trying to perpetuate class warfare.

I happen to be someone who believes that the union organizations in this province have done a tremendous amount to assist workers, a tremendous amount to assist workplaces be safer and a lot to help get better wages for individuals, and yet the members opposite would like to see us go back to the days when management had all the rights and workers had nothing. Bills 19 and 20 tried to do some of that, and we corrected that when we brought in the changes to the Labour Code.

You heard the previous member asking: "Why aren't you listening to the people?" Well, this legislation came about as a result of recommendations from an independent panel that consulted widely with B.C. employers, workers and communities. Had they come out with something that was different from this, something that said, "We are going to eliminate all unions," then the members opposite would be saying: "Implement that; let's do that. Why are you holding back on those recommendations? Why are you letting this report sit on the back shelves?" But they came up with sound recommendations that address issues that the construction industry, the workers in the construction industry have been dealing with for years. Clearly anybody that knows what goes on in the construction industry and knows what goes on with workers in the unionized work forces in the industry recognizes that you can do all the work you want, that you can get the workers signed up, that you can have a majority, that you can have virtually every single employee on that site saying that they want to become a member of that union, but if they are unable to get a contract during the phase of work that that construction is in on that site, then it's gone. This brings into British Columbia the same rights that the unionized employees have in Alberta -- amazing! It's amazing that suddenly it's not good enough for British Columbia even though it happens in Alberta.

The member before me asked: "Who have they spoken to?" Well, what about asking who they have spoken to? What about the CLRA, which is the Construction Labour Relations Association -- the employers of the unionized workers? What about them? They say that this is good legislation and that it should have been in place a long time ago. But did the members opposite talk to them? Do they relate to them? No. What about the unionized workforce? Do they talk to them? No, they don't talk to them. Do they talk to the Building Trades Council? No. In fact, the member who spoke just before me presented a petition in the House today, but he failed to tell us who put that petition in his hands. Where did that petition come from? The members opposite never miss an opportunity to tell us what petition they have, where it came from, who they're representing and what point of view they have, but for some reason or another they failed to do this. I'd like to hear them speak up on behalf of the unionized construction workforce. I'd like to hear them saying what they are telling them, what the Building Trades Council people are telling them. Are they saying: "Oppose this bill"? No.

If you want to listen to some people, listen to everybody. That is what the review team did. The Kelleher-Lanyon team went out and listened to employers, unionized construction workers, employees and the general public. They came forth with recommendations that we're implementing. I'm proud of the fact that we are actually implementing recommendations that came from that report.

Hon. Speaker, this is not the type of legislation that the members opposite would have you believe. This is not going to destroy the economic climate in the province of British Columbia. This merely says that workers who have decided that they want to unionize and who have made that clear by signing their union cards have a contract once they have unionized -- once they are recognized as having a contract, the same standard contract that is in other sectors out there. This is not draconian legislation; this is legislation which exists in Alberta and Ontario. It's good legislation that will assist each and every worker out there.

I wish just for once that the members opposite would not make this into a political game, that they would not take the futures of workers in British Columbia and make them into a political game for themselves. That is what they are doing. This is not draconian legislation. This legislation is not the

[ Page 9025 ]

It really is quite horrendous when you hear the type of fearmongering that is going on by the members opposite, with them trying to imply that people's houses are going to be expensive to do, that condos are going to be expensive, that nobody's going to be able to afford to build or to purchase in British Columbia anymore. That's just not true. I wish that the members opposite would read this bill and recognize that the changes being made to the Labour Code are modest and stand up for the workers in the province for once. Put aside your anti-union hats and stand up for the workers of British Columbia. If the members opposite would for once show that they weren't anti-union and that they didn't take the stand the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena did, who clearly believes that unions are draconian organizations, if they would recognize just once the good work that has gone on by unions, work that has made the lives of workers in British Columbia better, I think we would all be better off in this House.

This is good legislation and modest legislation. I will be supporting it, as will all my colleagues. I trust that some of those over there may actually have the strength of mind to recognize a piece of good legislation and stand up to their colleagues and vote in favour of this, not just oppose it because it happens to be something that comes from this government.

B. Barisoff: I rise today to speak on Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998. Unfortunately, it would be impossible for me to support this legislation for a number of very good reasons. I believe that most of the reasons just reflect good old-fashioned common sense. I think the member before me, the Minister for Children and Families, said that we are against unions. That's not true, hon. Speaker. We're looking for the economy of British Columbia to improve.

I'd like to review the reasons and the rationale for my statements in the hope that I can convince the Minister of Labour and government to reconsider their position. Here are some of the top ten reasons for opposing this legislation. The first one is that it's a one-size-fits-all approach. It's bad for labour. It's bad for business. It's bad timing. It's undemocratic. It's behind the times. It's misleading. It's destructive. It's insensitive. And it's simply unnecessary. But that's consistent with the way the NDP operates.

Bill 26, the one-size-fits-all approach, will dramatically expand the power of unions in the industrial, commercial and institutional construction sectors. The new law makes it easier for trade unions to recruit new members by allowing them to offer a single standard collective agreement rather than requiring a newly organized unit to negotiate a contract from scratch. Mandatory sectoral bargaining means that any employer in a specified sector that is unionized or becomes unionized will be forced to accept a one-size-fits-all, industrywide collective agreement. That's what we're against, hon. Speaker: a one-size-fits-all approach.

An Hon. Member: You're just against the workers.

B. Barisoff: No, we're not against workers. The member across the way says we're against workers, but we're not. I think the members on that side of the House are against workers.

According to the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, there's another alternative, and I quote:

"In a modern economy, companies and workers succeed when labour relations decisions are made in a cooperative fashion, from the bottom up" -- not from the top down. "Using this cooperative approach, collective bargaining works best when an individual company and its employees negotiate an agreement that is specifically tailored to their unique circumstances, such as location, customers, work schedules, etc."

The construction industry does not need a one-size-fits-all contract. What they need is exactly the opposite. The government is acting against the recommendations of experts in the labour relations field. I think the member who spoke previous to me mentioned that Vince Ready and Stephen Kelleher made some decisions. In 1996 labour mediators Stephen Kelleher and Vince Ready wrote a report on the construction industry. They concluded that "sectoral bargaining should not be imposed on the construction industry or any other industry." For the members across the way, I might just read that again: they concluded that "sectoral bargaining should not be imposed on the construction industry or any other industry." This is sectoral bargaining. Whether you like it or not, that's exactly what it is.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: Well, it is. The member across the way wants me to explain that it is sectoral bargaining. When you're making a contract for one section of the economy, it's sectoral bargaining.

An Hon. Member: One-size-fits-all.

B. Barisoff: That's exactly it. I quote: "One size does not fit all." In fact, the economy is moving in the opposite direction. Increasingly, contractors and unions are making contractual arrangements on a project-by-project basis, so the taxpayers of British Columbia can get the best deal, the best bang for their buck. We know on that side of the House, with the Island Highway, which cost an extra quarter of a billion dollars. . . . Can you imagine what could have been done in this province with a quarter of a billion dollars?

G. Janssen: What happened to those $500 million you were spending on the Coquihalla?

B. Barisoff: Imagine what could have been done in the north, in Peace River North and Peace River South with a quarter of a billion dollars.

G. Janssen: Five hundred million on the Coquihalla.

[4:00]

[ Page 9026 ]

Somebody wants to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.

I. Chong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave approved.

I. Chong: Joining us today and listening to this debate -- with much interest, I might add -- are 28 visitors from the University of Victoria ESL program, along with their instructor, Ms. Sherri Williams. I met with them earlier, and I know that they're quite keen on seeing the proceedings today. They asked me what legislation we'd be debating, and I expressed to them that it would be a very enlightening process. They're joining us now, and I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

B. Barisoff: There's no doubt that it will be an enlightening process when you see what happens with the members on the other side of the House.

Another committee made a recommendation that the sectoral bargaining model as envisioned in Bill 44 does not provide solutions to the problems facing the industry. The member prior to me from the opposite side of the House indicated that Bill 44 is something that they took away. They only took that away because this side of the House pushed and pushed. Bill 26 is no better than Bill 44. It leads in the same direction. Nobody wants sectoral bargaining. No one is recommending it. Why is this government pursuing it? It's an avenue they want to go down. It's payback time for all the money that was donated by the big unions to get them elected. Perhaps the answer to the question will become apparent as we move along. One thing is very clear: one size simply isn't going to fit. No matter how we look at it, one size doesn't fit.

Now, the other side of the House, the government, talks about how much this is good for labour. But you know, Bill 26 is bad for labour in British Columbia. Any piece of legislation that will ultimately undermine the investment climate of British Columbia and eliminate jobs is not good for labour. I don't care whose books you look at. When you start eliminating investment, you eliminate jobs. It doesn't matter. . . . There are no jobs for people; it's not good for labour.

An Hon. Member: What's Alberta got?

B. Barisoff: Alberta's got jobs. I'm actually glad that you mentioned that, because the other members have mentioned that Alberta had people in Campbell River last week recruiting people to leave British Columbia because there's actual work in Alberta.

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: No one is against labour unions. But common sense dictates that bad labour laws which undermine the collective bargaining system aren't in anyone's best interest. By supporting the legislation, organized labour is essentially saying that it's okay to take the rights away from the individual companies and their employees to freely negotiate their own collective agreements. Hon. Speaker, you tell me how this is good for labour. I'm sure the people out there understand that this is not good for labour. If you take away the investment climate, it's not good for labour.

Will the B.C. Federation of Labour and the building trades unions say that this legislation is necessary to increase the rate of unionization in B.C.? Well, let's just look back and see what's been said. In a speech to the Steelworkers convention in April, Ken Georgetti said that his goal is to see 60 percent of the B.C. labour force unionized. That's interesting. In fact, B.C. already has a higher rate of unionization than the Canadian average. Workers already have more than adequate protection to join unions.

This claim by Mr. Georgetti ignores some of the obvious trends that are taking place in the B.C. economy. For more than a decade large unionized businesses, such as those in the resource sector, have been downsizing, thereby reducing overall union representation. About 20 percent of B.C.'s labour force is now self-employed. This sector is almost entirely non-union, and it continues to grow. Self employment in B.C. has grown by 4.1 percent in the last year. Do you think this labour legislation doesn't affect small business? Well, when you see the growth in self-employment, it does affect small business; it has to.

Since the 1992 changes to the B.C. Labour Code, there has been a significant trend toward greater unionization in small and medium-sized businesses. Seventy-seven percent of British Columbians believe that workers should have the right to a secret ballot vote on the issue of union certification. Now these people have been saying that we should jump at the Alberta model. I think the Alberta model has in it that a secret ballot will take place. I don't hear the members commenting on that. They seem to be silent when we talk about this. They say: "Adopt the Alberta model." The Alberta model does have the secret ballot. That's the heart of democracy. But we don't have this in Bill 26, in this labour legislation.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: No, no, no. We don't have it in this labour legislation. You were the ones who were throwing up the big "A" word -- Alberta.

The Speaker: Through the Chair, please, members.

B. Barisoff: Sorry, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: I'm just telling you that the Alberta legislation has the secret ballot. I think it's very important that we look at all these kinds of things.

So while overall unionization rates might not be growing as fast as organized labour would like, they are in fact doing well in the target market of small- and medium-sized businesses. Building trades unions have difficulty because they insist that employers sign a standard agreement which contains excessive and inflexible demands for wages, benefits and work jurisdiction. That's sectoral bargaining. Whether you like it or not -- you can cut it any way you want it -- that is strictly sectoral bargaining. It makes it impossible for many businesses to compete for work. If the building trades unions, like other unions, were willing to negotiate collective agreements that are customized to the needs of the employers and employees, they wouldn't need the government's help. But

[ Page 9027 ]

An Hon. Member: It's not modest.

B. Barisoff: As a member on this side of the House said, it's not modest. We agree that it's not modest. It's the thin edge of the wedge.

The fact that this government is moving to impose a standard agreement on employers shows an extreme lack of faith and commitment to those who create jobs in this province. It also shows contempt for the consumer. Investment isn't going to come to this province if we continue down this path.

Let me share some facts, and throw some water on the argument of organized labour, particularly on some of the arguments of Mr. Georgetti. B.C.'s workplaces have unionized at an average rate of more than one per day; 54 percent of workplaces of between one and ten employees are now being unionized.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: I didn't say it was bad, hon. Speaker. What I'm trying to say is that that's what's happening here. So why do we need this legislation? It seems like, for whatever reason, this is happening without this legislation, as the Minister of Labour keeps talking about. "It's just a modest change; it's not very much. We really don't have to worry about this stuff. It's a modest change, but let it be. Over 90 percent of all new union certifications in the past five years have occurred in workplaces of 50 employees or fewer. The average size of workplace being certified is about 23 employees. Of the more than 400 union certifications granted by the LRB in 1997, 25 percent are in the construction industry. Now we're beginning to see why the Minister of Labour, with these modest changes, is trying to make things happen. Another 26 percent of new union certifications were in service-related industries, including the retail, accommodations, and food and beverage sectors.

So who is organized labour trying to kid when they say this legislation is required to increase the rate of unionization? I think this is purely payback time, by the Minister of Labour and probably the Premier of the province, for some of the things that happened in the last election. They must be fooling the Minister of Labour and the Premier, though, but it just doesn't wash on this side of the House. We're not prepared to let small business in this province go by the wayside because the Minister of Labour and the Premier have to pay some debts that they owe to some of the labour movement.

The way I see it is that it isn't good for labour because it will accomplish just the opposite of job creation. When you take the investment away from the province, there are no jobs. We don't have to worry about labour. We've seen what this government has done to the forest industry -- it's brought it to its knees. Even with the billion-dollar FRBC fund, there's still not enough money to keep it going. Money's being wasted; mills are closing. It's disgraceful; what's taking place is simply disgraceful. It must be good for somebody -- probably Mr. Georgetti. He wants more union members. I think the members on that side of the House figure that's the only way they could get elected. And it's good for the Premier, who also needs the support from the labour movement. It's just common sense if you're trying to understand the real reason why Bill 26 is on the agenda. Shame!

Bill 26 is bad for business. We've all seen that. It's truly bad for business. Why is Bill 26 bad for business? It sends a message to the world -- the would-be investors in the world. The health of B.C.'s economy depends upon an open, vibrant construction industry. Bill 26 does exactly the opposite. It does not do those kinds of things. Investment is going to leave the province of British Columbia. We're seeing it happen every day. The cost of the B.C. government's fair-wage law has already eliminated some 5,500 construction jobs over the past six years, according to the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. It raises. . . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: Hon. Speaker, the member from the opposite side of the House said: "Who said?" The Coalition of B.C. Businesses said. We've lost 5,500 jobs in the construction industry in the last six years. It raises the cost of public construction through mandatory wage and benefit rates that are above the market rates. We've seen that in spades on the Island Highway, a highway that's cost a quarter of a billion dollars extra. I mentioned that earlier in my speech, but it's worth mentioning again -- about how much we have wasted on that. How many roads could have been built in the province of British Columbia? In listening throughout the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, people from both sides of the House were complaining about their areas and the number of roads that aren't being done. But we saw fit to waste a quarter of a billion dollars on the Island Highway.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: I don't think that the people were working for nothing. I think what happens is that we don't have the competitiveness in bidding for jobs.

The minimum wage is a benefit raise for unskilled help on fair-wage projects. . . . Listen to this: for unskilled help, the fair-wage projects are $23.90 per hour. Now, for the people out there that are wondering where some of our money is going in government, an unskilled labourer on a fair-wage project gets $23.90 per hour. That doesn't include any benefits; that's just simply the market wage. Now, you wonder why we can't build highways? That's because we're spending money like. . . .

An Hon. Member: What would an MLA's salary work out to? Or do you think you're worth more than they are?

[4:15]

The government says that residential construction is exempt from the sectoral system, but in fact, many firms that work in residential areas also work in light industrial or commercial construction and may be affected by this agreement. A building that has retail stores or offices on the ground floor and apartments above is an example of a type of building that would likely be subject to sectoral bargaining. These

[ Page 9028 ]

The previous speakers have said that no, it doesn't affect residential construction. But we see a lot of buildings nowadays where all the bottom floors are commercial. Are we going to tell people after they get to the second, third or fourth floor, where the residential part starts: "Now we're going to pay you a different wage. We can't have the same thing"?

B.C. already has the highest housing costs in Canada, so adopting a master agreement plan will only make it worse. It certainly will not improve the situation. Housing will become less affordable. We're having a hard time with housing in British Columbia as it is, but it will become a lot less affordable when Bill 26 is imposed upon us.

So what happens next? I strongly suspect that this government will try to expand sectoral bargaining, because the precedent will already be set. The Federation of Labour is pushing for it, and it's clear from the introduction of Bill 44 last year that this government agrees with it. If the government hadn't brought in Bill 44 last year. . . . It got left by the wayside because of the public outcry. It was truly a public outcry -- from business, from everybody. This is just the start. Bill 26 is the fat-free version of Bill 44: "If the people won't accept Bill 44, then why don't we give them Bill 26?" It will be a little slower, but they'll eventually get what they want.

I see the Minister of Labour is here. I'm sure he'll be listening to that -- the fat-free version of Bill 44. That's talking directly to the bill.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: It's simply a backdoor approach. It's bad for business, it's bad for investors, and it's really bad for the economy. Bill 26 is bad for the economy of British Columbia, and I hope the Minister of Labour is listening, because it truly is bad. These are the kinds of things that are going to drive investment out of this province.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: No, I'm just telling you the honest truth. The fact is that it's going to drive investment out. Without investment, we don't have jobs.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: Yeah, we won't be able to build hospitals and schools, because we won't have any money to do that. Our economy, which is truly on the brink of a full-blown, made-in-B.C. recession and is an economy that was envied across Canada, is now number ten. It's hard to believe that just a few short years ago we were number one in Canada. Since the NDP took power in '91, we have gone from number one to number ten. That's a sad commentary about what takes place in British Columbia.

I think the member for Okanagan-Penticton was speaking about how it used to be: "Go west, young man. Go west; you'll find a job." Now you don't have a hope of finding a job. Young people are leaving British Columbia. Where I live in the Okanagan, when kids get out of school they head to Alberta. They have no opportunity to get a job here. They're absolutely heading to Alberta.

Friends of mine who are in the high-tech industry are saying that the university students coming out of school now are going across the line. They're not prepared to stay here and live with these draconian labour laws, as the Minister of Labour says. . . . They're not here to put up with the high tax rates. They take their skills and leave British Columbia. They head for Washington State; they're heading for all parts of the U.S. and other parts of Canada. It's a sad day when we have a made-in-B.C. recession.

H. Giesbrecht: You're starting to believe your own speech.

B. Barisoff: Well, it truly is. I do believe it, because it is a made-in-B.C. . . . Actually, it's a made-in-B.C.-by-the-NDP recession. It's more like that: made in B.C. by the NDP. That's a sad commentary about what's taking place in the province.

The Wall Street Journal ran a story recently about B.C.'s economy and how the socialist B.C. government is driving our economy into the ground and driving jobs out of the province. They're not driving them out of the province; they're taking them by the truckload and by the busload. It's unusual to command such negative attention, but it said: "Until the government does an about-face on high taxes and [restrictive] labour laws. . .its actions are [merely] window dressing."

It's merely window dressing, hon. Speaker, what's taking place here. When you get the Wall Street Journal telling us that people are leaving. . . . This is a major newspaper telling us why and what's happening. The socialist government. . . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: We are in shock.

It's driving the young people away from British Columbia. We don't have jobs for them anymore; they're heading away -- window dressing.

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: Would that be the same as the Premier holding an economic summit around the province and asking for input, and then introducing Bill 26?

I was at the economic summit in Kamloops. The groups up there said: "Listen, we can't have any more red tape; we need less red tape. We don't need tougher labour legislation; eliminate that stuff." Why did we go to the economic summit in Kamloops, when the Premier -- immediately when we get back -- introduces Bill 26? We wonder why. Was he listening? I mentioned in my local paper, the Osoyoos Times, that it was simply a photo op for the Premier. Members from the other side of the House criticized; they said: "How could you say that? How could you say it was a photo op for the Premier?" Well, I was proven right, because of what takes place here. Everybody at that summit was saying: "Don't do these kinds of things." What did they do? The Minister of Labour, a few weeks later, brought in Bill 26. If he was listening to people from the interior, he certainly wouldn't have brought in Bill 26. So all we can surmise from that is that it was a photo op for the Premier: "I'll invite everybody up to Kamloops, and we're going to listen to the people of British Columbia."

But the government didn't listen. This side of the House was listening. We tried to tell the members from the government what was being said. Everybody was there listening. But all of a sudden what happens is that we get the Bill 26 Labour Code amendments. Unbelievable, simply unbelievable!

Everywhere the Premier went, the same message was delivered: "Stop destroying our economy with high taxes, red

[ Page 9029 ]

Was he listening? Is he listening now? I think he is. I think it's starting to sink in a little bit there. He's got that smile on his face; we're starting to see some movement.

An Hon. Member: You move me to laughter.

B. Barisoff: Unfortunately, their actions speak louder than words. They responded by introducing Bill 26 -- another decision that will ultimately take the construction industry the way of the forest industry and the mining industry. It's sad to think. . . . I happen to be the Agriculture critic. On Agriculture Day they had people here saying: "We're now No. 2 in the province." You know why they're No. 2? It's not because they've done any more and gone ahead of mining; it's because mining has almost been destroyed in this province. They haven't gone anywhere. They're destroying the province one step at a time, and Bill 26 is the start of one step at a time.

Hon. Speaker, I guess I have to close. I thought I would get through. I've got about another six or eight points to make, but I see that the red light is on. I'm sure I will get an opportunity to speak again.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Chilliwack.

Another point of order, member for Alberni?

G. Janssen: Not actually, but the hon. member opposite was saying that he had some more points to make, and I ask the House to give leave that he be allowed to continue to make those points.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Chilliwack.

B. Penner: I wonder if we should put the member for Alberni's motion to the floor.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you have the floor.

B. Penner: I am certainly eager to hear what my colleague the member for Okanagan-Boundary has to say in addition to the excellent points he has already raised. However, I'm sure we'll have further opportunity in the days and weeks ahead, when my colleague the member for Okanagan-Boundary continues, to hear more examples of how Bill 26 will hurt British Columbia.

Today, though, it's my opportunity to address Bill 26 in principle. Most visitors to British Columbia, when they come to our province, think that we're blessed to live in what is truly the most beautiful part of the world. We have a generally mild climate, a pleasant population and a very skilled workforce. We're blessed to live in a province that, at least until very recently, has been the economic envy of virtually everyone. From the snow-capped mountains along the eastern and western extremes to the roaring rivers and majestic forests, B.C. combines physical beauty with industry and economic know-how.

But as most British Columbians know, all is not well. B.C. has gone from being number one in economic growth in Canada to being dead-last under this NDP government. While the rest of Canada and the United States are enjoying an economic boom, B.C. is teetering on the brink of recession. In fact, if you speak to most small business people in your hometown, they will tell you that they believe we are already in a recession. For individuals in our province like my friends and neighbours, this is felt in terms of fear for their jobs, trouble paying their bills and, ultimately, reduced opportunities for their children. B.C.'s unemployment rate is already close to 10 percent -- almost twice as high as Alberta's and double the rate in Washington State.

What are we here to talk about today in Bill 26? Essentially, what Bill 26 does, in my view, is change the Labour Code so that there is one, and only one, contract for every project in the industrial, commercial and institutional construction sectors in this province which is built by a union contractor. It imposes a one-size-fits-all contract on an industry that desperately needs the opposite. They need more flexibility. Bill 26 means that if a contractor is unionized, the workers don't have to negotiate a first contract; it's simply imposed. This gives union organizers a leg up in recruiting new members, because they can point to an existing contract with existing wages that reflect previous employers' abilities to pay, not the current employer's ability to pay. That means less flexibility.

What's most frightening about all of this is that the NDP is acting against the recommendations of some of the top experts in labour relations in our province. In 1996, labour relations mediators Stephen Kelleher and Vince Ready wrote a report on the construction industry. These men are not B.C. Liberals. They are not seen as pro-business in any way. Yet the conclusion they came up with was that sectoral bargaining should not be imposed on the construction industry or any other industry. Their exact words were: "One size does not fit all. In fact, the industry is moving in the opposite direction. Increasingly, contractors and unions are making contractual arrangements on a project-by-project basis."

[4:30]

[ Page 9030 ]

Why, you may ask, doesn't Bill 26 recognize the economic realities we face in Canada, in North America and around the world, where employers are seeking greater flexibility? I'll tell you why. The NDP and the Glen Clark know where their loyalty lies. It's with Ken Georgetti, not with working people, consumers and investors -- and certainly not with small business operators.

I want to set the record straight. B.C. Liberals support the right of any group of workers to join a union by exercising their democratic rights, but democracy needs a secret ballot vote based on good balanced information. I don't know who could stand up and legitimately say that they were opposed to a secret ballot vote for any process. What's wrong with democracy? Who can be afraid of that? Who can be against it? Evidently, this government -- the NDP -- is against the secret ballot vote for certification. I think that does workers a disservice. What the NDP government is telling workers in British Columbia is that they know better, that they don't trust workers to make a decision in the secrecy of a ballot booth without somebody looking over their shoulder, twisting their arm and asking them to sign a union membership card. That's what this is about.

In Bill 26 we see that there will be sectoral master agreements that companies will not have the right to negotiate on before they are imposed. Therefore, if a company cannot afford one of these master agreements, it will be forced into bankruptcy. And the workers will pay a huge price; they will lose their jobs. That will be the impact of Bill 26. So much for standing up for workers. So much for helping the working class. How does it help the working class when B.C.'s unemployment rate keeps going up and workers have fewer opportunities to pursue employment? Are we looking at fewer choices for workers here in British Columbia? Is that what we really want?

The B.C. Liberal Party supports more choices for workers, more opportunity to find employment without leaving the province. I think it's in the best interests of workers and investors if they can freely negotiate a collective agreement that allows the workers to have fair working conditions and still allows the company to survive. It does nobody any good, particularly the workers, if you have the best contract in the world with all sorts of generous provisions but there's no business that's viable enough to pay for those benefits. If the business goes bust, so do the workers. That's not what we want to see in British Columbia, but that's what we have seen under this government with our unemployment rate going up consistently. It's almost 10 percent now.

In terms of putting things in further context, I am the youngest member of the official opposition, so I take a particular interest in the youth of this province and the difficulties this government has created for them when it comes time for them to look for work. According to an article that appeared in the Province dated May 28, 1998, the province's unadjusted jobless rate for young people between the ages of 15 and 24 stood at 19.7 percent in April. Where in Canada is the unemployment rate for young people higher than that? Is it Ontario? No. What about Quebec? Is the youth unemployment rate higher in Quebec than it is in British Columbia? No. B.C.'s youth unemployment rate is even higher than Quebec's. In fact, you have to go all the way to the Maritimes to find provinces in Atlantic Canada that have a youth unemployment rate that's higher than ours in British Columbia.

Is Bill 26 going to help that situation? I defy the Minister of Labour to tell us how Bill 26 will create one additional job in British Columbia. Tell me how it will help young people who are looking for work. I know that many young people, including my brother, when they got out of high school found their first job in the construction industry. That's where they often find meaningful employment with pretty good wages.

This legislation will do nothing to increase private sector employment in the construction industry in British Columbia. I think it will do the opposite, by raising costs and scaring away investment. It takes money to build projects, and without that money the projects don't get built. The money that goes into investments doesn't have to stay in British Columbia. Capital is fluid. Some people have said that capital is a coward. It goes where it's not afraid to go; it goes where it feels safe. At the present time capital and investment, the things that lead to real and lasting jobs, do not feel safe in British Columbia. It's leaving the province.

It's been said that British Columbia ranks sixth out of the six largest provinces in Canada, in terms of attracting private sector investment for large-scale capital projects. That is not good enough -- to be last place in attracting new investment. Without that new investment, young people in British Columbia don't have meaningful jobs to look forward to. I don't think the NDP can ever understand that. They're simply not intellectually or -- pardon me -- philosophically equipped to understand that equation: investment equals jobs.

In Alberta they have the lowest youth unemployment rate in Canada, yet they don't have any particular government-funded youth employment programs. In British Columbia we've got a government that spends millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars on television commercials and other forms of advertising, telling everybody what a great job they've done to increase job opportunities for young people. Yet in the amount of time that our Premier has been the Minister Responsible for Youth, the youth unemployment rate in British Columbia has gone from about 14 percent to almost 19 percent. That's the Premier's track record as Minister Responsible for Youth. He's driven them out of jobs, and he's driving them out of the province.

I know, for example, of a person who lives in my constituency, who told me not too long ago that he has quite candidly advised his children to actually leave British Columbia and go to the United States as they pursue their careers. His children are now at the stage where they've graduated from high school. One of them is already in university; another one is about to start university in September. He has come to the point where he's advising his children not to consider British Columbia as a place for their economic future. That is shameful. I hope the day never comes when I have to tell my children to leave British Columbia to find work.

That's not the way it was meant to be, and that's not the way it should be. We should be the most prosperous province in Canada. It wasn't that long ago that we were, but then, of course, the NDP came along, and layer by layer, policy by policy, piece of legislation by order-in-council, they drove business to its knees and scared away that capital to other places in North America.

Do you know that British Columbia has the highest marginal tax rates in North America? It's not just compared to all the other provinces of Canada but to all 50 states of the United States as well. We have the highest marginal tax rates in North

[ Page 9031 ]

I've argued with people in my constituency to please hang on, to please not leave. Have some hope; show some faith. We will defeat the NDP, and we'll be able to restore economic prosperity to our province. Not everybody has the patience to survive year after year of NDP bungling and incompetence, mismanagement, higher taxes, greater fees, more red tape and more WCB regulations.

For example, the largest dairy farm in British Columbia, owned by the Tenbrinkes, is located in Chilliwack. Guess what they've done. They're moving their operation to Alberta. The single largest dairy farm in all of British Columbia is going to Alberta. They've been driven out of B.C. and Chilliwack by this government, and I'm angry about it. They should be in Chilliwack creating jobs for their young children and for the other young people who live in my community, but instead they've decided they've had enough. They've waited seven years for the NDP to get the message that more taxes, more rules, more red tape, more government meddling and more interference doesn't work, but the NDP hasn't got that message. So they're leaving; they're packing their bags; as we speak, they're investing in Alberta. They're creating jobs in Alberta. They're moving their skill, their know-how and their family history to Alberta. It's gone. We have lost it, and it's a real loss. Between them, the four Tenbrinke brothers have an incredible amount of know-how and skill at running a business. After all, farming is a business. They've upped and left for Alberta, leaving us without that base of knowledge.

What can we do? In opposition, it's frustrating. We try to put forward constructive arguments and constructive solutions: lower the taxes, give people a break; get off the backs of investors; quit meddling; quit thinking that you know better than individuals how to run their lives. But they're not listening, and the result is that people are voting with their feet. That's a fact. While I'm on that topic, it came to light today, according to B.C. stats dated June 19, 1998, that for the first time since the mid-eighties British Columbia had a net outflow of people to the rest of Canada, with a loss of 3,555 people in the first quarter. It should not be that way. We can remember the days when people were flocking to British Columbia for the opportunity, as well as the lifestyle. That's gone, and the blame rests squarely with the other side of the House. The rest of North America is enjoying a boom, and B.C. is going bust.

Some people on the government side like to hide behind the Asian flu and say that the Asian economic crisis is the cause of the problems in British Columbia. What they conveniently forget to mention is that B.C.'s economic downhill slide started long before last fall's economic meltdown in Japan and the rest of Asia. It has been happening for years. Long before the Asian economic flu hit, B.C. had dropped to last place in Canada in economic growth.

There are other places in North America that depend heavily on trade to the Pacific Rim. Washington State, Oregon and California come to mind -- to name only three. How are their economies doing? More particularly, what's their unemployment rate like? Well, in Washington State it's about 4 percent, and ditto for Oregon and California. In B.C., unemployment is at almost 10 percent. So much for a government the NDP likes to pretend cares about workers, when they're throwing workers out of work. It's ridiculous. Those other places in North America are continuing to prosper. There is some concern now, as the economic bite starts to take effect from Asia. But certainly in the past couple of years B.C.' s economic position has slipped continuously, and that occurred prior to the Asian economic problem. That's evidenced by those lower unemployment rates in places like Washington State, Oregon and California, which all export heavily to Asia. Those economies are booming, so we don't just have to talk about Alberta or even Ontario when we look for comparisons to how we are doing here in British Columbia.

We can remember a couple of months ago when the Premier said that maybe he'd learned the errors of his ways, that maybe his addiction to taxing and spending and borrowing and more red tape and more government meddling would have to come to an end and he would finally address his addiction to government interference and taxation. We remember the front page photograph of the Premier with leading business people in British Columbia, and the Premier saying that he had got the message. What was the message from those meetings with people like Jim Pattison?

[4:45]

As a result of those meetings, the Premier said that he got the message: "Lower taxes now. Don't touch the Labour Code." Well, that brings us to the provincial budget. What happened in the provincial budget? Let me just quote from the provincial budget -- the speech, that is. On page 8, the Minister of Finance said:

"Hon. Speaker, we recognize the need to cut red tape in British Columbia. We want to make it easier to do business, so that business can create jobs. . . . To help business work with government, a business advocate will be given the mandate to help streamline administrative and regulatory process. And to work on the unique issues faced by small businesses, a task force made up of business and government representatives will be asked to report to me" -- that's the Minister of Finance -- "by June 30" -- that's coming up any day now -- "on how to cut red tape, improve competitiveness and create jobs for British Columbians."

The Minister of Finance also said, on page 9 of her speech on budget day, that the government needed to take steps "to signal to investors and businesses -- people in B.C. and the rest of the world -- that you're welcome here and that B.C. is a good place to invest." What happened, after that kind of speech? It sounds good; it sounds interesting. On that very

[ Page 9032 ]

We've seen it before. We saw it in the last campaign, when they told British Columbians they had balanced the budget not once but twice. Yet within days after the election, the Premier said that he needed a little bit of wriggle room on the comment that the budget had been balanced. Later, more than a thousand pages of documentation obtained through freedom of information revealed that the government knew well in advance that they had no hope of balancing the budget, although they had told British Columbians that they had. That's shameful. That's the track record of this government when it comes to honesty. There's little reason to wonder why people had some questions when the Minister of Finance stood on budget day this year and said that she was committed to cutting red tape and taxes.

She also claimed on budget day -- and this further undermines her credibility -- that B.C. had a projected deficit for this coming year of only $95 million -- only $95 million. I think most people in British Columbia would be quite pleased to have $95 million and would consider themselves as having a lot of money. In any event, she said it would be only $95 million. Yet on page 33 of "Budget '98 Reports," we find that the summary financial statements deficit projected for 1998-99 is actually $949 million. That's almost $1 billion in deficit, when the Minister of Finance claimed it was one-tenth of that amount. So much for being forthright. No wonder British Columbians were skeptical when the Minister of Finance said, on the same day, that her government would be cutting red tape.

Let's take a look at the track record since that date, when the Minister of Finance said the government was committed to cutting red tape. We can go back -- and the Minister of Labour will remember this debate -- to when we had Bill 14, which brought in changes to the Workers Compensation Act. I went back to the debate on Bill 14, and I found a press release that the Minister of Finance had issued on budget day. This is what she said: ". . .red tape and overregulation have increased business costs and made B.C. less competitive." Yet shortly after that, the NDP contributed an additional burden to small business in the form of Bill 14.

I think it's kind of ironic, in a sad way, that the Minister of Finance appointed a small business task force -- the one I've mentioned -- on April 27 to find ways to reduce red tape, but on the very next day, April 28, introduced Bill 14 -- more rules, more regulation, more red tape for small business. Bill 14 will require all businesses with ten or more employees to have a designated safety representative and to pay those people for eight or more hours of training per year. Businesses with 20 or more employees -- like a restaurant, for example, which might have four full-time and 16 part-time employees -- will have to form health and safety committees. Each employee on the committee is entitled to eight hours of safety training at the employer's expense. Employers must pay for the equipment, pay for the premises and pay for the clerical personnel used by the committees. Other jurisdictions have tried this approach, but there's no evidence that that route led to fewer workplace injuries.

When we had this debate on Bill 14, it was clear that we all wanted safer workplaces, but it also became abundantly clear that this legislation was more about process, red tape and extra costs than it was about worker safety. That is what happened the day after. . .

Hon. D. Lovick: Because you think it so doesn't make it so.

B. Penner: . . .the Minister of Finance appointed the task force on small business to cut red tape.

The Minister of Labour thinks it's only me that had concerns about the amount of red tape in Bill 14. But in fact, I received a number of replies from businesses in my community, and it's increasing.

Interjection.

B. Penner: The volume is increasing.

Guess what small businesses are saying in my community. I remember a car dealer in Chilliwack with 21 employees. He wrote to me and said that because of this provision requiring a workplace safety committee with 20 employees or more, they will lay off two people to get below that limit -- to go from 21 employees to 19. That's the real, tangible impact of this government's red tape and meddling in British Columbia, violating their pledge on budget day to cut red tape. So much for honesty in government.

I remember a video store owner sending me a comment that said that in five years they had never, ever had a WCB claim as a result of a workplace injury taking place. But guess what. They're bound by this new law called Bill 14 to set up a workplace safety committee simply because they have a certain number of employees. They're caught by that arbitrary threshold that applies to all businesses, regardless of their track record of looking after their employees.

Interjection.

B. Penner: Well, the minister doesn't like to hear the reality, but that's the reality in British Columbia. I know there are MLAs around this House, all 75 of us, who are hearing from small businesses that say that this government's meddling, like in Bill 26 and in Bill 14 and in other pieces of legislation this session, is hurting their ability to create more jobs. What a message to send: hire fewer workers, and you won't be caught by the red tape. Boy, that's a real incentive to hire more workers. No wonder our unemployment rate in B.C. is at almost 10 percent -- more than double the rate in Washington State and almost double the rate in Alberta.

Well, it didn't end there, hon. Chair. This government's commitment to cutting red tape also seemed to fizzle out with Bill 19. What did Bill 19 do? Among other things, it introduced amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act and gave arbitrators dramatic new powers. Arbitrators who adjudicate disputes between tenants and landlords are now able to set aside an eviction notice if they think it would cause tenants "unreasonable hardship," no matter how valid the reason for issuing the eviction notice in the first place.

Last week a landlord called me in Chilliwack. They own one additional house besides the one they live in, and they found out about this rule. They're not able to get rid of a tenant that's damaging their house -- in fact, virtually destroying the interior of their house. You know what the woman said to me? She said: "Why should anybody in British Columbia invest in rental housing if the government is stacking the deck against protecting the right of private property owners in British Columbia to get a fair return from their investment?" I think that's a reasonable question. Why should anybody invest in rental housing if they're not going to be protected in terms of their investment? This government doesn't seem to understand that without private sector investment, particularly in rental housing. . . . Who gets hurt the most? It's the tenants; it's the people who rely on rental

[ Page 9033 ]

This government's actions hurt the very people they claim to be interested in helping. They claim they're interested in helping workers, and then they bring in Bill 14, which encourages business to get rid of workers. They claim to be on the side of tenants, then they bring in legislation in the form of Bill 19, which discourages investors from building more rental accommodation for tenants. This government says one thing and does another. People in British Columbia know that it's more important to judge somebody by their actions than by their words.

Interjection.

B. Penner: The hon. Minister of Labour seems to think that nobody in British Columbia shares these views. However, let me share with you, hon. Speaker, an editorial from the Chilliwack Progress, dated May 10, 1998.

Oh, I see the red light has gone on. I'll have to reserve that information for a later date.

G. Janssen: It's a pleasure to rise in this House as a former private employer and business person to speak on Bill 26. Bill 26, unlike what the opposition says, is not about union or non-union; it's about jobs. It's about decent pay for decent work. It's about the rights that we, as Canada, have signed on in the United Nations, about the right to free collective bargaining. It's about the right to organize in the workplace, to secure from your employer a decent living wage. Since 1991 British Columbia has created over 50 percent of the jobs in Canada. The other nine provinces had to collectively come up with the other 50 percent. Then it was doom and gloom from the opposition, and now it is doom and gloom from the opposition. It is negative: "You can't do anything right. Blame it on the worker; blame it on welfare; blame it on the minimum wage; blame it on social policy."

Let's review the record just for a moment. In the Vancouver Province of May 27, 1996, the Leader of the Opposition said that businesses should have "the option of hiring replacement workers during a strike to protect their viability." It's strike-busting in anybody's language, my friends. That's what they want: strike-busters. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, on March 30, 1992, on page 217 of Hansard, said: "If there are problems in the construction industry, deal with it under the legislation." We now bring forward the legislation, and they're saying: "Don't do legislation; leave things as they are. Don't touch it; leave it alone." The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, on Bill 14, on page 7544 of Hansard, May 6, 1998, said: "We cannot allow a union collective agreement to intervene and override workplace safety when it disagrees with management's disciplinary actions towards employees." In other words, if a manager wants to discipline employees for unsafe work conditions, they should be able to do it, my friends. Workers' safety comes second to management's ability to discipline workers. Shame on them. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, on April 30, 1997, on page 2967 of Hansard, said: "[The] fair-wage policy is not creating fair wages for workers. It is paying excessive wages when it is compared to the private sector -- and even often to the union sector."

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I can tell you, my friends, that my son has friends who worked on the Island Highway project. They're in their early twenties. They're attempting to get by. They have young families. They enjoy the fair wage. They enjoy being able to put food on the table and being able to buy a home and not work for non-union, low-wage employers -- sometimes for as little as $10 or $12 an hour.

[5:00]

The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, then the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, on October 28, 1992, page 3669, said: ". . .employers have the right to hire replacement workers." This is the way it has been, and that's the way it should stay. Strikebreakers are welcome under Liberal governments, under Liberal oppositions. That's what we're going to do: we're going to throw out the labour legislation, and if you go on strike, we'll simply have workers pass right by you. We'll hire the police to escort them through. It's the 1930s all over again. They want to turn back the clock.

The member for Delta South, in the 1992 budget debate, Hansard, page 207, said: "This government has indicated, through this budget and other measures, such as the union wage policy, that it does not understand business and how business works." Well, my friends, let me tell you, business enjoys decent wages, because decent wages purchase goods and services. Low wages don't do that; decent wages do.

We've often heard the Island Highway project and the fair wage mentioned. Ninety-three percent of the Island Highway project was Island workers, Island employees. . . . They weren't from Alberta; they weren't from Saskatchewan; they weren't from Washington. Yet that's what these members are advocating: bring in the low-wage workers. That's where they want them from. They want the same working conditions, the same wages and the same structure. Well, the schools, the universities, the roads are being built in Liberal ridings; and they're being paid fair wages.

As a matter of fact, Liberals in this House have been filing petitions. They have been saying, "I ask leave to file a petition," and they file it. They don't acknowledge what's in it. They don't acknowledge who it's from. They don't say who the authors are, because they are petitions, my friends in this House, that support Bill 26. They should acknowledge it. If they think that low wages are such a boon to the economy, why don't they take their businesses. . . ? My father used to say this to businesses that complained about low wages: "Go into business in Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick. You'll do well. Businesses thrive there. They have low wages. They have very few employment standards. They have laws that discriminate against unions."

No, you came to British Columbia. People came here in droves in the last eight years, because of the wages, because of

[ Page 9034 ]

They talk about America and people moving there. There are states in America that have no minimum wage, no employment standards, no fair wage and no pay equity laws. That's what they're advocating. In the last election they advocated what America has. They said no to fair wages. The workers heard that message. They said no to a higher minimum wage. The youth heard that message -- they can vote at 18 now, my friends. They said no to rural British Columbia. They said no to the Ministry of Women's Equality, which ensures pay equity. The women of British Columbia heard them. That's why they're over there and we're over here.

Today we see, time and time again, doctors saying: "We've got to have more money. We want $1,000 a day for weekend work, $500 if we've got to work nights." Lawyers say they're not making enough. They're not being paid enough to help out folks that don't have enough money. Dentists say they won't work for people on social assistance, because they're not being paid fairly. Judges sent this Legislature a little note that said: "Pay us more." Yet those people all make $100,000 a year or better. What about the people who make less? What about those working people we're here to defend in this House under Bill 26, those people who make $45,000 to $55,000 a year and are trying to get by with high housing prices and high rates for food and clothing? They're really having a tough time. Do you know what they're being told by this opposition and by businesses they represent? They're being told: "You're making too much, and you've got to make less; you've got to take less, because, by God, the economy won't survive if they keep bringing in this kind of legislation to make it fair for you." We think they're worth it, because we believe in the workers of this province. They built this province. Business didn't build this province; workers built this province, my friends.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, it's very difficult to hear the person who has the floor.

G. Janssen: It's a very old struggle, my friends.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Okanagan West will come to order, please.

G. Janssen: In this struggle for workers' rights and equality, people died. There were work stoppages; there were strikes; they gave up their lives so that we would have this right. Other people went to jail, sometimes for a very lengthy time, because they dared to stand up and say: "I think it is my right to stand up and ask for decent wages and working conditions and for the right to organize that the United Nations says we have." They went to jail for that.

People were starved into submission; they were left on strikes and factories were closed for so long that they had to go back because their children didn't have food in their bellies. They went back to work for this right. The opposition says: "If they dare do that, whack 'em. That's what they deserve." This isn't 1930, my friends; this is the nineties. We don't whack people anymore. People have rights.

They say that high wages are not good for the economy. During the Depression there were low wages. Yes, people worked for as little as a nickel an hour. Not one business was created during the Depression. In fact, government aid had to be used in order to stimulate the economy. Businesses went broke by the thousands. Now we have decent working conditions and decent social standards, and those workers can rely on the fact that they can depend on some backup for a change rather than being out there struggling there on their own.

During the bad times, the business community and the right wing did not demand help for workers -- ever. They demanded help for themselves. They didn't say: "Help workers." They didn't say: "Give them unemployment insurance." No, they said: "Give us help, because we're really badly done by." Let me tell you, the kind of help that business needs is decent wages and working conditions and people who have confidence in themselves and in their workplace so that they can buy their home and spend money so that the money can go through the economy and stimulate it. Low wages don't do that, my friends.

In my other life, my family was in the jewelry business for 40 years. Port Alberni was the highest-paid area in Canada for years. There were seven jewelry stores in Port Alberni, because it was the highest-paid area in Canada and people had money in their pockets. Guess what happened. It wasn't the New Democratic government that did this. In 1982 we had a bright guy by the name of Bill Bennett who was the Premier, and he brought in. . . . What did he bring in, my friends? Do you remember? We went down. . . . There were 10,000 people on that lawn out there, because he said: "We are going to bring in restraint for workers." Not for business -- for workers, my friends. The restraint program. He was going to knock them all down. From 1982 to 1986 four of those seven jewelry stores disappeared. Janssen's Jewellers wasn't one of them. We pay our workers fairly. We in fact offered them education. We in fact gave them benefits.

In 1985 the chamber of commerce in Port Alberni -- the chamber of commerce, of all people -- gave their employees the right to a collective agreement, and that is still there today. They have a collective agreement. Instead of employees coming and going, they have security, they have benefits, and they really have a decent wage.

One of the first things that happened after that. . . . One of those people felt so sure about their working conditions, so sure about that collective agreement, so sure about the extra wages they were getting that they went out and bought themselves a new car. That's what stimulates the economy, and that's what the Liberals don't get. They say: "Give them lower wages so that the bosses can put more money in their pockets." They don't want to share it. And if they dare complain, you whack them. You get out a baseball bat -- was it a baseball bat, hon. members? -- and you whack them. You hit them. Not only do they say to them, "No, I won't do it; you can go on strike all you want, and I'll starve you out," but they actually advocate whacking. That was in 1996, my friends.

They wonder why workers don't support the Liberal Party, why it is only the Phil Hochsteins of the world, why it is only the UDI, why it is only the business community that comes out and says to them: "We think you're doing a good job. We want more money in our jeans, and if that means putting less money in our workers' jeans, we can live with that" -- even though it is a false economy. The falsehood of that is that sooner or later those guys ain't going to come into your shop. Sooner or later they don't have it to buy houses. Sooner or later they don't have it to buy new cars. These are the same people that say that social assistance rates are too high, that the minimum wage is too high. They say no to welfare.

[ Page 9035 ]

[5:15]

We believe in the working people of this province. We believe in their ability to create wealth. We believe in their ability to create a just place for us all to live in. We're not going to turn this over to your friends in the business community, who want to put a few more bucks in their jeans so that they can buy a bigger car or fly to Hawaii or own a larger home. We want that wealth redistributed fairly and equally throughout this province. We won't whack 'em. We won't throw them in jail. We won't beat them down. We won't treat them like some American states do, where they've done away with all those benefits and just left people to fend for themselves.

There are over seven million homeless people in the United States of America, who sleep on the sidewalk and in doorways. That sure as heck didn't come about because the wages were high enough. That didn't come about because businesses protected them. There is a strike at General Motors right now in the United States. There are record profits, and they want a little bit of it -- just a little bit. They're not asking for a lot. They are saying: "Give us a little wage increase and quit sending our jobs to low-wage countries like Mexico." That's what the argument's about: General Motors want Mexican workers to build their cars so they can sell them to Americans.

Will the price of the vehicle go down when it's built in Mexico? The price of a Ford Escort or a Volkswagen didn't go down. So what happened to that extra little bit of money that they saved? It went into the jeans of the owners; it went into the pockets of the employers. That's what they're advocating, and these people on the other side don't realize that. The business community wants workers to have decent wages, because Mexican workers aren't going to buy any cars or televisions mind you, in Detroit. They can't buy them in Mexico either, because they're only paying them about $5 an hour. Shame on General Motors. Shame on any business that hires child labour and exploits workers in low-paid countries simply for their own profit. That's what's being advocated by the other side.

My parents moved here, and when they came to this country they said: "We have to treat people fairly." They went though the Depression; they went through a war; they went through hard times. They said: "We went through them; we're not going to pass that on to our workers. We're going to treat our workers fairly." That is what we in the New Democratic Party are saying. That is where the CCF's roots are: with the workers, the people -- for decency and benefits. They are nowhere near saying to somebody: "Let's take advantage of people who don't have any rights -- in Mexico or India or some other nation."

We had to have a young man stand up in Canada and say that workers are being exploited. I think he was ten or 12 years old. Kids are being used to build Nike shoes and other products. He had to bring that to our attention. A ten-year-old knew that, but we didn't, my friends. Guess what: those people deserve to have decent wages, just like us. Just as our workers deserve decent wages, their workers deserve decent wages. I hope that Bill 26 doesn't end here, but it goes to every nation around the world so that they can live as well as we live in this country, so they can afford to pay the benefits that we pay, so that they can enjoy the fruits of their labour like they enjoy them in British Columbia and in some other parts of this country. That is fairness; that is equity. It is not union and non-union. It is simply saying to people: "We think you're worth it." Well, my friends, I think British Columbia workers are worth it. You don't think they're worth it, but we on this side of the House do. We believe in them having the ability to organize, to have a free collective agreement and to make decent wages that they can support their families on and can spend in the businesses that you advocate, so that they can enjoy the fruits of their labour.

M. Coell: I want to talk about prosperity, optimism and balance, and I want to talk about bringing the jobs back to this province. Madam Speaker, I think we have a bit of denial in this House by the government. They can deny that they're in trouble and that the economy is in trouble, but the fact of the matter is that the economy is in trouble. The fact of the matter is that we don't have balance in the economy anymore. We have jobs leaving the province. Now, it's not the job of government to govern for 35 or 40 percent of the population; it's the job of government to govern for everyone. On this side of the House, we want jobs for everyone. I want jobs for union workers; I want jobs for non-union workers. And I'll tell you, the only way we're going to bring back the jobs is to change the climate and bring back balance to this economy.

If this province is going to survive and thrive in the next century, it must be flexible. We must trust one another. A couple of months ago the Premier stood with business leaders and declared: "The class war is over in British Columbia. The NDP are not socialists anymore." Well, that's simply not true. All I've heard from speakers on the government side of the House is that there is a class war in British Columbia. "We want to take out business, and we want to run it ourselves." That's not how the world works. The NDP have got to learn that they're not the red rump of Canada; they're part of

[ Page 9036 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

M. Coell: The night we started this debate, I made some comments about the NDP cabinet behaving like bats hanging upside down. But I think it's a little bit more than that. I remember, when I was younger, watching boxing matches, and someone would get up against the rope. This is the government. They're going to do the knockout punch with this legislation. It's the straw that is breaking the camel's back. The minister says that this is not much legislation; this is minor legislation. But I've got to tell you, this legislation is a nail in the coffin. This legislation is the last straw on a camel's back, and they don't seem to see it. It's denial that we have the highest unemployment rate in this country. It's denial that we have soaring debt. It's denial that we have the highest tax rate in North America. You've got to look and say: "Why is the government in denial?" I think I know. The government is in denial, because it's governing for 35 percent of the population. Your job is to govern for 100 percent of the population. Your job is to bring jobs back to British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: How? Tell us.

M. Coell: I'm going to tell you how. This bill, Bill 26, is chapter 1 of Bill 44. Bill 44 would have crushed this economy, and the government knew it and withdrew it. This is chapter 1, and it's not a pleasant chapter. It doesn't add anything; it doesn't bring a job to this province. It doesn't put a young person to work; it doesn't do anything other than send a message all across this country. It sends a message all across North America that this government is unfriendly to business. If you were a businessman in another province or another country, or the owner of a company thinking of moving to British Columbia, would you move after the government spoke like that? Would you invest in British Columbia? Would you bring jobs to British Columbia? No, you wouldn't.

I have to tell you that we're going to bring the jobs back to this province at some point in the future when this government changes, because the government isn't capable of changing its attitude. This government isn't going to change, because its deep-rooted philosophy in socialism isn't going to change. We keep hoping that maybe they'll see that there are ways of creating jobs, of bringing jobs back to British Columbia.

We were waiting for it in the budget, in the throne speech and in the legislation, and the only thing we get is a piece of legislation that maybe satisfies some of their friends. It doesn't satisfy the prime concern here. The prime concern is: how do we create jobs in this province? This legislation doesn't create jobs. It will probably scare off jobs; it won't create one job. I have to tell you, the government's job should be to put people to work: union jobs, non-union jobs. There isn't a fight here. Class warfare should be over, but this government gets elected using class warfare. It pits business against labour; it pits management against unions. I have to tell you, this province needs balance. It doesn't need one-sided class warfare tactics. This bill is just one more thing to chase the jobs out of this province.

The minister has continually said: "This is a minor piece of legislation." We're trying to point out to the minister that this is a piece of legislation that's stacked on the back of the red tape, of the taxation system, of the angry, angry government against business. This does not encourage job creation. I don't know about the minister, but I really get annoyed when 20 percent of the young people in this city are out of work and are moving out of this province. I think we all know many young people who are graduating from university, and their first job is in Saskatchewan or Alberta or Ontario or down in the States.

It is not good enough for this government to ignore the unemployed in this province. It's not good enough for them to just ignore what's going on and deny the state of the economy. This can be a great province again. We can bring the jobs back to this province, this city and this community. But we certainly can't do it when the government doesn't pay any attention to the needs of job creation.

Bill 26 is a message being sent around the world: the agenda of this government has nothing to do with job creation. It has nothing to do with creating one single job for a young person. This government's agenda is an agenda that will continue a downhill slide for this province. We look at seven years of government. In seven years of this government, we've gone from number one to number ten in job creation. We've gone from number one to number ten in debt servicing. We don't even service the debt anymore. But we have to have legislation, a piece of legislation that won't create a job.

[5:30]

Government needs to create a sense of optimism, of balance, of hope for the future, hope for the next century, but we don't see that in this legislative agenda. It's not there. There's a legislative agenda for a very select few -- a few friends, a few insiders, a few well-paid jobs for very good friends and former cabinet ministers. But what about the jobs? Where are the jobs in this economy? Where are the jobs in this bill?

There is only one issue that this government should be concentrating on, and that's putting people back to work -- putting union and non-union people back to work, putting British Columbians back to work and working together with business. It's not good enough to scare off business, and pretend there's a class warfare in this province. There isn't; it's over. We need hope. We need a positive future, not a negative future, not one group of people fighting with another group of people. It's not in for British Columbia anymore; it's just not going to be the future. Maybe that was the way the NDP got elected. Maybe that was the way the Social Credit got elected -- playing one person off against the other -- but I have to tell you that it's time that business and labour in this province worked together. It's time that business felt like they can come and open a business for one purpose: creating jobs for young people in this province.

Time after time, article after article and report after report say the same thing to this government: "You're not creating jobs." You don't have an agenda for jobs. You have, in some

[ Page 9037 ]

We're losing jobs for a number of reasons. This bill, Bill 26, is one of those reasons. It's the knockout punch to this economy, and when that happens, it will take years to rebuild. The government should be saying to business: "Come and work with us." It should be saying to the union leaders, "Come and work with us" -- together, not apart. It should be saying to workers from all over this province: "It's time to put you back to work." It's time to create a positive energy in this environment.

One of the things that I think people are fed up with is seeing bills like this come forward and then seeing millions of dollars of advertising for the government to say, "Aren't we doing a good job?" when they really just have to look at the economy, look at the unemployment rate. There is so much that could be done to create jobs, but it isn't in the philosophy of this government. It isn't in the capability of this government to create a job. When this government decides to create jobs, it will drop taxes so that people can have money in their pockets to create jobs. The power of the dollar is a lot better in a person's pocket than it is in government coffers. We're going to make B.C. number one again. We are going to bring back the jobs to this economy. We're going to cut personal income tax rates and small business taxes so that business wants to hire people, wants to hire young people, wants to hire the 20 percent of young people that are unemployed in this city.

How would government ministers feel if they were one of that 20 percent? That's almost as high as in the Depression, but I don't see a bill coming forward this session that says: "Here's how we're going to attack youth unemployment. We're going to cut personal income tax. We're going to cut small business taxes." That isn't here. We have a bill that sends a message that we're not open for business. We're not open for business; that's what this bill says.

The government has to eliminate red tape. They've set up a commission to cut red tape, and the first thing they wanted to do was sit down with business. It takes an eight-hour interview and 13 pages of paper to fill out for a business to apply to be part of the red-tape-cutting. We know where the red tape is. You just have to cut it.

You know what else you need? You need truth in budgeting, so that businesses and people who invest in this province know that when the government says it balances its budget, it does, and they know how the government will balance their budget. That's what you need; that's the kind of bill you need. You don't need Bill 26. You need truth-in-budgeting legislation, so that businesses and people -- individuals like you and me -- know exactly how government spends its money.

We need to balance the budget. We need balanced-budget legislation to be brought in, not Bill 26. We need to know that government is going to pay down its debt. We're the only province in the country that continually borrows and doesn't have a debt repayment plan. Every province in this country has a debt repayment plan -- not this province, because they don't care about how much debt we're in.

Interjection.

M. Coell: You know, when you can double the provincial debt in seven years and deny it, you need help. You need professional help if you're in that much denial: doubling the deficit in seven years and saying it doesn't matter. It does matter; it matters to every British Columbian. Anyone who sits in this House and says it doesn't matter shouldn't be here.

You've got to enact fair and balanced labour laws. More importantly, you've got to enact flexible labour laws, because if you're going to survive as a province and as individuals in the next century, you're going to have to be flexible. We don't have flexible labour laws.

Interjection.

M. Coell: Well, I think flexible labour laws would not be something like the health labour accord.

We need a government that fights for our -- British Columbia's -- share of money from Ottawa. We don't need a government that just fights with Ottawa for political means. We don't need Bill 26. We need a government that's fighting with Ottawa to get our money back, not fighting with Ottawa to get re-elected.

One of the things that government could do, rather than bringing in another message to the business sector and to investors, is protect private property rights -- ensure that people know that if they invest in this province, their private property is protected. We don't have that.

They need to work with the native community to negotiate workable, affordable treaty settlements. I don't see that happening. I see that as being done behind closed doors. It's not being done in a way that will generate enthusiasm for investment in this province. I'll tell you, the native people in this province need that investment as much as anyone else. That's not being done by this province.

They have to provide better education and training relative to the workforce. There is a lot this government can do, as I've just pointed out. There are a lot of things that this government should be working on. We have to bring back jobs for the young people of this province. We have to look forward to a bright future. We have to look forward to a future where people treat one another with respect. You don't use business to fight labour; you don't use labour to fight business. You don't use the tools of a class struggle that ended a long time ago to get yourself elected.

I've got to tell you that there is a very bright future for this province, but it isn't with a socialist government. It isn't with a government that isn't flexible. It isn't with a government whose past is so rooted in negative images of the real world that it can't function. It's in denial. Its cabinet ministers are in denial that there's a problem in the economy. It's in denial of the facts of life in the new world, in a global economy. We can work together. I don't have any doubt in my mind that this province will prosper in the next century, but it won't be with a government that denies there's a problem and just continues to bring forward legislation for an agenda that's developed behind closed doors.

This bill sends a very dangerous message. The minister says it's a small bill, it's a modest bill. But it sends a huge message. When the economy is down, when there's a large unemployed group, we have to ask: how can we create jobs? What can we do as government to create those jobs? I've outlined eight or nine areas that the government should be considering, but I haven't seen one piece of legislation that even comes close to developing that new atmosphere, that new positive community for this province. It's not happening. What I see is that the further in the hole they get, the more

[ Page 9038 ]

Does the government really think that people are buying this? The average person sitting around their kitchen table knows that they've got a son or a daughter who's unemployed. They might have a teenager looking for a part-time job who can't find one. They might have a university student just graduating who's not able to find a job. You know, when many of us were younger, it wasn't just one job we looked for; we had our choice of jobs in British Columbia. British Columbia was a great place to grow up. But I've got to tell you that if we don't bring the jobs back to this province for the young people, we aren't going to have much of a province.

It is time that this government got out of its denial mode, got out of its anti-business mode and started to develop an atmosphere where people want to work together. People want to work together in this province. They're sick and tired of fights between governments, fights between union and non-union and business. We need to work together if we're going to make this happen. We don't need to divide this community. But I've got to tell you that every time one of these government members gets up and speaks, it's: "How can we divide the community? How can we get our 39 percent of the vote? How can we stay in power?"

I've got to tell you, it is not about staying in power; it's about bringing in jobs for young people. This session should be all about bringing in jobs for young people. Jobs for young people is the only thing this government should be spending its time on right now, and they spend their time on everything else but. The people sitting around their kitchen tables recognize that. They know that nothing is getting done in this chamber on behalf of their children. Nothing is happening with jobs for young people, other than $24 million a year in glossy pictures of the Premier, of the ministers -- they even throw in a few backbenchers once in a while -- saying: "We're doing a good job. We're creating jobs. You've never had it better." That's an insult to British Columbians. What needs to be done is so obvious. It is so obvious that this economy needs to be turned around. It's so obvious that this province has to realize that you simply can't spend your way out of debt. But you know, that's exactly what they're planning to do.

[5:45]

This province needs a positive atmosphere for business and investment. Bill 26 sends a simple message: continue to stay away. I think some of the other speakers commented on the Wall Street Journal article about this government and its failing economy. This government is the failing economy; it's not the Asian flu. The government of the day sets the tone for the economy in any province, in any country. Why is it that Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba and Washington State are all balancing their budgets? Why is that? It's because they want to balance their budgets. That's the only reason.

Why are people paying down their debts? Because they want to pay down their debts. Why are governments putting balanced labour legislation on the books? Because they know that balanced labour legislation -- paying your debts, paying you as go -- is the only way to create jobs. It's the only way to create jobs in this economy.

Bill 26 will not create a job -- not one job. So why is the government bothering? There is only one job for this government to be doing; creating jobs for young people in this province. No, they do everything else but. We've got to bring the jobs back to this province. Bring back the jobs. Say it to yourself, to the government, every night before you go to bed. That's your only job. Bring back the jobs to the youth of this province. It's not happening; it's not happening a bit.

You know, there's a lot that needs to be done. There's a lot that will be done. But what we as an opposition have to do is find a way of showing the government that they're on the wrong track, that there is a better way to create jobs. There's a better way to manage this economy. The bottom line is that there are a lot fewer social service problems, a lot fewer health problems and a lot fewer financial problems if people have jobs. If people only had jobs -- union jobs, non-union jobs. We want them both. We want lots of jobs -- lots of union jobs, lots of non-union jobs -- and you create them through business. You create them through a balanced approach to the management of this economy, and the government sets the tone. The government is the only group. . . . The 18 or so members of the executive council sit together, and they set the tone for the economy. It's not here. There's no legislation saying: "We're going to bring back the jobs. We're going to create jobs." There are a lot of nice, glossy brochures that this government has created, but no jobs.

I hope that by the time we're finished debating Bill 26, the government realizes that their job is to create jobs. If they're not creating jobs, they'll be out of a job. I look forward to the continued debate on Bill 26 over the summer.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. Pullinger: I move that the House at its rising do stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 5:52 p.m. to 6:37 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and we'll be debating the estimates of 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)

[ Page 9039 ]

The intent of the bill is very straightforward and very simple. It corrects some anomalies with respect to the ability to organize and certify in certain parts of the construction sector. To not correct those would simply leave those members of construction unions in that sector at a disadvantage when it comes to their opportunity to organize, to sign people up and to collectively organize people under union certification. It may be that that is really the fundamental point of the official opposition: they simply don't like that people freely choose to belong to a trade union.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I hear the member from somewhere talking about freely choosing, and that's an interesting topic. I recall having taken part extensively, when I was a member of the opposition, in the debate against the labour legislation that was brought down by the then Social Credit government. There were some serious objections to that bill, which was subsequently overturned when my party became government. Fundamentally, that bill was written by Russell and DuMoulin, I think. In fact, the Minister of Labour at the time admitted that he had no hand at all in drafting the legislation; it was simply given to him -- unlike the process that has been carried out here.

As I was saying, I suspect that the members opposite simply object to or have a fundamental dislike of trade unions and a fundamental objection to people having the fair and even right to determine whether or not they want to become members of a trade union. If that is the case, they should say it. They haven't to date. They've couched their opposition by pretty much parroting, as I said, the language of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses -- again, an organization that's not impacted by this legislation.

I suspect that many of them have forgotten a bit of the history that has built this country -- North America, really. In terms of the struggle for recognition, the struggle to have the right to organize and to negotiate freely has been one that was fairly hard fought in our society. It's not overstating it to say that people did indeed die for that right; they did. One only has to read the history of the formation of trade unions in North America to realize that that is true. To a very large degree trade unions have been significant contributors to the development of the economies in North America.

Interestingly enough, in British Columbia, despite the cries of doom and gloom that members opposite regularly trot out whenever this government brings forward legislation dealing with labour. . . . Whenever we do that, the response on the other side is predictable: "Oh, this is terrible. It will be a negative signal to the marketplace. It will drive investment out of British Columbia." Yet when you look back over much of the progressive work that has been done with respect to labour legislation, none of that has come to pass.

I wonder sometimes whether the opposition truly thinks of the issues that are at stake currently in our province. Certainly the economy of British Columbia is going though a very, very -- I would even use the word "traumatic" -- traumatic time, principally because the economy is really two economies. The greater lower mainland, which most of the members opposite represent, is undergoing and has continued to undergo a fairly rigorous expansion with respect to the economy. It could be argued that the economy of that region has its own dynamic. It's fuelled by different things than the regional economies. The growth of the high-tech sector, again despite the allegations made by the members opposite, continues at a very, very vigorous pace. Some of the growth in elements of that sector -- and perhaps my colleague who is the minister responsible may want to argue about that or put some facts on the table -- has been very vigorous. It's as much as 25 percent in some parts of the knowledge-based industries. We see a fair amount of dynamism in the lower mainland-based regional economy.

[6:45]

The fact is that despite the free trade agreement that we have with the United States and despite the North American Free Trade Agreement, British Columbia is unable to export our forest and lumber products freely into the United States market. That market, by the way, has been really put in a disadvantageous position, because U.S. lumber manufacturers have not only diverted the wood that they would normally have exported to Asia into their internal market, but they've also increased production. They've dramatically driven down the price for sawn timber to the point where many British Columbia manufacturers -- in fact, other provinces' and other countries' manufacturers -- are having a great deal of difficulty staying alive. That has had, as I said, a very serious consequence for the British Columbia economy. It's resulted in a dampening in the forest sector. It's resulted in many, many people being out of work -- temporarily, but notwithstanding that, out of work. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with labour legislation.

Given the fragility of the issues with respect to those resources, given the unknowns in terms of what may happen in the Asian economies and given some of the other compounding issues. . . . For example, the fact is that copper is now at 75 cents instead of $1.10, where it averaged a year or so ago, and gold is below $300. All of those things are taking their toll on British Columbians in the rural parts of our province. Given the disastrous announcement by the federal government -- which I've not heard anybody in the opposition comment on -- and the consequent loss of employment in the fisheries-dependent communities along British Columbia's coast, you would think the opposition might want to raise some of those issues sometime to explore what avenues may be available to try to improve the economic circumstances of many British Columbians over the short term, particularly, as I say, in the regional parts of our province. But

[ Page 9040 ]

It was interesting last week, and we noted it. They rose and were jumping up and down in high dudgeon about a labour relations issue at B.C. Ferries, and they were most concerned about an amount of money. I think it was $27,000. To hear them, one would think that this had to be the most important issue that they'd raised. Yet when rural doctors withdrew their services. . . .

It's also interesting that the doctors have rejected forming a trade union and applying for certification under the Labour Relations Code, although I think they probably could. They've rejected that notion, and I can understand why they would. While they don't have that designation, they can wildcat with abandon. They can withdraw their services any day of the week, and there's no legal recourse. In our society, there's no method that the government could use. They couldn't go to the Labour Relations Board and say: "These people are breaking the contract. We'd like an injunction to put them back to work." You can't do that. There are none of the usual remedies. Yet, what was at stake when that labour was withdrawn? What was the impact on British Columbians when the doctors withdrew their labour? Ask the poor woman who was put in an ambulance in Burns Lake in an advanced state of pregnancy. The doctors, who I thought had some obligation to care for people, said: "We don't care. Get in the ambulance. We're not going to treat you. Get out of here." The poor woman had to get off in Vanderhoof and have her baby under very, very difficult and obviously traumatic circumstances. The opposition stood in this House and said, "Give the doctors what they want -- in fact, give them more than what they want; give them $100 million," as though that somehow has no impact on our economy, as though that somehow has no impact at all in terms of those cost issues for average British Columbians.

Yet when you bring a piece of legislation in the House which simply says that if trade unions can sign up a majority and apply for certification, they can have it, and that if that happens in the construction industry, because of the nature of the industry, a standard agreement would apply -- an agreement that's been freely negotiated by employers and others in that same trade union movement -- they somehow think this is very, very bad for our economy. I'm puzzled, and I don't think I've heard any members opposite spell out what their real opposition is to the bill.

Here we are at this time in British Columbia where there are issues that are extremely important to our economy. There are issues that are extremely significant for British Columbians -- many of them, as I indicated, in the forest sector, which right now is in a very uncertain position in terms of employment. The opposition has chosen to add fuel to the fire, to make as much noise as possible and communicate to those both within and without British Columbia that this is not a good place to invest. Actually, they do it with a bit of glee. It's almost as though they don't want people to invest in British Columbia. If you listen to them, really. . . . I think after listening to question period today, it's almost as though they're happier when people are moving to Alberta, because somehow, in their mind, it reinforces the ideas that they're advancing.

So I would really urge some caution in terms of the debate. I think it's fine to take a principled position and object to legislation. There's nothing wrong with that. I think there's a responsibility, of course, that goes with doing that, and that's to perhaps say what they would do. I don't know what they'd do today in Alberta. Premier Ralph Klein actually raised the minimum wage a total of about 90 cents. It's not all tomorrow; it's going to take place over a certain period of time. But I know that if the Liberals were the opposition in Alberta, they'd be saying that Ralph Klein is going to take this province, you know, down, down, down by giving this minimum-wage increase to the workers in Alberta -- because they've opposed every single minimum-wage increase in British Columbia. And one assumes that if they were to be consistent, they would do the same thing in Alberta.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think you're right.

Hon. D. Miller: The Minister of Labour agrees with me. We don't always agree on every single thing, but in this particular instance the Minister of Labour is giving me his full support.

I tend to think that opposition parties do have some responsibility in terms of the broader issues of governance in our province. And I think it's irresponsible to stand in a crowded theatre and yell: "Fire!" I think that's irresponsible -- and that's generally been acknowledged in our society. And why, at a time when there is a certain fragility with respect to the economy because of the issues I've noted -- Asia, the U.S., low commodity prices, lack of orders, those kinds of things -- would they want to compound that problem? Because Suromitra Sanatani says they should? Is it because Philip Hochstein says they should? Are they simply captives of two or three people in British Columbia? Why?

We've not really had an answer to that question. I see we do have a couple of Liberals opposite who are going to be speaking this evening, and perhaps some of them may try to bring some clarity to their position. But as it stands now, we see that they've simply become the mouthpiece for a couple of people who presumably have some vested interest, even though they're not impacted by the legislation. I think that in the long run you pay the price for being a shill, really, for a couple of people instead of actually trying to develop an independent position after some discussion -- and particularly after having looked at the bill.

I was struck when the bill was introduced for first reading, and for the first time that I can recall in 12 years in the Legislature, the opposition voted against the bill without ever having looked at it. That tends to reinforce the arguments I've been making in this short talk on this legislation. They'd made up their minds before they even saw the legislation.

And you know, I go back. . . . I was Minister of Labour and enjoyed that portfolio immensely, actually; I did some very good things there, I think. But I do recall, when I was Minister of Labour, looking at this issue and discussing it with my deputy at that time, Claude Heywood -- a guy who's been around in British Columbia for many years and is a very able individual. . . . He came from the employers' side, but notwithstanding that, was an outstanding deputy, in my view. And we agreed. . . . He referred me back to the then Minister of Labour under the Social Credit administration, Lyall Hanson, who had publicly stated that the Social Credit government were going to proceed with changes to the Labour Code to recognize the unique position of construction and the need for separate elements of labour legislation to give due regard to this very important industry. That was a statement made by the then Minister of Labour in the Social Credit administration. I not only talked to my deputy but canvassed a range of people in the industrial relations community, people in the private sector, on this question. They supported

[ Page 9041 ]

I made a modest beginning as Minister of Labour in having Stephen Kelleher and Vince Ready look at the question. They delivered an interim report some time ago -- I forget the year now.

Thankfully, my colleague, the current Minister of Labour, and this government have now moved to give life to some of the work that has actually been going on for at least a decade. In a very modest way, they have brought forward legislation that really gives people the opportunity to organize. The need for that is pretty obvious. If you go in and try to organize, and you find that by the time you've concluded it the job's over and everybody has gone, well, then you've really got a situation where you can't. You're denied the right, the opportunity, to try to solicit the views of workers on that project as to whether or not they want to be represented by a trade union.

Is there anything to fear in that? I wonder why the idea of asking working people on a project whether they would like to belong to a union is something that the members opposite object to. Why don't you agree that people ought to have the right in our free society to pursue that objective? As I said, given the nature of the industry and the fact that sometimes projects are finished before that first collective agreement can be concluded, why wouldn't you also agree that under those circumstances, the application of the industry standard -- a collective agreement freely negotiated by employers and trade unions -- ought to apply if certification is achieved?

It's really not radical in any sense of the word. It's not giving anything away to anybody. It follows in the tradition of labour legislation in British Columbia, which really was a feature first brought in by Dave Barrett in 1973 or '74, in the Labour Code at that time. That Labour Code was put together by eminent people like Paul Weiler and Jim Matkin and others. It stood the test of time, really, right up until 1986 or '87, when Premier Vander Zalm was elected and when there was an attempt in the back room of a right-wing law firm to rewrite the Labour Code and to bias it against labour -- notwithstanding the fact that the Labour Code had stood the test of time for quite some time.

[7:00]

Why wouldn't the opposition look at the fact that this proposed change to B.C. labour legislation is very similar to provisions that already exist in Alberta and Ontario, the two provinces that the Liberal Party in British Columbia seems to draw sustenance from? The world hasn't come to an end in Ontario; the world hasn't come to an end in Alberta. Bringing this in here in British Columbia seems a reasonable course, given the history I've talked about. Yet we have this almost hysterical response from the opposition.

Perhaps it's a little too much to ask for, I suppose, that there actually be some explanation offered by members opposite as to why they really object to the bill. I think they ought to. . . . Really, they can do what they want. Quite frankly, I've given lots of advice to the opposition over the years, but unfortunately they never take it. But surely they have an obligation to try to flesh out their opposition with some specifics, some details, some independent position, as opposed to simply getting their orders from outside their caucus. I don't know why they wouldn't want to do that. For their own self-respect as a political party, you'd think they'd want to try to develop a fairly independent position, to spend some time thinking about the issues and to come out and say, "No, we're opposed to it," or to come out and say: "No, we just don't like trade unions; we're opposed to them. We don't think that any more changes should be made to labour legislation that gives any opportunity for people to become members of trade unions." But they don't.

Hon. D. Lovick: At least an explanation.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: A simple explanation -- which may be all they could offer.

What do we get? We get, just as I say, the rants and the repeating of their orders from somewhere. I saw a couple of the people who actually issued the orders up in the gallery the other day, when the opposition voted against the bill without ever having seen it.

This is second reading. It's a debate in principle. This is the opportunity for members opposite to stand up and define the principles that they object to. I guess all we can do is, hopefully, look forward to one of them having the courage to actually do that.

I've tried, in a very gentle way, to touch on the history of the development of labour legislation, to talk about that in the British Columbia context, to talk about some of the issues that impact on our economy and to try to offer some advice to members opposite that they ought to think a little more about the state of our economy before they yell "Fire!" in the crowded theatre. Of course, the message does get out, and the consequences are generally not very good for British Columbia. With that, hopefully, we will get a little more elucidation from members opposite. That's a fairly large word, one my colleague the Minister of Labour could use and one I very seldom use, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I'll take my place and try to get some decent responses from members opposite.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's a pleasure to stand and take my place in debate in this House on labour legislation, particularly on Bill 26. It's a document that's really an addendum to the many changes we've made in labour relations in British Columbia since 1991, changes that bring about a fairer workplace relationship. In fact, we saw the debate in this House of a few weeks ago, when we participated in bringing about a safer workplace relationship. A number of years ago we brought in a fair-wage policy and then an act that would ensure that workers were paid fairly for the value of their labour.

I find it quite disturbing that as the years go by with the Liberals in opposition across from us, they demonstrate on an ongoing basis some vacant circumstances in their relationship with community and society. It's all around trade unionism. Many of the policies, legislation and initiatives that we've undertaken in this House are in the name of fairness and

[ Page 9042 ]

I find it rather upsetting that the folks opposite. . . . One of them in particular participates in probably some of the strongest advocacy and representative movements on behalf of fairness that have ever been developed in this country. I would reference the marketing board structure. Folks offer their labour, their skills, their services and their intelligence to go forward to produce for Canadians a product that's safe and dependable in supply, quality and quantity. They do that in the name of fairness. They do it with the method of cooperation, with a cooperative movement. Whether you're on a milk marketing board or whether you're involved in wheat pooling or any other, it's all in the name of fairness. In that way, it virtually parallels what we've done on behalf of working people with the cumulative pieces of legislation that we've brought in, whether it's health and safety, the initial Labour Code we brought in, or others.

We get from the folks opposite, the Liberal opposition in this province. . . . They prove year after year that they really don't know the difference between a union and an onion. One thing we do know for sure is that if you're a Liberal in opposition in this province, both of them will bring tears to your eyes.

What do we have in Bill 26 that's so much to be feared? We talk about fairness; we talk about the opportunity to work in a fair, safe, organized manner. We talk about the ability to be represented, to go to work on a project; to build a project where we will go spend our dollars if it's commercial retail, to build a project where we'll go to get healthy if it's within the service delivery area of health care, or where we'll go to learn. All that the workers ask for is the opportunity to step forward and sell their labour at a fair market value and to be paid, so they can then turn around and participate in the economy and consume. It's a type of relationship, I think, that's gone on since there's been workers, vendors and purchasers in our world, and it's nothing to be feared.

But we listen to the Liberal opposition about Bill 26, and I just want to name four things that this bill is not about, just in case the members opposite happen to be listening. This bill doesn't concern residential construction, although some of the purists in our province, I suppose, would suggest that it should. As a matter of fact, I bought a house one time -- young and married, with my family -- that had been built by union construction, and it was built in an affordable subdivision where workers. . . . I was a worker for Safeway at that time; I could take my union wages, qualify for a mortgage, buy that home and raise my family in it.

Hon. Speaker, Bill 26 is not about organizing a union in construction or anywhere else. It's about fairness. Bill 26 is not about employers or unions outside construction; it's about the construction industry. Bill 26 is not non-union versus union worksites. But Bill 26 is really no different than the kind of relationship -- from legislation through work and through the workplace relationship -- that's available for construction workers in any other province in this country. And on that basis, I find it abhorrent and rather disturbing that the folks opposite would be opposed to it just because it's a bill that governs a work relationship with employers and employees.

It takes me back a number of years to when I was working for a union, as a matter of fact. We had labour legislation in this province that targeted the destruction of the organized workplace within the large construction industry in this province. I proudly stood in solidarity with the sisters and brothers within the construction trades when we marched, protesting the kind of construction that went on at the time when some of the Sandman Inns and the Pennyfarthing Development Corp. construction site down at False Creek were built. As well, I stood as a demonstrator and supporter of the construction trades when we were protesting the deunionization of worksites around some of the heavy commercial and warehousing construction that was going on in this province.

It took me back to the reading of a book that was written by a very good friend of mine, Tom Fawkes. He has a long history in working with the trade union sector. As a matter of fact, he was one of the principals involved in the expanding film industry, in putting all of the unions together for workplace agreements that really aren't unlike what we're talking about here today with construction. Tom Fawkes wrote a book called Assault from the Right, which was about the deunionization -- couched in the grandiose terms of the nice, comfortable, soft, cushy umbrella of right-to-work legislation -- of many of the American states. That right-to-work legislation is really a right to be intimidated, as the sharecroppers were, and to be pushed down to the lowest common denominator when you're making the choice between starvation, survival and the opportunity to do a little bit of work.

The union that I used to work for was involved in organizing in a right-to-work state. The union was organizing catfish workers -- workers that grew and harvested catfish. They unionized under United Food and Commercial Workers. The issue -- and this is to really address. . . . Maybe I'll come back to that.

What I'd like to do, in fact, is refer to a quote from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. When I was listening to the member for Skeena, I truly thought he was talking about the twenties and thirties, when a union was indeed needed to make some good changes for people when it came to the relationship between employers and employees, when it came to the need for fair wages. Of course, that was in the twenties and thirties. When the member was speaking, I reminded him that we do live in the nineties, and that we're going into the millennium, and that things really have changed over the last 60, 70 or 80 years.

I referred to the organizing drive and the bargaining that went on with the collective agreement for the catfish workers in Georgia. They went on strike, and they unionized. The issue was the right to go to the washroom during a work shift.

An Hon. Member: When was this?

Hon. D. Streifel: This was only about 12 or 15 years ago, so it was very close to the 1990s that this happened. That's what happens when you have legislation that's employer-friendly, when you have legislation that's unbalanced and that's anti-worker.

What we've done with our fair wages, with our Labour Relations Code, with Bill 26, is provide the opportunity to work in a balanced, safe, fair work environment -- no more, no less. That's what we've brought into this province.

In contrast, as a matter of fact, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head said: "We cannot allow a union collective agreement to intervene and override workplace safety when it disagrees with management's disciplinary actions towards employees." The end of that sentence is extremely important, because what we have is. . . . I quote the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who would describe what man-

[ Page 9043 ]

[7:15]

You know, we've had some of the folks in this chamber talk -- make comparisons, I suppose -- about the doctors and their ability to wildcat, to withdraw their labour, to work with impunity and, really, hold their patients hostage in the face of ever-increasing expenditures in health care in British Columbia. I guess, as a longtime union member and a longtime activist. . . . I've organized and negotiated collective agreements; I've done my time, so to speak, on the front lines within the trade union movement. I get offended sometimes when even my own colleagues compare the doctors and their activities in any way, shape or form to trade union activity. There is no comparison.

In this province, when you have a collective agreement in place, if you have problems with that collective agreement, there are procedures to deal with it. It's called a grievance procedure. That's one of the very unique aspects of a workplace relationship that's fair, like Bill 26, and balanced and safe, like our occupational health and safety. It's the ability to be heard within your workplace through a bargaining agent if you feel you've been dealt an injustice.

I haven't once heard the members opposite talking about the injustices that occur in the workplace, the injustices that occur on an ongoing basis that still need adjudication, that still have to have the opportunity to be heard through the Labour Relations Board and the structure that we've built. The two folks, the eminent persons. . . It gives me goose bumps, talking about eminent persons when we're dealing with labour, as my most recent history has been in dealing with fisheries issues.

Stephen Kelleher and Stan Lanyon have had very long histories in this province of working on behalf of the workplace relationship through the Labour Relations Board and through that method of relationship with the employers. I'm very proud and pleased that British Columbia has finally stepped forward after all these years into the realm of a fair working relationship on behalf of the construction industry in this province.

I know that the folks opposite, the Liberal opposition, really have no interest in fairness in the workplace. We have ongoing quotes, and they're always quotes against labour. We have Surrey-Cloverdale:

"In the run-up to the budget last month, the NDP moved to expand the fair-wage policy already in place for the Island Highway project, a policy that compels all workers to join a union and receive high union pay. From now on, all government road bridge projects worth more than $50 million will be under the fair-wage. What they again failed to say was that the fair-wage policy also pads" -- boy, it's in someone else's words, and I'm thankful for that -- "construction union pension funds with payments from thousands of new members who must join or look for work elsewhere. A consultant's report concludes that thousands of workers on the Island Highway project will have millions of dollars in pension contributions when they leave the project."

I'll take my place and listen, I guess, as politely and as intently as I can to the folks opposite when they stand up and again speak about a piece of labour legislation that has as its only purpose the provision of a fair and equitable workplace on behalf of a construction industry in this province, to bring forward the provisions that are available in every other province in this country. Then finally the construction industry and the workers in that industry can take their place within a fair workplace environment and know that they will be able to earn a decent wage. They know they'll be able to provide for their families, and if the contracts they actually sign and work under provide for things like dental and pension and extended health care benefits, they know that they'll at least have an amount of dignity and security that can really only be achieved under a collective agreement.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act. As we're all aware, Bill 26 is a watered-down version of last year's Bill 44, which was yanked from the legislative agenda when the Premier finally realized that the people of this province were not going to accept another payoff to the government's union friends without a fight. This government admitted that it had done a very poor job of consultation with the business and non-union sectors. It particularly had not listened to small and medium-sized businesses that were going to be put out of business by its misguided actions.

Some have labelled Bill 26 as "Bill 44 Lite," and for good reason. The NDP know that they cannot impose the big trade unions' agenda all at once, so they are imposing it one piece at a time. Bill 26 is still of great concern to the people of this province. It is still filled with ideas that are too rich for B.C.'s economy, and again this government has not done its homework. Bill 26 will hurt an economy that is already in decline after seven years of NDP government, and the members opposite don't seem to take notice. Paying off their union friends is obviously more important than encouraging investor confidence in this province.

When the Minister of Labour was asked about the impact of Bill 26 on the economy of this province, he wouldn't even admit that the labour climate had an effect on investment in this province. In this chamber, he said that there is "nothing in this bill which will have a negative impact on jobs and investment in this province." This is a ludicrous statement. You'd think that the minister, and indeed the Premier, would have studied the economic effects that this legislation will have on the people of this province, but at the press conference held after Bill 26 was introduced, officials from the Ministry of Labour admitted that there were no economic studies of any kind. This is a cavalier attitude with taxpayers' money and the impact on our citizens' economy.

[ Page 9044 ]

B.C.'s economy certainly has declined while this government has been in power. StatsCan reports that last year the provincial economy grew only about 1.8 percent, falling short of the government's own target of 2.2 percent. The economy failed to recover due to the adverse impact of an overall decline in investment spending. According to the Investment Dealers Association of B.C., this decreased investment is partially the result of depressed business confidence, and Bill 26 will only serve to further undermine business confidence in this province.

Umbrella organizations such as the Coalition of B.C. Businesses have already declared the bill bad for businesses. Small and medium-sized businesses have vowed to fight this bill with everything they've got. How can the Minister of Labour deny that Bill 26 will be bad for the economy? If depressed investor confidence negatively affects the economy and if businesses are convinced that Bill 26 will decrease further investment, how can the economy not be affected? As I said before, this bill has less to do with promoting economic stability and investor confidence and more to do with paying back the government's friends in big labour.

The NDP government has also hurt B.C.'s out-of-province investment climate. Harsh taxation levels and an unmanageable amount of bureaucratic red tape have persuaded investors from the rest of Canada to avoid British Columbia. As one analyst noted: "Each time salesman Clark walks into an out-of-province corporate head office, he carries a ball and chain as well as his briefcase. The ball and chain is excess taxation, and it's usually the first thing a chief executive officer notices when he meets an out-of-town politician."

Even the Finance minister has come to realize that her government is causing people to drown in a sea of red tape. During a luncheon speech to the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, the minister referred to the amount of government red tape. She said: "I've been frankly horrified at examples you and your colleagues have brought forward." The minister was saying that she was horrified at some of the stories about government red tape that business people in the chamber of commerce had brought to her.

All of this has resulted in the downgrading of B.C.'s credit rating. Eight consecutive years of deficits -- more than any of the other western provinces -- combined with a rapid rise in debt levels, led to the Canadian Bond Rating Service decreasing B.C.'s long-term rating. This means higher interest rates and indicates that creditors are not optimistic about the NDP's ability to manage taxpayers' money. No matter how hard this government tries to fudge the numbers to hide the truth about B.C.'s financial affairs, the bond-rating agencies have seen through the deception, and so have investors.

But the members opposite continue to deny these facts. They keep telling us to trust them, and when they violate that trust, they ask for forgiveness and a second chance. It's a vicious cycle and one that needs to be broken before the economy is permanently damaged. Hon. Speaker, the Premier can begin to break this cycle by withdrawing Bill 26 and by admitting that it would be bad for B.C.'s economy and the majority of B.C.'s taxpayers and that it is not in the provincial interest -- a concept that this government seems unable to grasp.

The minister describes Bill 26 as a very small amendment to the Labour Code. He does not seem to understand that it is the ongoing, cumulative effect of a very long list of so-called small amendments that harass and eventually break businesses, large and small. It is this cumulative effect that causes our most talented people to leave this province and even this country. It is this cumulative effect that causes small businesses to shut down or to go back to being one-person firms, where this is possible, or to sell out to a larger competitor. Why would any sane person fight the continual barrage of "very small amendments" to the Labour Code, to the environmental regulations, to the inspection standards of various agencies, to the rules for collecting PST and GST, and to a host of other services that business provides to government and its employees? In addition, there are the so-called small amendments to fines and penalties for business under the NDP, to motor vehicle and transportation regulations, to insurance requirements, to new charges for a host of situations -- like the $250 accident fee, an ambush on an unsuspecting victim of an accident.

[7:30]

However, even though it would be a lot easier to assume that this is just a very small amendment, as the minister says, I don't believe this is the case. In my view, this labour bill is just another straw on the camel's back. It is one of a large number of straws that have been piled on the camel's back, and it simply cannot go on forever without serious repercussions. There is no doubt that the province of B.C. is a strong camel, and there is no doubt that the economy is the backbone of B.C.'s existence. It has a lot of natural strengths and advantages. However, the high-spending and high-taxation and high-regulation philosophy of the NDP will in fact come to an end. When that happens, I have no doubt that the politicians involved will be the last to know because they have already so completely deluded themselves about the reality of their decisions.

This past weekend I had the opportunity to meet a number of different people in my constituency, to catch up on some of my mail and to read local newspapers. It's very, very interesting to see the difference in the view and the perspective in the real world by real people.

[ Page 9045 ]

At the same function, I met a senior person with Finning, the large international company that supplies equipment to the forestry and construction sectors. He went out of his way to assure me that Finning was not moving everything out of B.C., that it was only Finning International that had moved to Edmonton. He was very defensive about the whole issue. I had the impression, however, that he was acutely concerned that one of these days he might be called upon to move to Alberta himself or, worse yet, might lose his job. One thing he did say for sure was that the negative spinoff from a crippled forest industry was only now starting to set in for all of the industries that service the forest sector. He indicated that people generally have not yet seen the real damage. He said that it is still coming, in the way of a cumulative impact of bad government decisions and weak markets.

I also talked to a non-union auto parts worker who had spent 20 years in union jobs. He had been an active member of his union in those years. He was surprisingly vocal about his distress at what is happening in the B.C. economy. He argued that B.C. was heading into a serious economic crisis at the hands of the NDP, and he was grateful for the decline of the Canadian dollar because it helped generate some activity in the car parts business.

Over the weekend I reviewed my mail on the farm, and I picked up a farm newsletter commenting on the state of the agricultural industry in B.C., in particular the agricultural processing sector. The story of the food industry in B.C. is a most interesting lesson in what happens when a sector ignores the reality of the need to be competitive. There are many parallels between the food industry and the construction industry. Look at the history of jobs and pay scales in the food processing industry in British Columbia. I well remember the notion in the food industry that if costs went up, the price to the consumer was simply increased. The attitude was that the consumer would simply have to pay more.

But look at what in fact has happened. In the food-processing sector, every labour-intensive product and operation has been or is being moved out of this province. Thousands of good jobs have been lost in the last ten years. Wholesale grocery distribution is being centralized in Calgary for western Canada. Groceries for the Vancouver market -- the third-largest city in Canada -- will be assembled in Calgary and shipped by truck for direct delivery to the store shelves. The trucks are preloaded for direct placement on the appropriate shelf in the store, thereby eliminating any B.C.-based inventory and minimizing the number of jobs in B.C. stores.

If you talk to real people in the real world, they are worried, concerned and upset. Away from the rarified atmosphere of the Legislature, the job creators in this province see this legislation as the thin edge of the wedge. They see it as another attempt by the government to impose another straightjacket on their operations. There's no opportunity to establish a contract with their own employees. There's no opportunity for flexibility in their ability to compete. The building trades unions have not stayed competitive in a changing industry. Employers in the construction industry have responded by doing whatever it took to fight the monopolistic and inefficient attitudes of the building trades unions.

Last year Bill 44 was a blatant attempt by the government to turn back the clock. When that failed, the government brought in Bill 26. Bill 26 is a misguided attempt by this government to rewrite history for the last 15 years in the construction industry. Contrary to what the government says, the construction industry is stable and competitive. There are none of the problems that the New Democratic Party claims. The only unrest is amongst a few union leaders who see their comfortable positions of power threatened as workers become more self-reliant, more productive and more independent.

I continue to be amazed at the blindness and the delusional thinking of this government. At a time when this province is running a real deficit of at least $1 billion per year, the attitude of the government boggles the mind. At a time when other provinces and the federal government have dealt with their deficit problems, this government persists in its dishonest media spin that everything is great, that it's all business as usual. At a time when we have seen provincial debt increase by $13 billion or $14 billion in the last seven years, the government says the economy is fine.

We have a Premier who offers up $700 million to get control of the B.C. fishery -- another $700 million of taxpayers' money that the Premier does not have. This is the same Premier and the same government that has grossly mismanaged the B.C. forest industry -- the Premier that promised 22,000 jobs and lost 12,000 instead. The Premier says one thing, and then exactly the opposite happens. Bill 26 will backfire just as the jobs and timber accord did. It will create new instability and turmoil where there is stability now. It will drive more economic activity out of this province; it will drive more jobs out of this province; it will create new tensions between employers and their workers. Bill 26 will hurt the B.C. economy, and it will hurt provincial finances.

I thought that a recent letter to the Globe and Mail summed up the legacy of the NDP extremely well. This was a letter that was written in response to some discussion about the possibility of an NDP government in Nova Scotia. This particular writer had lived under two NDP governments -- one in Ontario and one, now, in British Columbia. I'm going to read to you the significant segment of his letter. I think it summarizes the debate very, very well. There's a notion being fostered by the government that this is just a small amendment, but I'm saying that it's one small amendment on top of hundreds of others.

This letter was written by Greg Hoover of Delta, B.C., in the Globe and Mail of April 18, 1998.

"As someone who has lived under two NDP governments -- Bob Rae's in Ontario and now the wonderland of Glen Clark's British Columbia -- I would like to share my experience with residents of the east coast in the hopes of sparing them much grief."

"4. The NDP will say it must borrow money to correct the situation left by the previous government.

[ Page 9046 ]

"5. The Labour Code will change to streamline unionization and impose a bureaucratic nightmare on employers in the name of safety, employee security, the environment and watching over big bad employers.

"6. The government payroll will increase a lot, and fast, in order to provide the public with all the services it wants, all performed by unionized labour.

"7. Some high-profile projects will be started by the government to increase employment, which will further increase the debt.

"8. Every year of its term more borrowing will be required to keep these events on track. At the same time, venture capital, foreign investment, major corporations and entrepreneurs will be leaving and avoiding the province in record numbers.

"9. As banks, corporations and money leave the province, more and more funds will be borrowed to ensure that programs are not affected, personal taxes are not raised and that hydro and insurance services are maintained.

"Eventually, everyone will belong to some union guaranteeing high wages, but they'll have no work. The debt will be the highest in the province's history.

"At this point, the public will realize that no one in the NDP has the experience in business, money management or any other skill necessary to run a pop stand, let alone a government. So in the next election, the NDP will be voted into obscurity, but it will have left evidence of its passing.

"10. The provincial debt and the cost of servicing it will cripple and restrict the province for decades to come.

"11. The industrial base, construction industry, natural resources and all sectors of the real economy will have to be totally rebuilt, starting with a Labour Code revision that is reasonable and allows firms to work and make money.

"12. Personal taxes and the costs of services will have to be adjusted to their real costs to stop the practice of payment by debt. Staffing of government and Crown corporations will be gutted to reduce costs.

"In summary, after a very short term in office, the NDP is capable of exploding the provincial debt, destroying the industrial base, sending property values into decline, increasing unionization and making the social safety net unsustainable.

"These steps aren't my speculations; they are the documented history of Ontario in the early nineties and the current history of British Columbia, which has gone from being the best performing province to the worst under the NDP."

[7:45]

So what is important here? I think what's most important is what is not said; not what the minister has said but in fact what he has avoided. What isn't said is that the changes will set enormous precedents in B.C.'s labour and economic policies. What isn't said is that this bill will set the stage for government to expand sectoral bargaining to other industries down the road. What isn't said is that each aspect of B.C.'s private sector could end up with its own mandatory union agreement. What isn't said by the minister is that government has future plans, despite what they say, to look across the board for more sectoral bargaining into the next half a decade. What isn't said is that it's payback time for the B.C. Federation of Labour for getting this government into power. Now it's payback time, and therefore Premier Georgetti has called in the cards. He's called in the cards for this minister to provide on a plate what's necessary to bring in the payback.

What are the alternatives for this Minister of Labour? We could have had something like the secret ballot as supported by 77 percent of British Columbians, brought in with this labour bill. Imagine that. Something that almost the entire province wants is not in this labour bill, in the modest changes that occurred. For example, we could have democratic labour policies, not the undemocratic ones that this government has brought in -- a government that is not the friend of labour, but the friend of big labour. We could have a labour bill that does not legislate an out-of-date construction model, which Bill 26 does. We could have a government that actually listened to the people it consulted. Consulting without listening is not consulting.

Here we've got a government that says the official opposition doesn't get it when it comes to unions. We've had member after member stand up tonight and say that the official opposition is against unions, against the organization of workers. I did just a mini poll by looking through the profiles of members of both sides of the House. Of the 33 members on this side, there were 13 who have belonged to trade unions. Whether it's the B.C. Teachers Federation or probation officers, there are many of us on this side. However, on the government side, out of 39 members, there are 21 members who obviously, from their credentials, have been in trade unions of some kind. I think if we're going to look at that comparative survey statistically, what we'll find, based on the overall numbers, is that the representation on both sides of the House from people in the union movement is not dissimilar. Therefore if we're looking at who gets what and who doesn't get what, I think, statistically, this side of the House gets it just about the same as that side of the House purports to. Therefore I think we are very able to comment on Bill 26 from a labour perspective, having representation that indicates that a fairly large number or a majority of the people here are not from big business and in fact are from other labour groups within the province. What I can say with the authorization to say it, having been in a union, is that that side of the House is the one that doesn't get it.

Shame on every member of this government for the part they have played in crippling the province. This Bill 26 is just one of the many things they have done. Shame on that side of the House for toxic policies and punitive taxation, for the persecutory red tape and caustic accords that they brought in prior to Bill 26. Shame on them for bringing in labour legislation that will now destabilize the investment climate, when many people who were apparently "consulted" in fact said to the government that this is exactly what it will do. Shame on the government for bringing in a bill like Bill 26 on top of minuscule or no tax relief in a budget earlier this year, on top of seven deficit budgets, on top of a debt in 1998 of $9.49 million and on top of 18,000 new people on the unemployment lines from January to April in 1998. This bill, which will destabilize the economy, is being brought in on top of a total debt of $31.24 billion, at a time when we can least afford to lose jobs or economic growth, on top of the loss of our best and brightest and most highly skilled workers to other provinces. Shame on this Labour minister for bringing in a bill that is going to further destabilize the economy. We have the highest youth unemployment in a decade now, surpassed only by Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. On top of that, this minister brings in a labour bill that will further destabilize the economy and investment.

One of the largest employers in my riding is social services; one of the largest employers in Vernon, in terms of

[ Page 9047 ]

Hon. Chair, noting the hour, I reserve my right to resume debate. I move we adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, with that, I would wish all members good evening and move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

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

T. Nebbeling: Last week one of my colleagues, the member for Okanagan-Penticton, came in and asked for a matrix of the accountability of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, as directed by the auditor general or wherever the direction came from. The first point I'd like to make is that it was promised that he would receive the matrix today, and I don't know if the minister has got it.

Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points. My best information is that this is still a work in progress; it's not a document that is ready for release yet.

The other issue that I need some clarification on is exactly what. . . . If there's something of a specific nature or if it's a specific document. . . . If it could be of some assistance, that would be fine; I don't have a problem releasing anything. In fact, I think I said on Friday that I would try and get it as quickly as possible.

T. Nebbeling: No, it was going to be made available today. The reason that my colleague came in to ask for the matrix -- how the ministry monitors and evaluates its own performance. . . . This matrix is supposed to be available and is supposed to be public. Last week the auditor general made a presentation to the Public Accounts Committee, in which he stated that all ministries now have the matrix in place. I wrote the minister about eight weeks ago, and I actually asked for a progress report or for direction on how the ministry was going to comply with the requirements set out in the guidelines by the auditor general for evaluating the performance of the ministry as a whole. At that time I received a piece of correspondence informing me that this matrix was not available.

While I was going to spend some time on it initially, I decided, due to the lack of information from the ministry, to wait a little while. However, after the auditor general stated categorically that this matrix is indeed now part of the performance evaluation program of the ministry, it must be available. I am surprised that through the minister, we were just informed that it is still a working document or in preparation for it becoming one. This seems to be different than what the auditor general stated.

Maybe the minister can clarify. Today is there a set of criteria within the organizational structure of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, whereby each component of the ministry is monitored according to certain guidelines that are approved by the auditor general -- or at least it seems to have been approved by the auditor general. . . . Who is responsible for implementing that program, so that a year from now the evaluation can be made public, as has been required by the auditor general?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make a couple of points. The first is that I know the exercise that the member's talking about, because I sat on the Public Accounts Committee. So I have some familiarity with it. It's an initiative that came out of the deputy ministers' council, along with the auditor general's office and the Public Accounts Committee, as a way of enhancing accountability and improving performance.

There's some confusion around what the term "level 2 rollup" means. I can tell the member that my understanding is that in terms of a document in progress, if it's a document that was asked for, that's still in progress. Maybe we need to get some clarification on exactly what it is that the member for Okanagan-Penticton is looking for, because I think there is some confusion around exactly what it is that we're trying to bring out. If there's something, I don't have any trouble tabling it.

[2:45]

[ Page 9048 ]

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: I knew that the member for Richmond-Steveston would have the answer. Nevertheless, there obviously has been an exercise taking place within the ministry to evaluate some of the activities. Can the minister enlighten us at this point, then: how much activity has taken place to put together -- if that's the word -- a program that is used to do the evaluation? That's the first question. Then, to give the minister some more levels of that question: who actually is involved in doing that? Within every segment of the minister's portfolio is there is a person responsible for monitoring, or is there one? I don't know anything about it, and I would really like to know what there is today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In each ministry, a lot of the work will be determined from within. . . . There are some basic questions that probably apply to every ministry, and then there are other questions that will be unique to that particular ministry. When I was on the Public Accounts Committee, what we did was basically focus on benchmarks, quite often in terms of service delivery. A brief example to set the stage for what is taking place and the nature of the exercise as I understand it -- and since I've left, it has probably advanced further along -- is a very basic one, and one that I think is easy for everyone to grasp. It is passports.

The issues are how long it takes to get a passport and how you know if you are meeting your targets. It used to be that you would send away for a passport, and it could take a substantial amount of time. Well, a review process took place in the passport office, and it was basically determined that the length of time you should have to wait for your passport is two weeks at the most. So the question then becomes: how often do you achieve the target of two weeks and how often do you not achieve it? And did you not make the target because of internal problems or external problems, like lack of documentation? Then you improve your operations within your ministry or department to achieve the goal of delivering a passport -- to you or to me -- within the two-week period. That's a way of measuring your outputs and what you are trying to accomplish.

I know that information is being looked for in the area of preparation of the type of goals that we want to achieve within the ministry around, for example, such things as safety -- which includes the number of workplace accidents and number of work days lost due to accidents -- and setting a goal for the coming year, which involves questioning whether you are able to meet it and trying to quantify whether you are successful and what changes you need to make in terms of either procedures or policy to achieve those goals. So that's a general overview of what's being expected.

In terms of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, some of the issues could be divided into categories around safety, employment practices -- for example, the number of grievances, the number of arbitrations and the employee turnover rate. It could also involve the customer service account -- for example, public acceptance of the lottery, public participation, customer satisfaction, customer ranking of retailer services and retailer satisfaction. Those would be specific to the Lottery Corporation itself. That's a general overview of what they're trying to accomplish in the exercise.

I don't have any trouble with trying to find out exactly what that means in terms of the level 2 rollup, and if there are some reports available, I'll get them for the member.

T. Nebbeling: The member will come and join us later on, and if necessary, he may be able to ask a couple of questions. It is a little bit clearer now. I thought it was indeed accountability over performance. As the minister described in the scenario with the passports, I can see not only what the intent is but also the mechanism.

The minister mentioned the Lottery Corporation as an example. Last week I expressed some concern about a potential conflict of interest. Without going into too much detail, I think the minister remembers my statements in regard to some family members of the chairman of the board, the CEO or the president. I expressed some concern over relatives of the vice-president being a supplier of product. Would there be, within this evaluation section, an evaluation of how many conflicts of interest happen on an annual basis within the Crown corporation? What kind of steps would then be undertaken to reduce it? Is anything of that nature part of the evaluation? Or are you just looking at performance by saying: "Okay, we have a product. Last year we sold so much; the next year we sold so much. We did well"? It's simplified, but is that more like what you are looking for?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It primarily deals with performance and goals about the product and the service to the consumer.

T. Nebbeling: We are talking about evaluating certain actions within a Crown corporation. What mechanism is in place for those situations I've just explained, which we spoke on in much more detail last week? Are there checks and balances in place in the system to make sure that what I perceive as this abuse of power -- preferential treatment for kin or others -- cannot become a regular occurrence or become excessive? The word "abuse" is a bit strong, but I'm trying to talk about the conflict of interest I believe is within a Crown corporation. Some of it is no longer there because some members have left, but some of it is still going on. How is the minister kept aware of these kinds of situations, and what is in place to make sure that it is indeed not a conflict of interest and that it does not lead to excessive wrongdoing within a Crown corporation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a couple of points. The first is that every employee has to sign a conflict-of-interest agreement to abide by the rules. A comprehensive guide has been established, through work done at B.C. Hydro. My understanding is that it is the basis for all Crown corporations around conflict-of-interest issues: what is the role of the board and what is the role of the chair -- what they should do and what they should not do? That's out there. As well, we have a conflict-of-interest commissioner who I know has been approached from time to time to look at things. So I think there's a fairly good set of conflict-of-interest guidelines out there, which employees of all Crown corporations are expected to abide by.

T. Nebbeling: So the real check and balance is. . . . If an employee in a Crown corporation -- we're talking about B.C. Lottery in particular -- is concerned about certain things happening, does that individual have to go through the conflict-of-interest commissioner? I didn't think the conflict-of-interest commissioner would be accessible for that. Or is there within the Crown corporation an individual whose job, in part, is to focus on potential conflicts?

[ Page 9049 ]

[3:00]

On the issue of the $110,000, that wasn't money that went to the B.C. Lottery Corporation. That was a corporate sponsorship of the first joint conference of the two international lottery organizations. Naturally, the B.C. Lottery Corporation was involved. We're helping to host the event, because it's located in Vancouver. But it would not be $110,000 being paid by Gtech to the B.C. Lottery Corporation for the BCLC.

T. Nebbeling: Who was the president of the organization that had their event here in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't have the name of the individual who is the president, but I can get it for you. My understanding is that Guy Simonis is the president now, but that he wasn't at that particular time. But I'm not 100 percent certain of that.

T. Nebbeling: Is there a travel policy within the B.C. Lottery Corporation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, there is.

T. Nebbeling: Is there a log that shows how many days Mr. Simonis is on the road outside British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There will be a travel expense report for any travel conducted outside the province by any employee within the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

T. Nebbeling: I understand that, but that's not really what I was looking for. I'll come back to that.

Do we sell any of our B.C. Lottery product internationally?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We don't sell product outside of B.C.

T. Nebbeling: I would like the minister to check '95-96, '96-97 and '97-98, as far as travel by Mr. Guy Simonis is concerned. I believe the minister would be quite surprised to see how much international travel Mr. Simonis is doing. Indeed, one of the points that triggered me to ask these questions is the expense account of Mr. Simonis. In '95-96, a year when I believe there was excessive travel, the total expenses were $3,500. I was just wondering how Mr. Simonis travelled so far and so often on such a small budget.

Hon. M. Farnworth: A lot of travel outside of British Columbia is on behalf of international organizations. The tab will be sponsored by the international bodies of those organizations.

T. Nebbeling: As there is no product to sell internationally, what would be the reason for Mr. Simonis spending so much time on the road? He's paid, I believe, to be here to run a Crown corporation. Like I said, if I could get the travel logs -- the amount of travel Mr. Simonis has done, how that was paid for and who paid for his travel, accommodations and costs in the various locations. . . . While we're at it, I would like to ask the minister when we look at costs if we could look. . . . From time to time, pianos have been rented to be put in to suites occupied by Mr. Simonis when abroad.

While the minister is putting together a letter . . . I would like, at the same time, to ask the minister to put in writing the reason why a librarian can work at home 75 percent of the time, who paid for the equipment used at the home, the salary and if the privilege given to the daughter of Mr. Simonis is extended to other areas as well. Common sense would say that the job as it is -- the office of the librarian -- should truly be where the library is and not in the basement of the individual's home. I would like to have that one answered.

I would also like to see if there are any records where Gtech has been represented by the son of Mr. Simonis, who at one time worked for Gtech in the States. If I could get answers on these questions in writing, I would really be grateful.

The reason I'm going into what I perceive to be potential problems a little bit is that the B.C. Lottery Corporation is going to play a much more expanded role -- as far as how gaming will materialize in British Columbia -- in the collection of funds through what used to be charity casinos and linked bingo. They will all be much more intensive. I would like to now ask the minister: can the minister give me an overview of how the relationship between the B.C. Lottery Corporation and the B.C. Gaming Commission is going to work? How are their authorities separate from each other, and where do these authorities come together?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raised a number of questions, and we'll endeavour to get answers for him. I believe that I answered the issue around Mr. Simonis's daughter a couple of days ago. She is a disabled individual. There are three or four other employees at the Lottery Corporation who are disabled and are under the same flex program. She's one of a group of three or four who all have the same access to work from home and to work in the office on a flexible schedule.

On the issue of the relationship between the Lottery Corporation and the Gaming Commission, again, the Lottery Corporation has the responsibility to conduct and manage gaming as it applies within casinos, electronic gaming -- such as linked bingo and slot machines -- and the non-licensed area of gaming -- i.e., outside of paper bingo. That is in the purview of the Gaming Commission, which issues the licences. If you're a charity that wants it through bingo, you apply to the Gaming Commission. The Gaming Commission makes the sole determination as to whether or not you would in fact get a licence. There is no crossover between the Gaming

[ Page 9050 ]

Around the area of non-licensed bingo, the Lottery Corporation conducts and manages. Around the area of licensed gaming, which is bingo, the Gaming Commission has responsibility.

T. Nebbeling: I would consider that a link between the two bodies involved with gaming would be a natural thing. The way the minister describes it now is that the Lottery Corporation, in a sense, works in isolation, although they are the recipients of many of the activities that are undertaken by the Gaming Commission and their staff -- the approval of licensing and the disbursement of funds. I understand that the Lottery Corporation has no authority over these funds and how they will be disbursed by the Gaming Commission. Nevertheless, there must be something of a link or a bridge where they, from time to time, have to meet to discuss the various issues.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's no sort of direct link or reporting mechanism between the Gaming Commission and the Lottery Corporation. I guess that is an example of the fact that the two are separate entities. The Gaming Commission reviews the applications and makes the decisions regarding the disbursement of funds and the issuance of licences to paper bingo. The role of the Lottery Corporation is to conduct and manage the game, the facility -- the gaming operation. The issue of who gets what is up to the Gaming Commission. In the case of bingo, the issue of who gets to play or hold a licence is up to the Gaming Commission.

There's an informal relationship, and it doesn't apply just to the Lottery Corporation but also to a whole slew of aspects of the gaming industry in the province. If there is a formal link, it would come from within my ministry, within the gaming policy secretariat. It used to be the lottery advisory committee, which has been brought in-house. That's where I would say you would see most of the interface take place, where there is an analysis that's brought to bear on issues that need to be dealt with. That's where it would be.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to dwell too long on this one, but that raises an interesting point for me about how the flow of money is actually happening. The Lottery Corporation, through their activity, is a creator of funds. Part of those funds will actually also be disbursed by the Lottery Corporation paying out on tickets -- 6/49, Scratch and Win tickets, and so on. Then there is that other fund, which is for charitable organizations.

It is not clear to me how, without that communication and direction, the money disbursement happens internally. Is it the Minister of Finance who does the split, or is there another level? My reason for asking the question is that at some point the Lottery Corporation, knowing that they have to disburse $92 million in one month, for example, may not know if that money has actually come in. I'm sure they will know; there is a system. But I would like to know what the system is that assures them that they have control and knowledge of what's happening with funds that come through the Lottery Corporation.

[3:15]

T. Nebbeling: Still talking money, a little direction. . . . Did the Gaming Commission have any input into how the funds were disbursed out of the trust fund, or was this all done by direct order of Judge Owen-Flood?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is separate from Owen-Flood and came about as a result of the Rhodes report. It is in there specifically to deal with the concerns raised by Owen-Flood in terms of how you get the money out.

T. Nebbeling: I think I'm moving on, with one question left as far as the Gaming Commission is directly involved. At the time that the money was disbursed, was there any direction given by government to the Gaming Commission on how to disburse these funds out of the trust fund?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The short answer is no. There are a couple of trusts. There's the existing trust, the Owen-Flood trust, which the court is ruling on, and then there's the trust being set up that deals with the money from. . . . The answer in both cases is. . . . One, the court said. . . . And the other is what we've been talking about. So the answer is no.

T. Nebbeling: I'm cleaning up loose ends here, so I will be jumping around a little bit. You did mention a gaming secretariat within the ministry. Can the minister, first of all, tell me who are part of that gaming secretariat? Or is it just a beautiful title for one individual? What is its role besides being the coordinator between the Gaming Commission and the Crown corporation, the B.C. Lottery Corporation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are nine FTEs. Primarily. . . . Well, not primarily. It has a number of functions. One is the coordination that we were talking about a few moments ago. The second, which is probably quite important right now, is the implementation of the changes that are taking place with the gaming policy within the province. The third is to provide ongoing support as required if. . . . Let's put it this way. If I were considering some changes or wanted to look at a new direction, I'd say: "Look, here's what I'm thinking about. Send me back some stuff on what the options are and what needs to be taken into account. Can we do it? What are the potential implications?" -- things like that.

T. Nebbeling: Has this secretariat been created recently, or has it been in place for a while?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is the staff component of the lottery advisory committee, which used to be out there and was sort of like the umbrella. It had more of a. . . . I don't know if it's a perceived role. It had a much higher profile than the gaming secretariat. It doesn't have, I guess, the public profile that it used to have. It's now basically just the staff people that did the staff work, and that's all.

T. Nebbeling: These were actually individuals who had already worked for the ministry in a different capacity than what was out there, as the minister just said. But I don't know what "out there" is.

[ Page 9051 ]

T. Nebbeling: I wasn't aware of the secretariat. That shows how much homework I did.

One of the advantages, I think, was always when we dealt with Mr. Macintosh, and Peter Clark to a certain extent, and last year's members. . . . At least there was a kind of transparency. The commission worked in the public eye, to a large extent. They often participated, as the minister is very much aware, at the UBCM level during the UBCM annual conference. Is the secretariat working on the same basis? Is it still open to the public, or is it, as the minister just stated, working more behind the scenes?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, in the sense that they'll still be at UBCM. They'll still be available. They have their policy function, which they have always had. The change came about in part because of issues that were raised by groups within the gaming community. They are saying: "You've got the Lottery Corporation, there's the lottery advisory committee and then there's the Gaming Commission. Really, there are too many bodies. If you're going to make changes, we know that the B.C. Lottery Corporation is there, and it's not going to disappear. We want the Gaming Commission back, making the decisions. This is policy advice, so why don't you keep it within the ministry? We don't need all these different bodies in terms of who's setting gaming policy."

By doing away with the lottery advisory committee and moving the staff in-house within the ministry, then there is a direct. . . . I think the lines of how decisions are made are much more clear. It is a government responsibility, and government does have a role to play in terms of gaming policy. Then there's the role of the commission, and there's the British Columbia Lottery Corporation. I think the work of the staff. . . . They're doing the same thing they did before. They can be at the UBCM. You can approach them. If groups want to talk, that's not a problem. That's one of the main reasons why the change was made.

T. Nebbeling: I have a little bit of a concern here, because from past experiences I do know that individuals who in the past were the face of the commission were accessible. It's not necessarily that they ever agreed with anybody, but they were accessible. I think that was one of the reasons that the Gaming Commission, in general, had a fairly good report card. I do not at all like to see certain elements that make decisions disappear into the bureaucracy, in a sense -- especially considering that we are talking today about much more openness and less bureaucratic interference and more transparency in the system so that people know why things are happening. I see this as a step back. Time will tell.

Without going into the details of the legal case you have with Mr. Jacques Carpentier, would he deal with this secretariat at all, or would he not be able to deal with them?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't know if Mr. Carpentier is the right individual to use as an example, because he basically talks to whoever he wants to. But could a member of the public approach the secretariat? Yes. Could an organization approach them? Yes, and in fact they do. The secretariat is not a decision-making body; it's more of a policy advice body. They are completely accessible to the public.

T. Nebbeling: I didn't think we were going to have a long debate about Mr. Carpentier's accessibility to the secretariat -- whomever he has to have access to. But I am interested in going into the role of the secretariat in the creation and publication of the Rhodes report. Did the secretariat in any way, shape or form have any involvement in preparing the Rhodes report for the minister?

[3:30]

T. Nebbeling: What I would like to know is: that availability to Mr. Rhodes. . . . Maybe the simplest way is: how much did he take advantage of the availability of that secretariat in the preparation of his recommendations to the minister?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the best way of saying this -- I don't mean this as any sort of way of trying to dodge the issue or anything -- is that. . . . Probably the best way of describing this thing is that Frank decided who he wanted to talk to about what, how much he wanted to talk to them and what information he needed to get. I think that where he would have used them is in terms of getting some understanding around a particular issue or a particular point. But basically, at the end of the day, it was like, "Okay, I want to talk to you," and "I don't need to talk to you," and "Here's what I want to know," and then he'd go off and talk to other people. That's probably the best way that I can describe it.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe I should make the suggestion to bring in somebody from the secretariat so that we can get a sense of how indeed the secretariat worked together with Mr. Rhodes. The minister doesn't really know, and that's great -- you can't be aware of everything. He may not even have been the minister at that time. Nevertheless, my concern is clearly the fact that Mr. Rhodes has spoken with the secretariat. The secretariat is there -- the way I see it at least -- to implement the minister's desires and the ministry's objectives. Sure, they listen to other agents with different messages, but the bottom line is that within the government, I believe, there was an established direction that the government wanted to see gaming go in this province -- primarily driven by the fact that we had the problem with the Criminal Code of Canada. The secretariat, being the adviser of the minister, the critic of the minister. . . . I just get the feeling that this is one of these situations where I clearly. . . . I don't know if I smell something, but I feel uncomfortable about that role. If Mr. Rhodes had met with the secretariat once or twice for an hour, fine. But if it was more than that, then obviously the secretariat had an impact on what Mr. Rhodes came up with.

Before I go any further, I think the minister's suddenly getting some answers.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, Mr. Rhodes wouldn't have spoken to the secretariat, because there was no secretariat in place. There was the lottery advisory committee -- okay? He

[ Page 9052 ]

As well, in terms of what is current policy and where policy has run into problems, that's where he would have approached the lottery advisory committee. I don't know how often he would have spoken to them. I mean, that's why I made the comment. Mr. Frank Rhodes would have spoken when he felt the need to or when he wanted an issue clarified.

That's probably as good an answer as I can give the member right now. It's not the type of thing that he would have. . . . It was very much his report, in that he had been given terms of reference, and then he said: "Look, here's what I think you should do."

T. Nebbeling: We will move on, although we will move on with Mr. Rhodes. The minister says that this was truly his report. I've read it. Although I've been interested in the whole gaming issue for a number of years, primarily because from time to time we had fundraisers in Whistler as a gaming issue. So I do have a fairly good understanding of gaming in British Columbia. I don't think I could have put together a report like this on my own. If this had been my report, I don't think it would have been as comprehensive, as detailed and as knowledgable as Mr. Rhodes's report is.

So can the minister give me an idea of what made Mr. Rhodes such an expert on gaming and gave him the direction to qualify him to put together this whole concept? This is pretty important, considering the impact it will have and is already having -- sometimes positive, I hope, and sometimes negative -- on so many organizations. So besides having slot machines on ferries at one time, which failed miserably, what was Mr. Rhodes special knowledge of the gaming industry?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Mr. Rhodes brings a rather strong level of expertise to this particular problem in a number of areas. One, he has a very long and distinguished career in terms of public service in this province, through governments of all political stripes, and ability at the public service senior management level. He has an intimate knowledge of gaming, in that he was very much involved with the setting up in 1987 of some of the legislation -- framework is probably a better word -- around gaming. He has the involvement and knowledge dating back a number of years. So he's familiar with who a lot of the individuals are and what a lot of the issues are. You know, he has a demonstrated ability to solve problems.

T. Nebbeling: Is the minister saying that basically all the decisions are Mr. Rhodes's? He must have had a bank of people he could tap into for information. We mentioned the secretariate -- to very little extent, according to the minister. But what kind of advisory groups did he use? Did he use any consultants? Or was this just his own exercise -- totally, 100 percent?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only consultant would have been the one who actually physically wrote it. Apart from that, Mr. Rhodes would have talked with a wide range of groups and organizations. He did so, including the lottery advisory committee, for example, and lawyers in terms of legal issues. There were all the issues raised by each of the different segments of the gaming industry. For example, commercial bingo operators have a different set of issues than do association bingo operators. Casino operators have their particular interests. Casino charities and bingo charities have their particular interests.

There's a whole patchwork of different segments in this industry that he talked to, in order to get a sense of it: "Okay, what are your particular issues? What area? What's in common here? What are your main concerns?" Then -- putting that in a context of his terms of reference, which were, amongst others, a sound legal footing and a sound legal framework -- he went out and did his job.

T. Nebbeling: I don't know if it is fair to ask for some of these organizations that Mr. Rhodes met with, although I'll name a couple. Did he meet with CAGE, for example?

Hon. M. Farnworth: He dealt with the stakeholders in the industry. In terms of a full list of participants or groups he would have spoken to, we'll probably find that in the appendices of his report.

T. Nebbeling: Now, the reason I'm asking is the fact that the minister just stated that Mr. Rhodes went out and spoke to the various stakeholders, got input and, hopefully, acted ultimately based on that input. If that's the case, then I would like to know if Mr. Rhodes had an opportunity to meet with councillors or the council of the city of Vancouver.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm not sure who he met with on the councillor front in terms of individuals. I don't think he met with the city of Vancouver councillors individually. In fact, he may have met with the UBCM, but I'm not 100 percent sure of that. There will be a list in the appendices of his report. He made a comment on those issues in his report and said that there were still, despite his report, some issues around here which had to be taken into consideration.

T. Nebbeling: Considering that the city of Vancouver is a major location for gaming activities in the province and that it has expressed certain viewpoints as far as the gaming industry is concerned that are clearly opposite to what the government is doing now. . . . And at the same time as we tried to give the Rhodes report some integrity, how can the minister accept a report like that when a voice of that nature has been unsolicited, to say the least?

[3:45]

[ Page 9053 ]

Can the minister extrapolate why indeed it was acceptable to him that certain groups such as the city of Vancouver, when it came to certain elements of gaming in the city, were basically not ignored but put aside as far as their input was concerned?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Mr. Rhodes's report was primarily to deal with the issues of putting gaming on a solid legal footing, and that is as it related to the Criminal Code of Canada between sections 207(1)(a) and 207(1)(b). Within that, he recognized that there were municipal issues that needed to be addressed, and those are being addressed separately. In that issue, the policy was already in place around who would and who would not get casinos. In that respect, Vancouver is no different than any other city or local government in the province. Vancouver is no better or no worse than any other community in the province, and they are entitled to no more or no less consideration than any other community in the province.

The policy was quite clear. With regards to new casinos -- in a sense there are two different issues -- there would be no new casinos without community support. The issue around what takes palace within the casinos was provincial jurisdiction. I understand that issue, but that issue is separate from what Mr. Rhodes was trying to address in his report, which was the issue of how you structure a system that meets the test of the court cases that were out there in regards to the disposition of how gaming is conducted and managed around the issue of charity gaming and bingo gaming. That's what he looked at. It wasn't to say whether or not Vancouver wanted a casino. That's a separate issue that's being addressed through the court system as we speak.

T. Nebbeling: I'm having a philosophical difference with the minister when it comes to what is the right of one jurisdiction over that of another jurisdiction. I agree, if two jurisdictions haven't got anything and they want to make up their minds through a referendum to go with or without gaming within their jurisdiction, that that's even. But we are talking about a jurisdiction where there have been casinos for a number of years -- I believe it's since 1987. In these casinos certain elements of gaming have been going on that have been, in general, endorsed by a large part of the population (a) because of the type of table games, (b) because of the maximum bets, and (c) because of the participation of volunteer organizations. That is an accepted form of gaming that nobody is arguing about. Nobody wants to have it re-evaluated through a referendum -- if that type of gaming should continue to be there.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what the minister, as part of the whole exercise of addressing the Criminal Code issues and, at the same time, the revenue issues. . . . The minister has added elements to the type of gaming which can happen in the existing facilities that are of a completely different nature. I'm talking about the slot machines, the VLTs -- whatever people want to call them. The opposition of the city of Vancouver, as far as I know -- and, like I say, I'm not watching it every day -- is based on these slot machines, which are being incorporated into existing operations. That's what I believe they are very uncomfortable with.

I also believe that the message of discomfort with these slot machines was given a long time ago, right from the beginning. When this province started to talk about introducing slot machines, Vancouver was one of the first to say: "No, thank you very much. We see too many problems. We have done too many studies that show why, with the introduction. . . . We often see an inherent danger to the well-being of vulnerable citizens." I think the city of Vancouver had the right to that referendum that the minister has granted to other communities if they wanted it.

My colleague from Penticton is here right now. Penticton had a referendum. As a community they felt they could deal with the problems that would be associated with gaming, but they also saw the positive sides: job creation; attracting more people; the impact on hotels, restaurants, bars and stores. It was a community choice, and I support that. In spite of what some of my colleagues may feel, I really do support that.

Vancouver is different. To have the Rhodes report written with that element of legalizing -- 207(1)(a) and 207(1)(b). . . . It incorporated slot machines from day one, and the minister is aware of it. It incorporated slot machines in 1993, when I as the mayor of Whistler had to battle a previous minister, who wanted to introduce gaming for profit in Whistler. We fought it on the basis of: "If that is what the government wants to do, give us the opportunity to have a local referendum. If the locals say yes, go for it, and we'll deal with the consequences."

There is a difference between a jurisdiction that hasn't got anything and now wants something and the city of Vancouver. I say that because of what the minister stated earlier: he doesn't see any difference between the city of Vancouver and any other; it's all equal. It is not. We'll see how the case materializes. But I'm really surprised that as part of the consultation process, that voice -- the voice of other communities as well; it would have been the voice of Surrey as well -- was not consulted. For that reason, again. . . . Whereas the charity organizations had to say, a little bit with their backs against the wall, "Well, there is promise there for us, so let's take it," other jurisdictions -- the more controlling jurisdictions -- felt differently, and it's not reflected in this.

Now, having heard the minister explain a little bit about, in a sense, ignoring that voice of parties in this whole exercise, can he maybe give me some idea of what the terms of reference were for Mr. Rhodes? Was he given a mandate and terms of reference reflecting consultation, or was that just, from day one, not a preferred option in his action to come to the conclusion of writing this report?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can get you a copy of the exact terms of reference from Mr. Rhodes's report. It's close enough to the three points that I mentioned to you earlier on. I mean, that's. . .

T. Nebbeling: The secretariat.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll get you the copy of the terms of reference. It's very close to what I mentioned before, you know -- to protect, to put things on a sound legal footing. There were three points I mentioned, and that's basically it, but I'll get you the exact wording.

T. Nebbeling: I'm going to talk a little bit about the public process. Was there any public process at all? Were there any meetings held in areas where interested parties could come together -- charity organizations -- to get a feel. . . ? What I wasn't aware of, and what I'll just tap here right now -- and bear with me -- is that the report was created in the

[ Page 9054 ]

What I would like to know and what I wanted to know, and I suppose we're not going to get there, is how much public process there was to make sure that Mr. Rhodes was not just writing a report for which he thought the concept was not directed by, but in a sense given by the secretariat, for example. It seems these are the only people he had some talks with about what should be in there. Was there any public process at all?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess I have a number of points. First, this was not driven by the lottery advisory committee. This was Mr. Rhodes's report. He went out and held stakeholder consultations with different aspects of the gaming community -- bingo charities, casino charities, the operators -- all the different stakeholders in the industry who are saying: "We've got to deal with the issue, and there needs to be. . . .We've got the Owen-Flood decision that has come down. What's happening?"

That's what Mr. Rhodes went out and spoke about with all those interested parties. As far as I know, he didn't go and talk to CAGE, because, quite frankly, they wouldn't really have anything. . . . They're not stakeholders, in the sense that they don't derive a benefit from gaming. They don't have an interest in terms of gaming from a livelihood perspective. They have an opinion from, I guess, their moral viewpoint on what they think should happen with gaming but not in terms of actually having a direct involvement in the day-to-day gaming industry in British Columbia. So that's who he went and spoke to.

He was aware of municipal issues, through the fact that Vancouver had made statements, as had Surrey. The fact is that Vancouver, for example, could have held a referendum if they had so chosen, but they haven't done that. The issue around other communities. . . . Other communities had made decisions and have been making decisions. Whistler made one, bypassing a resolution of council, if I'm not mistaken. Penticton chose to deal with it through referendum. Dawson Creek, I think it was, chose to deal with it through referendum. Other communities chose to deal with the issue through resolution-in-council. That municipal issue was out there and was being dealt with at the joint council. Local government concerns were coming to the province from local government themselves.

Rhodes's report was to deal with the issue of a sound legal footing for gaming. In that respect, he spoke to the individuals and the groups who were directly involved in gaming from a day-to-day perspective. That's what his terms of reference were, and that's who he spoke to. It wasn't part of a wider public discussion in terms of: "Should there be expanded gaming? Should there be gaming in the province?" That wasn't what the debate was about.

The other point I'd like to make is that in terms of his consultations, a lot of what he. . . . For example, the options that came down in his report were based on the input that he received from the different organizations. In fact, if you go through a number of the options, they quite often tend to reflect their particular view of the industry and their place in it. There's nothing wrong with that. If you asked me my opinion on something, or what I think you should do about something, that will reflect where I sit in the picture. If I'm disinterested and couldn't care less, I'll have one view. If I have a direct stake, with something to lose, I may have a completely different and very strongly held view.

So those views are what came to Mr. Rhodes, and it's on those views that he based the recommendations in his report, in terms of asking if there is something that everyone can buy into that is acceptable to everybody, or if there are variations along the theme -- some people can buy into this, some people can't buy into that. And at the end of the day he made the report, and then government has to make a decision.

[4:00]

When we have a debate raging through this province about water quality or the forest industry, and communities get together to create a local resource management plan, for example. . . . We are talking about the gaming management plan. Well, communities get together with the local resource management plan for forestry or the land base surrounding a community. It is not just the people who believe in the forest industry, who believe in the mining industry, who are participating, because that is obviously very convenient -- you know, whatever we want to do, we do. No, no. Often these particular groups are dominated to a large extent by people opposing these traditional resource industries. That happens throughout the province.

I have never believed in not including in the dialogue, in a very open way, the voice of the opposition. I think it often enriches the ultimate result. So the fact that we haven't listened to these organizations is, I think, a fault in the evaluation of gaming.

An interesting point the minister made when we talked about the various endorsements that we have seen in communities. . . . Penticton endorsed gaming, and it endorsed gaming within the vision of the minister. I don't know what Dawson Creek did; I think they endorsed the form for a period of time every year as well. Then the minister said that Vancouver didn't have a referendum; they could have a referendum.

First of all, has that concept of "Why don't you have a referendum?" ever been brought to the table in dialogue with the city of Vancouver? Second, then -- obviously -- what is the referendum? Is it based on what Vancouver wants -- the status quo? Or is there another element that comes into the fray? Is the minister going to say: "Well, we want you to have a referendum, and it has to include slot machines. If there are no slot machines, we shut down all your casinos, and we go somewhere else"? I think that is a position that the ministry has taken: "If you want a casino, yes, you have a referendum; but it has to be, once you approve it, that we as government decide what kind of equipment will be brought into that facility."

So has the minister considered or is the minister willing to consider giving Vancouver -- as he stated earlier on -- the right to have a referendum and letting Vancouver decide if they want to get out of the gaming business altogether -- or, if

[ Page 9055 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Vancouver already has the power to have referenda, so they don't need any permission from me or the government to go out and hold referenda. But on one thing, let's be clear: Vancouver will be treated no differently from any other community in the province. Nor should they be treated any differently from any other community in the province.

The issue that we've been talking about is around existing casinos and new casinos. Around the issue of referenda, if a proposal for a new casino came forward and they wanted to hold a referendum, that's fine. They can hold a referendum whenever they want. But on the issue of casinos -- and this is what comes down to the 16 or 17 existing casinos that are currently in place right now. . . .

T. Nebbeling: Provincewide?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Provincewide. And that's why I say that. Having served as Municipal Affairs minister, I know that it is a very sore point with a lot of communities. Vancouver thinks it's something else, because it has a charter. The fact is, they are not; they are no better and no worse than any other community in the province, and they should be treated the same.

The issue is around what takes place within existing casinos, and that is the jurisdiction of the province. That is not up for debate, in the sense that I am not going to say: "You may choose to have or to not have slot machines. If you have a casino, the province decides the games that are played within the casino, whether it's blackjack. . . ."

This is the fundamental point that we come down to in the debate. The member has articulated that a community should have the right to say: "We'll have slot machines" or "We'll not have slot machines in the casino." We make the point that no, it doesn't matter whether it's slot machines or a blackjack table or a roulette wheel: within a casino, gaming is gaming, and if you take the casino, you're taking all the games that are in there.

T. Nebbeling: Again, I accept what the minister is saying when it comes to new operations. However, casinos in Vancouver have been there for a number of years and have been run under a particular format or a particular type of gaming -- tables, primarily. I think it is fair to. . . . Government takes a cocky attitude and says: "It's the government's prerogative to decide, once there is a casino, what goes in there." But that is a rule that only recently changed. Up until a couple of months ago slot machines were not legally operational in British Columbia, and it is only the rules that changed -- rules changed by the minister -- that now suddenly allow these casinos to have slot machines. But the minister has taken away the word "allow." As far as the casinos that have operated under one form of operation, because the minister has made a change in how the layout will be, it's now mandated that these casinos accept the new component of gaming -- slot machines -- that other communities can say no to.

Maybe I misunderstand it. Is the minister saying that actually Vancouver could have a referendum and is he saying: "Okay, you have a referendum on whether you want casinos or not. If you don't want casinos, say so -- they're all gone. If you want them, it is with slot machines"? That's a different story altogether. But I don't get that from the minister. I think the 17 existing casinos, of which four or five are in Vancouver, are mandated to have slot machines. Other communities do not have that mandate; they have the right to say no. That's the difference.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The 17 existing. . . . It's not just Vancouver. There are casinos in a number of communities around the province, and the issue is who decides what casino games are played within the casino. On that we're clear: the province has the right, decides what is played. It is not the right of the municipality or the local government to determine what games are played within the casino, and that has always been the case. It doesn't just apply to slot machines. There was a time when you did not have poker in casinos. There was a time when you didn't have pai gow in casinos. It was the province's decision to put those games in the casino. That's the basis of the policy. The issue around new casinos has been dealt with. There's community input in that. Those issues were addressed, in part, by concerns brought through and a resolution passed by the UBCM around the issue of community support for expanded gaming facilities.

The issue within the existing casinos is, I guess, what is still at the nub of the issue in terms of what we're debating here today and what I think is a difference of opinion. Clearly we're not going to agree on it, but that's why we're in court. The courts will ultimately settle this issue, in that we maintain that we do and that we can, and Vancouver says: "No, you can't; it's our jurisdiction to do that." Sometimes that's where you end up -- in court. They'll rule, and we'll deal with it when that happens. That's nothing new. It's not a new policy; it's one that's been in existence for quite some time. It's just the issue around slot machines that has brought it to a head.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

T. Nebbeling: Again we definitely do not agree. I think communities that look at casino applications have an option to opt out. The city of Vancouver plus five or six other jurisdictions -- Kamloops, Nanaimo, Richmond, Prince George. . . . These communities do not have that right. They cannot opt out of the casino business. They cannot opt out, because the minister has mandated that they're there, and they're there forever. There is a new element introduced in these casinos, slot machines, that to a number of these communities is not acceptable and is being fought. That is the difference. They are stuck. In the past, they were into charity gaming, trying to create some funds for community organizations to operate with. They had that kind of concept in their town. Now they're dragged into the almost commercialization of gaming because of the slot machines. How you treat various communities is something that makes a difference. But lawyers will no doubt figure it out. Lawyers will no doubt make the arguments that will make a hell of a lot more sense than I do, because I'm not a lawyer -- thank God. I would hate to have to talk like that all the time.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We agree on that -- through the Chair.

T. Nebbeling: Exactly, but don't ignore the Chair because it's a Liberal Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Through the Chair, I would never ignore this particular Chair.

[ Page 9056 ]

T. Nebbeling: The last part of the last hour and a half that we were going to spend together. . . . I don't think I'm going to be an hour and a half. I would like to talk about the future.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's good, because I'm going to need a break in a few minutes.

T. Nebbeling: No, I'm going to shut it down a little earlier. I would suggest that we just keep going for at least an hour.

Hon. Chair, I believe the minister wants a recess of five minutes.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that we have a recess for five minutes.

The Chair: A five-minute recess? We will reconvene at 4:20.

The committee recessed from 4:14 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

T. Nebbeling: I just spent the last half an hour or so on what's going to happen with the future of gaming. When does the minister intend to bring in legislation? That's my first question. Secondly, can the minister give me a bit of a rundown on the process to put that legislation together?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question is that my goal is to bring something forward next spring.

T. Nebbeling: Not this fall?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Are you kidding? The goal is next spring. Basically, right now, it's to hear from all the interested stakeholders, which includes municipalities, in terms of how gaming legislation should be structured, to come up with a White Paper that would circulate in the fall for broader input and some feedback, to get a sense of what the reaction is to proposed changes and then to incorporate that into legislation, hopefully, for introduction in the spring.

T. Nebbeling: Is Mr. Rhodes once again involved in this gathering of data as well? I presume he is working with what you address as the stakeholders' committee. Could the minister tell me who these stakeholders are?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll get you a full. . . . There's a letter that has gone out, and I'll get you the letter if you like. But basically, it's like UBCM, bingo charities, casino charities, bingo operators, casino operators -- all of the key stakeholders who have issues that they want addressed within gaming legislation in the province. Basically, it initially will be very much the groups that were involved in making presentations to the Rhodes report, because there were issues that they wanted addressed in legislation. Then they'll come out with the White Paper in the fall.

T. Nebbeling: So how many groups are actually involved, then? Is it a committee? Is it a formal committee? Or is it just a bag of people that have shown interest?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a formal committee that will be reviewing his work. Then there will be an opportunity, once that's done and the White Paper is out, for basically anyone to comment. For example, the chiefs of police have a subcommittee on gaming. They are being invited to make a presentation, and I expect that they will.

T. Nebbeling: That's an example of it. . . . Once the White Paper has been produced, is it then the broader exposure of it, including to the chiefs of police? Or are they part of the creation of the White Paper?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The group where they use the work plan, and how he proposes to go out against it or go out and get the information that he's looking for and the views on that. . . . During that period, any submissions are welcome. Then again after that period, submissions are welcome as well. So there's not, like, a small group that will come up with a White Paper and then hear submissions. If you wanted to make a submission to him tomorrow, you'd be able to make a submission to him tomorrow.

T. Nebbeling: Just so I understand, right now there is Frank Rhodes, and he pretty well controls all the material that comes in, from whatever source it is. It is not today a body that looks at all these inputs that could be coming from different directions, be it organizations, be it pro, be it against -- like this lottery or legislative advisory committee, if I can give it that label just for the hell of it, to simplify it. At this time they do not work together with Mr. Rhodes. They do not have meetings on a regular basis with Mr. Rhodes.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, he meets with them at his request. So he is not reporting to them; let me put it that way.

T. Nebbeling: This is a very important piece of legislation. It will deal with many of the values that people in British Columbia represent. It will deal with enormous amounts of money in the long term, as the minister is very much aware. I put it to the minister that it is a little bit incomprehensible for me to think that one man at this point is basically setting the work plan -- and that must include a series of ideas -- in place that will be the base from which the massaging and new elements will be introduced.

[4:30]

It is not unlike a parliamentary committee, you know. They put stuff together, and they discuss it. When they have a base created that way, then they go into the public consultative process, and much of that base gets strengthened, weakened -- whatever happens. But at least it is a base that is created by a group of people who are stakeholders and not kept out of the fray and not just called at the request of the person in charge.

So again, what is fundamentally wrong with that stakeholders' input at an early stage, not at the request of the

[ Page 9057 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Right now it's still very much at the beginning stages. In terms of whether actual structural committees have been set up, the answer to that is no. What has happened to date is that Mr. Rhodes has contacted the stakeholders -- as we have generally discussed them -- and invited them to participate in the process so that there is a working group which reviews his work, his activities, his consultations and the information that he gets back. I expect that they will meet on a regular basis and will probably be fairly comprehensive. At the same time, if there are interested second-level organizations or groups who want to make presentations and get information to the committee, they can.

When the White Paper is established in the fall, it will be widely circulated to the second level, the third level and the fourth level -- in fact, for wide public comment. There will be the ability to make more submissions at that time as well. Then there will be a chance to review what's happened and to come forward with some recommendations to government as to the shape of, and what should be contained in, the piece of legislation. The working group would be very much involved at that stage as well.

T. Nebbeling: By nature I am a suspicious individual. Maybe that's because of the way I was brought up. We didn't take things for granted. I do not understand the reasoning in having one person being involved with meeting various individuals -- be they in law, be they academics or be they stakeholders who really don't like what's happening in this province when it comes to gaming -- and in having that one person, whatever is said, then coming to the committee, the real stakeholders committee, the UBCM and whoever else is there, and sharing with that so-called stakeholders committee the ideas that have been accumulated through the discussions that the individual had, and from there basically starting to put a paper together that will then go to a broader level of exposure.

During these discussions, that single individual. . . . Let's call him Mr. Rhodes. I don't think it is right that Mr. Rhodes makes up his mind during the discussions he is having with various groups and individuals as to what is important -- and what is not -- to bring to the committee. There's human nature. What is the minister doing to make sure that the elimination of potentially valuable information for the stakeholders does not happen?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue isn't Mr. Rhodes and the fact that he's one individual. I think the issue is that within the working group, there are representatives from each of the stakeholders within the gaming industry in the province. They each have their own different perspective, and they each have their own different set of issues that need to be addressed. Those issues are the same issues that come up time and time again within gaming. There's the main framework of gaming within which gaming is supposed to operate. That's the framework that everyone talks about. Within that, there are the roles of the different facets of the industry that need to be addressed. And because all those different groups are there, they all bring their own perspectives, histories and their particular knowledge of their particular segment of the gaming industry. They are well aware of the issues that are coming forward.

If you are in a casino charity, and you are representing casino charity and your association, you know what issues are coming forward and what issues need to be brought forward and dealt with. So they've got to be there, and there's no way that Mr. Rhodes can ignore them. If they are not addressed, then they won't support the legislation and are going to be highly critical of any White Paper that comes forward and doesn't address their issues. Likewise with association bingo: if their issues aren't being acknowledged or addressed by Mr. Rhodes or anybody else in the working group, they will not support the White Paper or any legislation.

It will be the same with the operators and the same with the UBCM, because that's the nub of the issue. The original report attempted to try and find a common ground, and the common ground -- and this is now me just being a little philosophical on what I see as the overall problem -- isn't going to be reached or agreed upon until some of the key concerns around gaming are ultimately addressed in legislation.

Once those broad parameters in gaming are addressed in legislation, then some of the suspicions -- I'll put them down as that, because a lot of the groups are suspicious of each other -- aren't going to be resolved. The way those groups are is that they have the issues that need to be addressed, and quite often there's a suspicion about this group over here or that group over there where they're sometimes seen in competition. I don't think I'll use the term "check," but it is certainly a very strong incentive to make sure that they're all in the picture.

The moment you start withholding information from one, then the rest start to pick away and start to pick away and start to make it. . . . It won't work. That's why I think the key is having the main stakeholders there bringing the collective knowledge together. They know the issues that need to be addressed, and then that's what will come forward in the White Paper.

T. Nebbeling: If the world were perfect, then I suppose that would be a strategy or a format that could work. However, the world is not perfect. Just as an illustration, the UBCM will have input. Now, during the public process, there will be two presentations made to emphasize what should be in legislation and what the role of the legislation should be as far as the control of gaming. The first one is Lynne Kennedy from the city of Vancouver. She is going to go over what she believes her rights are as a citizen and as a councillor of the city of Vancouver, and what the legislation should reflect as far as that is concerned.

The panel of stakeholders, chosen for their objectivity, will listen. So Richard Taylor represents the UBCM on the stakeholder panel, and he listens to Lynne Kennedy. The next presentation is going to be the mayor of Penticton, who is going to do a presentation that is going to be completely different and wants to see some of her needs in consolidating her position as a resort, a for-profit casino -- a destination town -- incorporated one way or another. Now, there is Richard Taylor serving both this mayor and this councillor. How can he, as a panel member, be objective? He's torn.

Now I'll go on. I'm going to look at the casino operators. They used to be owners of casinos. Today they have a contract with the government in a casino that is owned by the government. An operator sits on the panel, and by this time that operator knows pretty well what the government wants to get out of this legislation. Let's not be naïve. That is a given, and I don't blame the government for doing that. That is why you are government, and when we are back, we can undo it. But that takes time.

[ Page 9058 ]

I'm a little bit at odds here, because I do not know who all the members of the panel are -- I call it the panel, but it is the legislation advisory committee. If it is made up of people that the minister has just given to us as potential participants, then many of those people that the minister named have an inherent problem being really objective and honest, because if they go against something that clearly is in the interest of the government, their position as an operator or a contractor or of that nature might be in jeopardy. Maybe that is, again, driven by suspicion, but there we are.

I really feel that the panel does not allow that objectivity. That piece of legislation has to reflect, at the end of the day, what British Columbians think, not what the government sees as its objective. I think that is what the minister is trying to say: "We want it to be a public document; we want it to have a public endorsement." That is the conflict I have with the approach. I don't like it; I don't think it will work. It certainly doesn't have the objectivity that I believe it should have.

Having said that, maybe the minister can give me a level of comfort by naming some of the other participants who do not necessarily have that inherent self-interest playing in tune with what the government tries to dictate.

[4:45]

From within the organizations themselves. . . . Yes, there will be operators; yes, there will be association bingo; yes, there will be casino operators and casino charities. I expect, for example, that the B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming will be very much involved. Again, it comes back to. . . . I understand the member's concerns around a perfect world, and I agree that it's not a perfect world. But I still think it's the same principle. If you withhold information, or even if you try and pressure. . . . I am quite sure that there will be a certain effort to try and achieve some consensus, but if people can't live with it and are not happy with it, it isn't going to work. You can get that with a first-tier group, but you still have to get the second level and the third level.

So the B. C. Association for Charitable Gaming has to go out and talk to their members, and it will be the same with association bingo and the casino charities and the casino operators. They have to talk to their members about whether or not this will work. I think, again, it comes down to. . . . If you've got something that has a general buy-in, then yes, it will work. But if there's a sense that you've used coercion or -- I don't know, whatever -- strong-armed to try to hammer something together and it really doesn't have the support, it isn't going to work. It will collapse. It'll collapse at that White Paper stage.

I think the people who are there at the organizational level, yes, have a bias to their particular sector of the industry. And yes, they may also have a personal view on it. They're also there because they want to do a job on behalf of their organization and, you know, will try and do what is best to come out with a framework, because they've been asking. . . . I mean, the incentive. . . . The benefit is for them in the long term. They've been after this for a long time: to have in place gaming legislation that puts in place where they fit in the system and what they're entitled to. So there's a really big incentive there to make something work and to deal with issues that are out there and also some historical issues that are out there.

There are rivalries between different sectors and different segments. This is an opportunity to put some of those to bed and put everything on a legislative framework that everyone can point to and everyone knows and feels comfortable with. It doesn't change overnight; it doesn't change at whim. That's where I think the incentive is to do it properly and to ensure that there's good communication not just between the different groups who are working very closely on it on more of a day-to-day basis but also between their organizations and the members they serve. That's ultimately how it's going to work.

T. Nebbeling: I really regret not being able to join the minister in his optimism that it ultimately will work. I think a very complicated method has been undertaken here to find a solution to a very complicated issue.

To start off, making it a one-man show, in a sense, with a backup panel that, at the request or the goodwill of that one-man-show person, gets some input, doesn't give me much of a foundation to feel we are ultimately going to come up with what will be reflective of what British Columbians think, which I think the legislation has to, because it has impact on so many British Columbians.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

I also must say that I just do not understand that the minister. . . . I think the minister understands it but is not as concerned as I am about the lack of objectivity of the groups that have been identified so far as a potential support panel to vet material and have some input -- that is, the UBCM, the operators and the various representatives of other gaming activities. I really think these people have their backs against the wall as far as reflecting their real opinions, because there is always the fear that if you speak too loudly, somebody down the road may interpret it in the wrong way, and there may be some retribution.

So why would there not be within that first group -- not the second group -- people who can reflect that objectivity? They are not there to oppose gaming -- I mean, it's there, it's here -- but would be objective in evaluating some of the points that Mr. Rhodes creates for consideration. Why is there not a police chief on that panel, who truly considers as a police chief and has no accountability to the government as far as his or her decisions are concerned? Why is there not an academic? Why is there not a representative of the social world, a director of a social service -- people who will have concerns and, in that initial stage, can indeed put those concerns on the table and incorporate them in something that then, when it goes as a White Paper to the next level, has addressed some of these concerns that are out there?

Too often when government puts a paper together and then goes to the public people see their participation more as

[ Page 9059 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member does make a good point. As I said earlier on, we're still very much at the beginning stages, and we may very well have the committee of the police chiefs involved up front, right at the beginning stages. There may very well be an opportunity there. Nothing has been set in stone yet. There isn't an exclusive list of people who can and will be involved in a working group. I have no problem at all in looking at that suggestion.

T. Nebbeling: For the last five minutes, I'm going to have a few quick questions, jumping all over the field, but then I have it covered. I actually got the last questions from going through Hansard for some clarifications, so if the minister is okay with that. . . .

We talked about the evaluation process for the new for-profit casinos. First of all, there was a panel created that looked at the various elements. We discussed the criteria. How far did Coopers and Lybrand's role go as far as setting the criteria?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They were involved right from the beginning of the process and were involved in the drafting of the RFP document, which has the criteria spelled out in it.

T. Nebbeling: One of the things that I think the minister said -- I'm not 100 percent sure -- was that at one point Coopers and Lybrand worked together with the committee in an advisory role, in a sense. Does that mean that many of the evaluation criteria that were established earlier on in the game were with the participation of, or maybe driven by, Coopers and Lybrand? Or was it more a British Columbia product?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's very much a British Columbia product, but they brought their experience because they had been involved in Ontario and the United States.

T. Nebbeling: So during the evaluation process, Coopers and Lybrand were there. How did Coopers and Lybrand ensure that the steps taken by the evaluation committee were indeed as set out in the guidelines?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They were actively involved in each of the evaluation teams.

T. Nebbeling: I don't know how it worked, whether there was a vote taken after going through all the criteria and they said: "Okay. Does this one work or doesn't it work. . . ?" How many people were there on the committee? I should maybe ask you that first.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There would have been, on average, between three and four, because sometimes there was overlap between different committees.

T. Nebbeling: And were these people within the ministry, or were they consultants from outside and asked to be part of this evaluation? What I'm trying to find out, in a sense, is what qualified these committee members for the evaluation.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Coopers and Lybrand was involved in each committee, so that's fine. There would also have been representation -- though not necessarily from each of the organizations -- from the Gaming Commission, the Lottery Corporation, GAIO, the lottery advisory committee -- as it was and now as the gaming policy secretariat -- the B.C. purchasing managers association and a local economist.

T. Nebbeling: When we discussed this, there were 19 organizations that clearly did not meet the criteria at the very early stage. One thing that didn't come clear to me was when these organizations were informed -- or have they been informed? -- that they were actually out of the loop.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There were 49 submitted, and 12 failed right at that stage. Those 12 have all been notified.

[5:00]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We said there were roughly 18 or so that were good, and those that weren't. . . . Some of those have been notified; some of them haven't. The best way -- and the ones I can deal with. . . . In the case of the ones that you could break down as in the north and in the Kootenays. . . . There were nine proposals, three of which were approved. The six that weren't approved have all been notified. And then the rest are still. . . .

T. Nebbeling: In the loop.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

T. Nebbeling: Earlier on we talked about conflict of interest and how we protect ourselves within Crown corporations, and committees as well, and avoid potential conflicts of interest. How are we making sure that once the committee has gone through some of these applications. . . ? And this is just a question; it's not an accusation. How do you make sure that none of the committee members -- who do have inside information -- approach any of the successful participants or successful applicants? Is there anything in place that assures us that that will not happen, that that contact is not being made? Again, it's a little bit suspicion-driven, but I think it is important.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They've all had to sign confidentiality agreements. I'm getting into that ineligible. . . .

A Voice: Ineligibility.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah. They'll all have to sign confidentiality agreements -- you can smile, you know -- and conflict-of-interest agreements.

T. Nebbeling: Definitely the last question, and it goes back to the trust fund. I am still a little bit confused about the

[ Page 9060 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: That money has been audited, which the judge asked for. Once he's got that audit, he will make his decision on the disposition of the money. That's exactly what will take place on -- I think it's seven days from now -- June 29.

T. Nebbeling: It's with the focus that it will be for charities? I take it that the judge will not send it to general revenue -- I hope. Or has he that option?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Within that $10 million, there could be some money that would come from electronic gaming, for example, through slot machines, on which the judge may in fact say: "That goes to the province." Or he may say that the whole $10 million goes to charities. That's why there was an audit done: so that he decides who's getting what.

T. Nebbeling: Is the minister talking about the $3.5 million that is being earmarked to go to the Lottery Corporation? Is that allocation based on what the minister just told this side? Prior to the decision, all moneys that were collected, regardless of whether it came out of a slot machine or not. . . . That may have violated the Criminal Code of Canada, but that is the government's fault. The $3.5 million that may go out of the $10 million towards the Lottery Corporation was money collected in charity casinos. Be it out of slot machines or not is really irrelevant. The charity organizations should not be penalized for the government having made a mistake.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The judge has asked for an audit to determine where the funds will come from, and then the judge will rule on where the money goes. I guess the issue is around. . . . Every dollar that is supposed to go to charities will go to charities, and that's what the judge will decide. That's what he did with the original $20 million: he decided where it goes out. He will do the same thing on this $10 million. He requested that an audit be done so that every dollar that is supposed to go to charities will go to charities.

T. Nebbeling: Just quickly then: the amount of money in trust represented the portion that was supposed to go to charity at the time it was separated from the total take. The government got its portion, the B.C. Lottery Corporation got its portion -- the operator got its portion, I should say. So that $10 million was definitely allocated as a portion for charity. Because of a technicality, where the government may have been in the wrong by taking that money out of the slot machines and putting it into the charity pot, so to say, I can see that the judge may decide that this money cannot be paid out to charities.

However, charities have not gotten, then, their fair share out of the activities they were involved with at the time they were working in the charity casinos. So if the judge decided that a portion of that money cannot be paid to a charity because of section 207(1)(a) and (b), is the government then committed to make it up to charity organizations, by an influx of new money equal to the amount of money that the government will get one way or another out of the $10 million fund, which the judge may declare to be government revenue because of the technicality?

Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points. One, no charity is going to be shortchanged from the amount of money that's in there. The $10 million was put in there to satisfy the guarantee that was supposed to go to charities. So that's what the judge is going to rule on. The government will follow the directions and directives of the court.

T. Nebbeling: We're talking the same language; the minister takes a little bit of a different twist. The bottom line is that that money should be going to charity. If the court says a portion of it has to go into general revenue or into the B.C. Lottery Crown corporation because of the technicality around the issue of a slot machine not being able to provide funds for a charity objective. . . . My question was, then, to the minister: if indeed a portion of that money goes to the Crown corporation, is the government willing and committed to make up that amount of money through other ways, so that charities indeed are not going to lose that revenue? We're talking about $3.5 million, I believe.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If the money is supposed to be going to charities, it will go to charities.

T. Nebbeling: The last question -- and it's not my question, but I have to ask it -- is: within the given conflict-of-interest guidelines and within the letter of confidentiality to be signed, can a committee member, after a proposal has been approved, take employment with the proponents of the winning proposal?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The evaluation committee members are precluded from taking employment for a minimum of one year.

T. Nebbeling: That includes Coopers and Lybrand staff?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it does not include Coopers and Lybrand.

T. Nebbeling: So there's nothing to preclude an employee from Coopers and Lybrand, after having much influence in who is and who is not getting a lottery or a casino licence, from taking employment with the successful proponent. If that is the case, should there not be something in place so it cannot happen?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is no, there is nothing to preclude them. What I would suggest is that there probably is something within their own corporate guidelines around that issue, if they're wanting to maintain their integrity as a firm. But in terms of us. . . . In fact, I think it might even be difficult for us to say. . . . It's hard enough saying it to a public employee, but then to say to a private sector company that you can't work for another private sector company after you've done business with us, I think may be a bit of challenge -- although I do understand where the member is coming from.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to thank the minister. No more questions. I would like to thank staff as well. I apologize to some of you who have been kept here much longer than we

[ Page 9061 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I too would like to take the opportunity to thank my staff. It's been a good opportunity, I think, for both of us, and for my colleague across the way, because I think for both of us. . . . It's a new ministry for me to be responsible for, and it's a new critic area for you to be responsible for, so even though it has taken longer than I think both of us initially anticipated, I don't necessarily think that's for the worse. I think that has enabled both of us to get a better understanding of the workings of the Lottery Corporation in the sense of some of the issues out there. I think we've had a good discussion, a good debate, on a number of points. Some we've been able to agree on, and some we haven't -- and that's the way it is. Now you've got the next section of the ministry to get on to.

[5:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just a quick point: I'm going to have to get some new staff in here. So how about if we take a quick five-minute recess while we get new staff in? Then we'll get on with it.

The Chair: If it pleases the committee, we'll take a five-minute recess, and we'll return in five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:16 p.m. to 5:20 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

L. Reid: As I noted prior to the recess, I wish to canvass the issue of cooperative housing with the minister. There seems to be a discrepancy in the scope of such housing in the province. I have three different documents that all attest to a different number of units in the province, so perhaps we could start with the minister putting on the record what his best advice of the day is in terms of the number of units of cooperative housing in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: About 13,000.

L. Reid: Another document that I referenced today says that in British Columbia in 1997, there were 18 new housing developments that were basically assigned the status of cooperative housing developments. Is that the minister's information?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There would be about two in 1997 that would be classed as co-ops.

L. Reid: So roughly 13,000 units. The conversations, if you will, that I've had with a number of individuals in the last number of days has been around the length of stay of individuals in cooperative housing. They are making the case that people used to stay in those housing situations for shorter periods of time, that they used it as a stepping stone to be involved in some other type of housing and that their preference certainly was individual home-ownership. They tell me today that that scenario has changed, and individuals now stay for much longer periods of time as residents in cooperative housing developments. Can the minister characterize the length of stay -- what it was, say, five years ago and what it is today?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We don't have any figures at hand on that, but certainly we can follow up on that issue. I think the overall assumption is that that is correct: people are staying longer, not just in co-op housing but in social housing as well. I think in part that has to do with the affordability question around housing. We do live in the most expensive housing market in Canada, and certainly in the areas that you and I represent, one of the most expensive housing markets in North America. When you say that there is a trend to staying longer, you are correct.

L. Reid: I make those comments based on the fact that there seems to be tremendous concern in terms of the number of new cooperative housing units coming on line. People are seeing that reduction to be magnified, because there are, frankly, fewer vacancies as we move through the system. I know the minister has been in contact with the federal government regarding a new housing agency to look after cooperative housing. I have some correspondence that suggests that the discussions are ongoing. Could the minister provide some background as to what he sees as a remedy for the current concern over the status of cooperative housing in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Where to begin. . . ? I'll focus on two points. First, there is the financial, and then there is the political. The financial reality is that the federal government used to play a much stronger role in housing than it does now, and when they did participate, we were able to build significantly more units than we can at the present time. So that's had a big impact -- their withdrawal from funding of housing and turning it over to the provinces and to local government. B.C. is one of two provinces that continue to build.

We're trying to find ways to deal with that by being more creative. For example, we've worked extremely well with the city of Vancouver in trying to look at ways of leveraging more out of what's left. Having said that, I think one of the things that needs to happen. . . . If you believe in a strong cooperative housing sector, I don't think you can leave it up to the provinces individually. I think that it has always been incorporated and viewed as a national program, and the best way to deal with it is to look at it as a national program. If the federal government doesn't wish to participate or to have responsibility for housing, and wishes to devolve it to the provinces, that's fine. I may have an argument with them on that, but I understand the reasons why they've made that decision. I think they could be prepared to look at alternative structures to govern cooperative housing in the country and not just leave it, for example, to ten provincial and territorial associations, but give serious consideration to the idea of setting up -- if you like, almost at arm's length -- a national umbrella group that can address cooperative housing on a national level and bring a national perspective to it, to see if we can do things on a national level as opposed to a strictly provincial level.

[ Page 9062 ]

L. Reid: I would certainly agree with the minister, when he talks about a mix of communities, that it's important to have a strata -- not anywhere near the strata title discussion we had earlier in Municipal Affairs, but a strata of communities that does reflect people with substantial resources and perhaps individuals with fewer resources. I think that kind of community neighbourhood reflection is valid. We've certainly always prized home-ownership as one of the basic tenets of Canadian society. Having done that, we would like to make that opportunity available to individuals who have differing sources of income. I certainly support that contention, and I agree with the minister that it's vital that we move on creating the national housing agency, if you will. I too would like to see some certainty across the country for delivering co-op housing and perhaps other types of housing that we've had discussion on in the past.

I want to come back to the point I made earlier about the number of co-ops in British Columbia in 1997. The Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada 1997 review is the document I'm referencing. That is indeed where I gleaned the number of 18. "Thirty-three housing co-ops joined CHF Canada in 1997, bringing to 738 the number of member co-ops. We now have more than 49,000 member households. The largest gain was in British Columbia, where 18 co-ops signed up." I appreciate that that is not actually built, but my question was in terms of coming to the co-op family -- as they call it: is it also the minister's understanding that indeed it is something that's continuing to be thought of very well in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would agree with those remarks the member made as well. I'd also just like to clarify, in terms of CMHC co-ops in British Columbia, that there are 15,979. You can add the Homes B.C. co-ops to that. It probably actually pushes the number closer to 17,000 or so.

L. Reid: That would be 17,000 individual units of housing? Thank you. The minister is nodding his assent.

They also indicate in this newsletter that there are many thousands of individuals on the wait-list for cooperative housing, which I think speaks to my earlier point that indeed people are, frankly, just staying longer. If at a future point I am able to receive that documentation, I would very much appreciate that. Certainly it's an issue for my riding, for Richmond. The minister referenced in his remarks, hon. Chair, that his area and mine are both growing at astronomical rates and, indeed, that finding appropriate housing is always going to be problematic unless we come to grips with providing greater opportunities for individuals.

[5:30]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm quite supportive of the idea of a new agency. In fact, at a recent meeting we had with my counterparts from across the country -- provincial housing ministers -- I advanced the idea to my colleagues. I think there is some interest and some recognition from some provinces. Others are very much: "Give it to us, and we'll make all the decisions." But I think there is a recognition from some provinces that there is a way the federal government can be creative or a way the provinces can come together and be creative and put in place something that is more reflective of the needs and desires of the cooperative housing sector in the country. I have articulated as a British Columbia position, with my provincial counterparts, that I think this is something that we should do. It is something that has a lot of merit, and that we should be lobbying or encouraging the federal government to consider and, hopefully, adopt it.

L. Reid: I would agree with the minister in that. Bill 31, which talks about the Municipal Act, talks about new partnerships, and in fact this would be a new partnership -- a different way to come before government and say yes or no to a variety of different opportunities. Certainly the questions posed to me -- again, in the correspondence I have before me today -- are around the status of the five provinces that have currently signed on. Does that put British Columbia in a different position in terms of advocating for this new agency? What will be the fate, the future, of the provinces that have currently signed on?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a couple of points. First, around the devolution agreement, there is a sort of first-in clause, and the ability, if provinces negotiate better terms of agreement, to get those improvements, if you like.

So the fact that you had Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories -- the smaller provinces by and large, where there is either a very small social housing sector or a very small cooperative housing sector. . . . It depends on your point of view whether the feds or the provinces. . . . They were picked off first. The agreement was set up first with them in mind, because they have the fewest number of issues that need to be addressed. Then it's on to negotiating with the larger provinces, and by them I mean Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and, to a certain extent, Alberta.

Let's put it this way: I would think the real issue around cooperative housing and the ability to create a national umbrella group rests with the larger provinces. If you were able to do that and come to some agreement between the larger provinces and the federal government, then you could easily bring in the smaller provinces that have already signed an agreement.

I think the real issue is this: is the will there amongst the provinces to do that? You know, that's a different story. Some are probably more enthusiastic than others. I think there are some issues that need to be addressed around areas of provincial jurisdiction and provincial funding, because in the way that some provinces. . . . It depends on the type of co-op. Some co-ops have a considerable amount of provincial financial involvement; I think Manitoba is an example. Their con-

[ Page 9063 ]

But I think the real issue needs to be decided amongst the larger provinces. Once you've done that, then -- although nothing is ever simple -- I certainly don't believe it's complicated to bring the small provinces along.

L. Reid: I would concur with the minister. I think it's perhaps more straightforward if indeed some consensus can be reached among the provinces.

The current information I have, from the Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada, talks about 90,000 households across Canada that are currently termed cooperative housing. Is that the information the minister has as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

L. Reid: If the minister was correct earlier when he talked about somewhere between 15,000 and 17,000 units in British Columbia -- that indeed there is a reasonable percentage -- is it a fact that British Columbia is in second place in terms of the number of cooperative housing units, and that Ontario is in first spot?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that would be correct. Ontario is definitely in first place.

L. Reid: Has some discussion been held with the province of Ontario, in that Ontario and British Columbia are obviously the largest players? Has some discussion been held in terms of where they would wish to advance this issue?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, there has been. I would say that right now it's probably tied up with the larger issue of devolution as a whole.

Judging from the smile on the member's face, she's probably wanting me to. . . . The devolution issue is the process whereby the federal government is pulling. . . . They've already got out of the construction side. Now they're looking at devolving or -- to be able to use this for once, as opposed to being accused of being the architect of it -- downloading, if you like, onto the. . . .

L. Reid: Partnering.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member says partnering. But yeah, it's the devolution of all housing down to the provinces. The cooperative housing sector is wrapped up in that, from the point of view of the federal government. I've held discussions with my colleague Al Leach, who is the minister in Ontario, along with all my other colleagues from across the country on the whole issue with social and cooperative housing.

L. Reid: So if the province of Ontario is successful in separating out the social housing side of the equation from the cooperative housing side -- if I might be so bold as to paraphrase -- is it the minister's sense that it would move fairly quickly in terms of Ontario coming on line to support this new agency?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll put it this way: if you were to have the support of Ontario, it would certainly be a big help, as opposed to a hindrance. I mean, that alone isn't going to move something to an ultimate conclusion, but it would certainly be a very positive step forward.

L. Reid: I'm cognizant of the issues that are paramount to cooperative housing individuals today. Certainly they talk about the independence, the member-control aspects of living in that type of housing. That certainly seems to be a concern. If indeed they were to see themselves rolled into the discussion around social housing, they do not see the same independence and the same choices being available to individuals. They're holding on very tightly to the member-control aspects of cooperative housing. Is that something of concern to the minister? Would he continue to support the member-control aspects of cooperative housing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, absolutely. Member control of co-ops is one of the integral cornerstones upon which cooperative housing is built.

L. Reid: Certainly it's my understanding that cooperative housing came into being in Canada around 1970 as a result of the Hellyer report, which looked at how to create opportunities for individuals so that you could create neighbourhoods, look at community building and see housing as a tool for community building. Those arguments speak very strongly to me. I support that notion of where we might be as a country had it not been for the ability to blend communities. My question to the minister would be along the lines of: where does he see this discussion around cooperative housing being, say, five or ten years from now? Will it continue to be an integral part of housing choice within British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If we can reach some sort of agreement with the federal government which can look at cooperative housing in a national context, I think that there is a bright future for cooperative housing and that we can continue to see cooperative housing as an important part of the housing mix not only within the province but within the country. If we don't, then I think it will face some challenges. It will be harder in those provinces that don't have a large sector to build on what they already have. In those provinces that do have a substantial cooperative housing sector, it will, in large measure, depend on the approach that each provincial government takes to the cooperative housing sector. If it wants to fund cooperative housing and it wants to encourage it, then, yes. That's my sense of what will happen in British Columbia, and the approach we will want to take is that cooperative housing is important. Yes, there is a place and a role for it. If the provinces honour the operating agreements that the federal government negotiated, then, yes. If they choose to say, "No, this is not our responsibility; it is a local government or federal government responsibility," and they want to abrogate their role in the system. . . .

I firmly believe that housing is a three-level responsibility. It is local, it is provincial, and it is federal. Any time you remove one of those levels, then you weaken what we already have. I think it depends on what we do federally, and it depends on the attitude of the provinces. Certainly, from British Columbia's perspective, it is my goal to continue to ensure that it's a healthy and vibrant sector in the British Columbia housing scheme of things.

L. Reid: Certainly I agree with the minister when he talks about affordable, secure housing. My question was going to be around what it was the province would need. What I'm

[ Page 9064 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of things. One, there are provincial co-ops already in existence, and of course, we would continue to fund them according to the agreements that are already in place. In terms of new ones, again, there is provincial money going into housing, and that would be something we would want to maintain. In terms of the federal co-ops, I guess the key issue comes down to funding in terms of those agreements already in place and how they are going to be honoured, and issues around maintenance and capital upgrades and capital expenditures. You know, those are key. The issues of reserves are key. For example, can co-ops keep the reserves in place that they have built up to deal with issues around maintenance? If those are in place, then a lot of co-ops are going to be able to deal with it. If they're not in place or if they're clawed back, then that causes some significant problems for co-ops. So those would be, I think, the key issues that need to be addressed.

L. Reid: The minister talked about new facilities and new agreements. The specific question I would have is around existing facilities when their current agreements come to an end. What type of leadership can the current owners and residents expect in terms of taking that agreement from the day it expires and moving forward under the new agency?

The Chair: Noting the time, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Okay, a couple of points. One, most of the agreements still run long-term to about 2020. So that's like 22 years away. I guess. . . .

L. Reid: Thank you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's what I say. Mind you, you and I are still both young enough that, hey, we won't even be eligible for. . . .

L. Reid: Barely 40.

[5:45]

Now, the issue is the length of the agreements in place -- expiring. Clearly the province wants to -- has to -- honour existing agreements that are in there. Once those agreements are paid off and they're wholly owned -- you know, there's no mortgage -- then, hopefully, they'll be self-sustaining; they can continue to be co-ops on a self-sustaining basis without having to have a large expenditure of funds going to pay off a mortgage.

L. Reid: The last question or two that I will pose are regarding timeliness. There's great uncertainty and great apprehension in the field today around the future of co-ops. If the minister could perhaps give some guidance as to how long he believes this discussion will be ongoing until some certainty is reached -- i.e., the creation of the agency, the political will that puts British Columbia in a similar state to the provinces that have already signed on, or some other option. Where are we in terms of time?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is a hard question to answer. In terms of, "Is there a definitive time line and date right now?" the answer is no. We have sent off to the federal minister what we think needs to be done. We have had our first housing ministers meeting -- in six years, I think -- to have a real discussion around these issues, and the ball is now firmly in Ottawa's court. If they were to be agreeable to what we're proposing or to what the Cooperative Housing Federation is proposing, then we could probably move things along quite quickly.

The Chair: Minister. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: I was going to say: "Should I move. . . ?" Or do you want to ask me more questions?

L. Reid: I have one question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member has one quick question? Okay.

The Chair: Member.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments on timeliness. Certainly Alfonso Gagliano, who has indeed, I believe, responded to the minister, also doesn't commit to a time line. So I will certainly do my best to ensure that we work together to see if we can get some certainty around the question. If there are issues that the minister wishes to have the opposition debate in more detail, we would certainly be open to that suggestion as well.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member's comments. With that, I move the committee rise, report considerable progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.

The House in Committee of Supply A; M. Sihota in the chair.

The committee met at 6:40 p.m.

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

T. Nebbeling: Prior to dinner you had a small session, I believe, with the member for Richmond Centre.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Richmond East.

T. Nebbeling: Richmond East. I knew it was in that area. I think the focus was primarily on co-ops, so I would like to focus a little bit more on social housing. Maybe, first of all, you could introduce the team.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They are Rick Peddie from B.C. Housing, and Jim O'Dea, who is on the board of B.C. Housing.

[ Page 9065 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The social housing aspect of the ministry does not include co-ops. It includes social housing units throughout the province. It also includes the SAFER program, which is the shelter allowance for elderly renters. Approximately 50,000 units of housing are provided. I think there are about 38,000 actual rooms, physical buildings, throughout the province. It has a subsidy of about $158 million, which works out to about $168 a person a month. There are about 11,000 applicants trying to access the system at any one time. A lot of the stock is older stock that was constructed in the early seventies, and then it has been built on over the years.

Currently we are one of two provinces in the country that continue to build social housing -- ourselves and Quebec. In the last number of years I think we've been averaging around 900 units of housing a year. Clearly, while we are building some, it does not cover the increasing demand. So we are increasingly looking at ways of entering partnerships, primarily with local government. We've been able to work with many municipalities -- the city of Vancouver, for example -- to provide leverage. Our allocation, coupled with a contribution from local government -- in the case of Vancouver, quite often it's land -- can allow us to build 280 units instead of 200.

There's a wide variety of housing options available, including for seniors, single families, people with disabilities. Recently there has been a bit of focus on the downtown east side around single-room-occupancy hotels, trying to bring them up to code to make them better places to live in. So that's a general overview. We don't deal with the private sector housing market or single family homes -- that type of thing. That gives you a sense of what we're doing.

T. Nebbeling: Are the special needs facilities the shelters you mentioned, or are they in a different category as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, special needs, disabilities -- and I'm talking primarily about people with a physical or mental disability -- and shelters are separate, and they come under the Ministry of Human Resources.

[6:45]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the big-picture issue is that within Vancouver the number of SROs, single-room-occupancy hotels, has declined over the last decade -- in fact, even before that. That has put increasing pressure on the existing stock, because for many people it is the accommodation of last resort, particularly in the downtown east side and the south Granville area of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver had asked for an amendment to the Vancouver Charter that would allow them to control the rate of demolition and conversion of these hotel rooming houses -- the units. In particular, the issue around the Hotel California came about just before that, because there was a fear that there would be a massive stop. The intention in fact was to allow the city to regulate and put in place a plan over a period of time -- not just boom! And that's it. That was sort of a panic reaction. Since then, what has happened is that the city is developing a bylaw on how they want to proceed. That's one issue, and it's being dealt with.

The second issue is around conversion, or substandard hotels. The fact is that from time to time they come up on the market, and there's an opportunity for B.C. Housing to purchase them. Recently that's what happened with the Sunrise Hotel and the Washington Hotel. They became available, and B.C. Housing purchased them. The intent now is to upgrade them, to bring them more up to code, to create a more stable environment and then, hopefully, to deliver services that the community needs -- particularly around health services, social services or services for the mentally ill. You have a stable client base, so there's some stability, and you can deal with long-term treatment of the residents who are currently living there. That also involves, in the case of the Sunrise, shutting down the pub. That's what's happening there.

We're looking at other opportunities on a case-by-case basis as they become available, and we're working with the city and other agencies. Initially, this particular project was a partnership between ourselves, Vancouver and the Vancouver-Richmond health board. Our sense is that there will be opportunities for partnerships with the city, the health board and the private sector in the future.

T. Nebbeling: I was going to ask some questions on the Washington Hotel and the Sunrise Hotel as well, although I had planned it for later. But as you introduced it, I don't mind going there. Then we can go back to the single-room occupancy units as an overall strategy, if that's okay with the minister.

The Washington and Sunrise hotels -- what led the government to take these two particular hotels at the time you did? Was it the need for renovation, or was there any other reason that made sense for the government to interfere?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There were three primary reasons, to use the old real estate phrase: "location, location, location." They happened to be in some of the worst areas of the city, and they were available for sale. The fact that one of them came with a pub that could be closed down also made it a more attractive candidate.

T. Nebbeling: How many units in total did these two hotels operate?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the Washington Hotel there were 89 units, and in the Sunrise there were 55 units.

T. Nebbeling: What will happen with the tenants once the renovation is underway?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They will be able to stay in the renovated hotels.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe you can explain that. I take it that the state of these two hotels is such that they need serious

[ Page 9066 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There will be no net increase in the number of units. It's just that these units will become much more habitable than they currently are. Initially some people moved out while this is taking place; others have chosen to stay while the work is being done.

T. Nebbeling: You mentioned that the pub has been closed down. The purchase price must have reflected that component. What's going to happen in that space?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Vancouver-Richmond health board will be using it for a community health centre.

T. Nebbeling: At one point there was some talk that it would become a centre for methadone patients and for pickup. That is nothing on paper; it was just a rumour. Was that a rumour, then?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah.

T. Nebbeling: Okay -- great.

Can the minister tell me what percentage of the total inventory of social housing, especially in downtown Vancouver, is made up by single-room-occupancy units?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of SROs that are under the control of B.C. Housing, these are the only two. So there would be 89 units in the one and 55 in the other.

T. Nebbeling: Is there a count available, then, of privately owned or organization-owned SROs as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are approximately 7,500 SRO units in the downtown east side, of which about 500 units would be what you would call non-governmental organizations -- DERA, the Portland Hotel Society. You know, they're not private sector; they're sort of a non-governmental public body.

T. Nebbeling: Considering, then, that the overwhelming inventory is actually in the hands of the private sector, and also considering the call of the ministry to have a more assured and a better quality of single-room-occupancy units, does the government intend to purchase more of these operations in the long run, within the program of an additional 600 a year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: These are over and above the 600 allocated; that's for new construction. And that's social housing; it's slightly differentiated from the SROs. The issue around the SROs is that yes, we would like to get more hotels, more rooms, up to par and up to grade. We do recognize that there are very limited resources in this area. However, I think that unique opportunities do come along, and what we've started to do is identify where some of the key sites are and try to look at it strategically so that we can do it. . . . For example, if there is an opportunity to make an impact on a particular block, then identify those so that you can either pick them up, as we did with the Washington Hotel and the Sunrise Hotel, or. . . . What we've been trying to do is work with the city of Vancouver, the Vancouver-Richmond health board and the private sector -- for example, VanCity has expressed some interest -- to identify the opportunities that are there and move forward on a strategic basis as opposed to one here and one there.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think that is going to be the key in the downtown east side and in downtown south. We're also applying a similar strategy to other parts of the province, to some of the larger communities, particularly New Westminster, Victoria and Prince George -- some of the more established, longtime communities in the province where you have SRO hotels available that quite often need to be upgraded.

T. Nebbeling: First of all, I really applaud the changes that are beginning to be made in downtown Vancouver. I can't talk about Prince George or Victoria and their needs. But having spent a fair amount of time with a number of organizations and looking at what is happening there, I can only say that if I have ever seen a poor zone as an example of how something has to happen, I think downtown Vancouver or the East Hastings area is clearly an example that must convince everybody that change is needed.

Having said that, as you are working with almost a fixed budget, are you concerned with the cost of the Labour Code changes -- that the amount of product you can put out is going to be reduced because of increased costs? Or do you not think that's a factor?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're not anticipating that it will have much of an impact, if any, on the hotel upgrades. A lot of it is renovation as opposed to new construction, and most of the work done in this sector is by non-union firms.

[7:00]

But having said that, I don't really want to focus on that too much. What I am interested in is the average square footage paid for construction on the Washington and Sunrise hotels, including their purchase prices. What does it come to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a couple of points. If B.C. Housing were building new construction, they would be looking at roughly $80 to $90 a square foot in a wood-frame unit and $100 to $110 in concrete. This is substantially less than that; in fact, it's hard to say, on a square-foot basis, because the units are very, very small. If I remember correctly from last year, about $40,000 per unit is what it works out to. In fact, there's $200,000 in renovations on the Washington Hotel and $800,000 in renovations on the Sunrise, and there are 55 units in the Sunrise and 89 units in the Washington. It's substantially lower than the cost of new construction.

T. Nebbeling: The minister said the Washington is $200,000 and the Sunrise is $800,000, where the Washington has 89 units and the Sunrise has 55 units.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That reflects the difference in the condition of the two hotels. The Washington is in much better shape than the Sunrise. One of the main reasons for getting the Sunrise is because you would get the pub, which is also

[ Page 9067 ]

T. Nebbeling: I want to move on, because we have a fair amount of questions and time is going by fast. How many potential clients do you think you have to serve if you take the waiting lists that are in place today with a number of the downtown associations? I'm sorry that I'm still focusing on downtown exclusively at the moment, but I will get beyond that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Between 4,000 and 5,000, hon. member, is what you would look at -- people who are on a waiting list trying to access accommodation in the downtown east side.

T. Nebbeling: Does that mean that these are people who today are actually living in the downtown east side, or are they coming from other areas and prefer to be in the east side and therefore are on a waiting list? Are there any records of that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They are people in that area at the moment who are looking for housing in that particular part of Vancouver.

T. Nebbeling: How many of these people are homeless, then? Or where are they living today, if they are waiting? The majority should have a roof over their head, I hope.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be a combination. It would be people who are homeless and living on the street. It would be people who are in shelters. It would be people who are living in other substandard SROs. It would be people who are living in other accommodations, who are paying too much in the way of rent in proportion to their income and are trying to get out of that.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate that answer. I thought the waiting list was dictated more by people who were homeless, and that would have been a shocking number, of course.

As I said earlier on, having been through the area a number of times, my real concern is with what is happening there and the things I've seen happening there and also that single-room-occupancy units are very much concentrated in that area. Can the minister give me an idea of how we are going to break that routine of automatically coming to the downtown east side when a person is downtrodden? The minister stated earlier on that in the ministry they are right now looking at establishing areas in other locations like Victoria, Prince George, Kamloops and wherever. I think that's a good idea, because a lot of people seem to come to Vancouver at a certain stage in life when it is quite hopeless and then, for some reason, think that they will at least have camaraderie there and a roof over their head. I think that's part of the reason we see that concentration. What are we doing in Vancouver itself to get people out of the frame of mind that the downtown east side is the only place where they can find a roof? Is the ministry planning that type of social housing, single-room-occupancy units and others, in other areas where occupants can hopefully lift themselves up to a level that is a bit higher?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of strategies in place. Clearly one is the issue around the SROs that we've been talking about, which the member just touched upon in terms of other communities in the province -- Prince George, Nanaimo, Kamloops, Victoria. You stabilize a housing stock there so that there is a place for people to go, and it's clean and available. That's one.

The second is to make sure that we build more social housing units out in the different regions of the province and in Vancouver and make the best use of the allocation we have, so we don't get into the initial: "There's nothing here; I've got to try Vancouver, the big city." So the attitude isn't: "There will always be something there." That's clearly the other.

The third -- and this is outside this ministry, but we work closely with the Ministry of Health -- is the implementation of the mental health plan. One of the issues has been around, for example, the downsizing at Riverview and making sure that there are facilities in place in different parts of the province so that people can get treatment where they need it. They can get access to health services where they need it, so it's not all focused in one area and they're not discharged on the street with a bus ticket to the downtown east side. That's clearly another component.

Finally, it's to work on getting the housing issue addressed. I talked briefly with my colleague from Richmond East that it is as much a local government issue as it is a provincial issue, and there's also a very strong role for the federal government. All three levels of government have a role to play, because the issues around housing are many and interlinked. They involve not just housing but things like health, health care, education and opportunities. So it's a whole host of issues.

T. Nebbeling: The program that was introduced dealing with mental health patients. . . . I think it was six months ago or maybe even more recently than that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, this session.

T. Nebbeling: It was this session?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah.

T. Nebbeling: So no steps have really been taken to ensure that indeed it becomes reality, that this plan comes to fruition. I'm saying that, because like most of us. . . . We often hear the horror stories of mental health patients walking the streets. I see them everywhere now, including in West Vancouver. Sometimes I have a little chat if they want to talk. But I really feel that there are a lot of people on the streets that are really lost, and it's very often young people or women. For that reason, I was going to ask you questions on that whole component later -- if we are indeed doing something. There's a $6 million plan, if I'm not mistaken.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Yeah? Something like that. Has anything moved forward since the announcement of the plan?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of things that. . . . There's the overall plan, which is fairly ambitious, and in fact it has, I think, a larger budget than the $6 million we talked about. In terms of how it specifically relates to housing, a number of initiatives have taken place. One is that there are now eight people working with B.C. Housing around mental health issues in terms of dealing with the

[ Page 9068 ]

There is a housing strategy that is being worked on with the director of Riverview. As well, there is what's called the supported independent living program, or SILP. That's applying approximately 700 units right now. Clearly one of the major focal points of the mental health program -- this is more into health -- is the issue around facilities in different regions of the province and the long-term role that Riverview will play in terms of the delivery of mental health services in the province. The key issue is to make sure that we have services in those parts of the province where they're needed. When you do that, I think you will start to see really dramatic changes taking place.

[7:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is a rent supplement program that allows people with mental illnesses to live in their own place within the private sector. If you own a home, for example, or you have an apartment, then someone with a mental illness is able to live there with our rent supplement program. Currently there are 700 units throughout the province, and the goal over the next five years is to take that up to around 2,500 units.

T. Nebbeling: Is the minister saying that patients are, through this program, actually able to stay within their family environment? Or are there special house blocks set aside -- within, hopefully, a concentration of other mixes as well -- where the rent supplement allows them to live together with some sort of supervision? I don't know.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's outside the family. Right out the window, you can see a building over there. Let's say it has four suites in it. Two of those suites, if I were the landlord, I could rent to people with mental illnesses, for example. They are now in a stable environment, because they have security of tenure, or they have security of accommodation through the program. Then, in terms of services that are required, let's say. . . . Well, in Port Coquitlam, for example, the one that comes to mind is the New View Society. They deliver services to people with mental health problems, so they are a non-profit agency that would be able to deliver the services they require.

T. Nebbeling: I thought it was quite telling that you pointed in that direction. I know there is a new, small complex going up. It's a co-op project. Has there been consideration given -- when co-op organizations indeed want to have this style of development that is nice, central and small -- that part of the development, not as a requirement but for serious consideration, is given for that kind of concept? The reason is that I think that would be a great opportunity, primarily because a lot of landlords would be hesitant to rent to people with mental health issues -- not because they don't sympathize, but they don't know what the neighbours are going to say. That kind of attitude. . . . So in these new co-op places, where government does give a bit of a break by way of a co-op, is there a rule or component built into these complexes to almost assure that mental health patients can integrate?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, there is no requirement at the present time, but the eight mental health workers that I mentioned previously not only work with social housing projects in British Columbia but also work with the co-op sector and with private accommodation to smooth the way and assist in placing tenants with mental illness.

T. Nebbeling: Earlier on we talked about square footage, and I believe the minister told us that the average cost for a concrete building was $110 to $120. First of all, how much of the construction that is supported through your agency is actually concrete, and then how much is frame?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Probably about 60 percent would be wood-frame construction, and about 40 percent would be concrete construction -- for example, down on False Creek.

T. Nebbeling: I was actually intrigued by $120 a square foot, because that's a fairly heavy price for a concrete building. I take it that also includes the refurbishing of the unit. Or is that extra?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that would be all of the construction. It would not include the land, but it would all the finishings -- everything but the soft costs.

T. Nebbeling: Like I said, that's fairly high. . . . You shake your head. You're entitled to shake your head. I shake my head all the time, listening. It's a two-way street. Especially when we go into the suburbs, I believe that a square-footage price between $75 and $95 is fairly regular. That often includes at least the appliances and the curtains.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a couple of points I'd make in terms of concrete. One is that there's very little built outside the city of Vancouver. Most of that is right downtown. The rest of the province tends to be wood-frame. Most concrete, for example, is at Concord Pacific, False Creek -- down in that area.

The other point I'd make is that all the projects are tendered; they are open-tender projects. Finally, we're building to slightly different specifications than in the private market. Instead of large units or three-bedroom units, we tend to build smaller units to a particular format. That has an impact in terms of the actual cost. In terms of the unit, it comes out somewhat cheaper -- the actual accommodation unit, the dwelling.

T. Nebbeling: Would the minister give me a brief overview of where the housing agency is focusing on building new relationships today with other forms of government? Earlier the minister made a statement on that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Between '94 and '97 there were 3,870 units built, and 1,782 of them have been done in partnerships. And we're doing more of that. For example, we're starting to coordinate what we do now with what local government does and with non-profit agencies. In the past year I think that's been really evident, especially in the city of Vancouver. We made an initial announcement last year of around 200 units for downtown, South Vancouver, False Creek and down around Pender. The city of Vancouver came in and said: "We can add more land here." As a result of that, we've been able to increase that by another 80 units. We are very much trying to get more and more into partnerships either with local government, with the non-profit sector or with the private sector.

T. Nebbeling: I know that in the past there have been some working relationships developed. I don't know if they

[ Page 9069 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think there are a number of examples. I don't have any hesitation in saying that for all the fights that the province and the city of Vancouver get into with each other, and as much as we like to criticize each other, I think one area that both of us will agree on -- and each of us has stated that publicly -- is that there is a great deal of cooperation in the area of housing between the province and the city of Vancouver. I think that has worked extremely well. In fact, I was at a thing where. . . . The mayor of Vancouver publicly said at a council meeting that it really annoys him that the media have overlooked this area of cooperation between the province and the city, because there is a lot of work going on and a lot of attempts to be creative and come up with new ways of doing things.

In terms of the non-profit sector, more and more non-profit organizations are coming to the table not only with cash but also with land to put up front in order to get the province's participation.

[7:30]

T. Nebbeling: I really appreciated the words of appreciation for what the previous mayor of Vancouver, who is today the Leader of the Opposition, has done as far as leaving a legacy of working relationships with the provincial government. That recognition by the minister is certainly appreciated, and I will convey that recognition to the Leader of the Opposition -- the former mayor.

Having said that, when did the federal government actually pull out of this so-called partnership that led to higher production levels? What was the reason that they actually did move out? Stick to my question. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, Philip Owen made those comments at a council meeting.

Anyway, the issue that we're dealing with in terms of the role of the federal government. . . . It was in '93 that they decided to withdraw from the housing field across the country. Basically it was a budgetary decision. Since then, the provinces have been left to pick up the slack. Some have done so -- British Columbia and Quebec -- and others have decided to leave that up to local government or they have not done anything at all.

T. Nebbeling: Let's go on to another aspect, especially the single-occupancy residential units and the need for many more. In downtown Vancouver -- the downtown east side -- there have been, from time to time, private interests expressed to rebuild, renovate or construct a new facility that has units of a size that I think the minister talks about when the government is looking at building at a cost that is affordable within the guidelines set by the ministry about how much that type of accommodation can and should cost. They should not cost more. I have been receiving a number of expressions of chagrin or displeasure -- I'm trying to be polite here -- about the lack of cooperation that they have received. There's one particular project, at 33-37 East Pender Street, where a proposal was made to build a new single-room-occupancy complex with rent rates between $325 and $400, with an average of $370. Has that project ever gone ahead? Are you aware of the project?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only project I'm aware of in that particular area is that the Vancouver Native Housing Society has an allocation for about 100 units. If the member has more specific details on the project, I can probably provide more information.

T. Nebbeling: It is a project on West Pender Street, opposite the International Village site development. I can give even you the name of the proponent of the project; it's Mr. Robert Isaac-Renton.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're aware of the involvement of the individual in a project on West Hastings, but I'm not aware of any involvement with him in a project on. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Okay, I'll look into it. That's probably the best way.

T. Nebbeling: I will provide the minister with the papers. They're happy to see some consideration of this project, no doubt. I think that after what the minister has told me about his objectives as far as quality, size and affordable rents are concerned, this may well fit that picture.

There was a study done recently for B.C. Housing by Mr. David Black from Ekos Research in Ottawa. The minister is aware of the study, I take it. The premise of the study was to establish, once and forever, the wisdom of subsidized housing over market housing by the private sector with regulations. Is the minister aware of the study?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, I am. This is the capital-cost-versus-rent-supplement study.

T. Nebbeling: As I said, this study was commissioned by B.C. Housing and conducted by Mr. David Black. Mr. Black explained some of the details and why he believes that the old principles of capital housing -- market housing -- and the value of it to social housing have changed considerably, based on data that he has put together. One of the intriguing things, I thought, about the whole letter was that Mr. Black starts out by complimenting B.C. Housing for all the pertinent information that B.C. Housing provided, which allowed him to come to the conclusions he reached in his study.

My first question, of course, is: when B.C. Housing applies for a study to be done -- and I suppose that has to be done on a fair and neutral basis, as far as the data that goes to

[ Page 9070 ]

The Chair: Minister, I believe the question was whether you're happy.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm happy for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that the individual, Mr. Black, had to access the data himself. B.C. Housing made the data available to him, but he had to go through the files and dig it out. The fact is that B.C. Housing looks at. . . . We see the value of both rent supplement and capital housing costs. A lot of people over the years have criticized capital housing costs, and that was one of the issues addressed in the study.

T. Nebbeling: There are more happy people. Who is Hanne Hindle?

Hon. M. Farnworth: She's in charge of the file room.

T. Nebbeling: As an employee of B.C. Housing, I take it? Hanne Hindle, in particular, is put aside for his appreciation because of her. . . . I quote Mr. Black: "Hanne Hindle's cheerful help with physical access to the information and her assistance in responding to the many requests was invaluable." I don't think that could be interpreted as being directed towards filing -- go and find it. I think Hanne cheerfully did much of the physical work, thereby discrediting the statement of the minister.

Having said that, there are some other people. Can the minister tell me if there's a Peter Lamour working for B.C. Housing?

A Voice: Peter Larmour.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I said it in French.

Hon. M. Farnworth: His name is Peter Larmour, and he is a senior research person.

T. Nebbeling: Again -- Larmour or Lamour -- if the researcher didn't do his research on the people who assisted him as far as the names were concerned. . . . Mr. Peter Larmour made many crucial suggestions that were incorporated in the material. Again, is that the neutrality you would expect a consultant to need in order to come up with a conclusion about the values he was studying and its correctness?

My point is that while I will not question the data that ultimately came with the study, the information was clearly provided primarily by B.C. Housing. I do not know why B.C. Housing wanted this study done. If it was indeed to prove that capital or the market was a better approach towards the long-term need for social housing, then they certainly succeeded in doing that. But I fear that the manner by which the information needed to come to that conclusion was provided to Mr. Black is kind of suspect. Does the minister share that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I won't comment on levels of suspicion, but the bottom line. . . . This is the first study on this particular issue, based on empirical data. All other studies that have been done are of a theoretical nature. This is the first time that information -- data -- has been made available to look at this issue, and that's exactly what happened. The researcher drew his own conclusions.

T. Nebbeling: The minister is quite firm that this is the very first time that the data is being used for conclusive. . . .

The Chair: I don't think there was a question there, minister. You may as well let the member finish.

T. Nebbeling: The minister made a statement that conclusively, for once, the data that was provided, which led to the conclusions, had so much more value, in a sense, because in the past all studies were based on assumptions as opposed to the actual data. Is the minister really convinced that never in the past have studies been done on the same subject, with the same objective, which were truly based on data?

[7:45]

T. Nebbeling: I know there is a remark that previous studies indeed tended -- it doesn't say where, but it says tended -- to base their conclusions on assumptions. The way that it's put means that there have been studies -- they may not have been the norm -- that were based on data. I don't know if that was just on B.C. or if it included a broader federal perspective. I ask that question, because the impression is given that this has never been done before. "We did it, and B.C. Housing helped us, giving us the information, but at least it was data." Now that the minister said this was B.C, where were the centres where the housing components were studied, or where did the data about housing that was used for comparison to come to these conclusions come from?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Most of the projects were in the lower mainland.

T. Nebbeling: Does that mean the downtown east side primarily?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Throughout the lower mainland.

T. Nebbeling: There were 34 projects evaluated. How many of them were outside the downtown core or the Vancouver city core? How many were in the lower mainland, be it Surrey, Richmond and other areas?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll have to get you that number, hon. member.

T. Nebbeling: Well, it is important, because if heavy emphasis was put on the downtown east side where the buildings in general are of a quality and maintenance that are deplorable, the value is different from the value of a similar building, for example, in Surrey -- with a shorter life span. I also think that the revenue in Surrey may be a little bit higher because of the clientele. They're all needy individuals, but in the downtown core you really get the downtrodden people who can't pay $300, whereas in the Surrey area they may be able to pay $370 or $400. It's all these factors that come into play. And not knowing exactly where these housing projects were is going to make it very difficult for me, again, to evaluate whether there has been fairness in selecting the housing in the areas. In Victoria, we'll probably charge a little bit

[ Page 9071 ]

Having said that, I can't say much more on this study of 108 pages with a lot of numbers. I was intrigued by the objectivity of the study as far as the information that was given to the consultant, and I think I've explained it.

The Chair: Well, there's no question there, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair. If there are no more questions -- I understand the member's comments -- I thank him for his and his colleagues' participation in the debate.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 7:49 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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