[ Page 9535 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I thank the members, including those opposite, for that response. I feel as though it's been forever since I started this speech. Sometimes I've wondered if I'd ever be able to continue.

It's two weeks tomorrow since the first of my two efforts to complete the second reading speech. This morning, with your help, hon. Speaker, I'll do my best to get the job done.

I notice that the heckling from across the way has already begun. One of the things that's come up repeatedly from the minister in his heckling throughout our second reading debate of Bill 26 has been the phrase, "The sky is falling," an interesting kind of poultry metaphor that keeps emerging. I keep thinking, actually, that it's not that the sky is falling; it's that the bottom has fallen out of the British Columbia economy. There are some NDP turkeys way down in the black hole looking up, and they see what they think are pigeons desperately roosting up where the economy used to be. That's one of the problems: this socialist government sees business people and investors as pigeons for the plucking. Of course, they don't like to be looked at that way, and knowing that they are looked at that way frightens them away.

Our Agriculture critic was making the point yesterday that so many jobs have fled British Columbia because of the unfortunate three-pronged attack by this government on business and investment: too much taxation, too much regulation, too much interference in labour-management relations. One processing plant after another throughout this province has shut down. Those investors have taken their money and their job-creating potential and indeed the jobs they used to have in British Columbia for British Columbians, and they've gone away.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The member for Chilliwack just mentioned that 400 in his constituency alone have been lost. Investors don't like being looked at as fat pigeons for the plucking or as chickens on the assembly line, but that seems to be how the government views them -- that they'll just take those investors, and they'll hang them up on the assembly line. They'll nail them with their corporate capital tax; they'll nail their workers with the highest marginal income tax rate in North America; they'll nail them with the sales tax; they'll regulate them to death.

Now they'll go further and bleed them dry by introducing sectoral bargaining to British Columbia; that's what this is. It's beyond most people how the government can presume to argue otherwise, because this is sectoral bargaining, pure and simple.

When I was a little boy, I lived on a piece of homestead property north of Fort St. John. It started out as 1,600 acres of bush land, and it became a farm through a lot of hard work. There was some time for play, and my little brother and I used to try to catch squirrels. There were a lot of squirrels there, and we thought they'd make a great pet. So we'd set up a little box with a little stick holding it up, and a string, and we'd lie in wait on our bellies. We'd try to bait it with different things that the squirrels might want. But, of course, they had a forest full of pine mushrooms and delicacies of all kinds. They had my father's grain elevator and plenty of other things, and they never came into our trap. Sometimes the NDP approach to trying to attract investment to British Columbia reminds me of my brother and I lying there on our bellies waiting for squirrels that never came.

The minister keeps calling across the House and saying: "The only thing wrong with British Columbia is that you Liberals are so negative. If you'd stop saying these negative things about our economy, we wouldn't have these problems." That's a preposterous suggestion. We've heard it from the Finance minister as well. The opposition obviously has an obligation to talk to the government about the things it's doing that are wreaking havoc on our economy; that's what we do. But now Mr. Georgetti, the Labour minister and the Premier are all lying on their tummies with their hands on the string, saying: "Be quiet, you silly Liberals, you're going to scare these investors away just when we're about to trap them. We think we're going to get the pigeons to come down here, and we can trap them." We have to tell the hon. minister that it is never, never going to happen.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The minister is thrashing through the difference between squirrels and pigeons. I know he's a strong academic. I know he can handle more than one metaphor in one speech, however short I'm planning on making it. He's going to hear a couple more as well.

Here we have our potential investors, many of whom are already telling us -- and I know they're telling the government the same thing -- that British Columbia is the most negative investment climate in the world, as far as they're concerned. British Columbia is right in there with China and Third World dictatorships as far as considering us as a location to invest. The minister smiles and smirks and peers over his glasses at me, but it's true. I've been told that personally by executives from major companies that would like to expand in British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Name names.

K. Krueger: One of the government members is calling across: "Name names." Well, of course, I'd never do that, because part of the picture for these investors is the tremendously vindictive, negative nature of their treatment at the hands of this government and the huge weight toward the B.C. Federation of Labour. We're not talking a worker-friendly government; we're talking a Ken Georgetti-friendly government. Ken Georgetti is a man who was referred to by the Premier at the Order of British Columbia ceremonies, of all places, as the nineteenth cabinet minister. Of course, he wasn't joking. It's common knowledge in British Columbia that Mr. Georgetti is the most powerful member of cabinet -- I think

[ Page 9536 ]

[10:15]

When I started this series of second reading debate attempts, I asked the government members if they could name anything that the NDP have built in British Columbia in the last seven years -- any accomplishment they could point to, the way W.A.C. Bennett and Phil Gaglardi could point to huge hydroelectric dams and highways throughout the province.

The Premier is fond of referring to W.A.C. Bennett as if he himself were some sort of example of following in the footsteps of that great Premier.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: One of the members says: "Don't embarrass Mr. Bennett's family." The Premier has done that repeatedly.

This government can't think of many things it's built. When I asked for help from the members opposite, they were looking at their desks. I said: "I'll give you one: the inland Island Highway." They said: "Well, we'll give you one: the Six Mile Ranch project in Kamloops." To me those are two dramatic illustrations.

The Six Mile Ranch project hasn't actually been started yet. The investor who owns the land and who proposed the project has spent two years and more trying to thrash his way through regulation to get that project approved.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: I hear one member opposite say it never will be built. Perhaps that's the intent of the government. That's what's happened to a lot of potential investment in British Columbia. There was a CIBC call centre proposed for Kamloops -- 600 jobs. The Premier was the Finance minister at the time, and he said he told the bank: "We're not interested in doing business with banks." We lost 600 jobs for Kamloops right there. So the member opposite may be right when she says that Six Mile will never be built. The government has said it's approved it now -- and I hope that's true -- but if it goes ahead, it will be entirely due to the persistence, sweat, effort and investment by a person who really believes in the project that he's bringing on and a community that's very, very supportive. It will be no credit to the government, which in fact has delayed for so long that most investors would have gone away by now. That's one example.

It's not unlike the Premier's announcements around the province of aluminum smelters that are supposed to be coming to B.C. I think he's up to eight. Reporters from Kamloops have been asking me if I think it's true. They have some notes from one of those meetings that the Premier has apparently been involved in where Kamloops was told it had a 50-50 chance of having an aluminum smelter. People ask me for my opinion of that, and my opinion is that it'll never happen. It's one more of the Premier's attempts to make it look as though something is happening in British Columbia, when in fact the economy continues to go down the black hole, and jobs continue to disappear.

An Hon. Member: How many jobs did he promise in forestry?

K. Krueger: How many jobs did he promise in forestry? I believe it was 40,000 jobs under the jobs and timber accord. I believe that the documented result to date is a decline of more than 12,000 jobs. That's a deficit of 52,000 jobs between the goal and the result. That's not very impressive.

As I said, the other example that the government members and I threw out was the mid-Island highway -- a highway that cost $400 million more than the Coquihalla, even though it's not really complete at either end. I just drove it on the weekend. It starts in an unusual spot and ends at another one; it's obviously incomplete. There are stoplights all along it. American tourists laugh at that. They can't believe we've got a four-lane highway with stoplights up and down it, and neither can I. The Coquihalla, which cost only two-thirds as much, is masterfully built, with the cloverleafs you would expect, six lanes in many places, at least four lanes in all places, and pullouts and overpasses. The mid-Island highway has none of that, because this government spent way too much money in the way it went about it, particularly because of its interference in labour-management relations.

Those were the only two examples that the government was able to throw out, and both of them are actually examples of what's wrong with British Columbia.

The Premier engaged in what he called a consultative process when this bill was under consideration, prior to introducing the budget or even commencing this session. He repeated some of the things that he was being told, paraphrased them, and sounded as though he was starting to get the message that overregulation, overtaxation and interference in labour-management relations was killing the economy of B.C., as though he intended to do something about it. But clearly the things that he heard -- the results of those consultative processes -- have not borne anything in terms of the results that we've seen in this Legislative session. We continue to see legislation that is actually destructive to the economy of British Columbia and that continues those negative trends.

Hon. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment to Bill 26. It reads as follows:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill 26 intituled Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998, be amended by deleting the word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months' hence."]

On the amendment.

K. Krueger: This, of course, is the hoist motion that the minister asked me about just before I began these remarks. We believe that it would be in this province's best interests if this bill were withdrawn altogether. We just thrashed through two weeks of trying to make that happen through procedural means. The government used its majority once again to crush that effort. I believe that was a real attack on the economy, the job creators and the working people of this province -- to once again use that brutal majority to crush the opposition's move to try and accomplish what the people of British Columbia want to see accomplished. That having been done, this motion proposes that the government hoist this bill for six

[ Page 9537 ]

I thought that at the Kamloops economic conference the Premier seemed to be listening. His paraphrasing was excellent. He said the things that the people were saying at the conference. I'd been through the whole thing, and I had colleagues at the other tables. One of the major messages was: "Don't mess with the Labour Code; don't make any changes to the Labour Code." I know the Premier heard that, but he's gone ahead and done it anyway. Why is that? It's a mistake. We'd like him to take the time to objectively examine the statement that it's a mistake, to genuinely listen to the public, and to take the next six months and send out some open-minded people with an independent point of view who have not been bullied into submission by Mr. Georgetti or any of his buddies, or by anybody on the government benches who feels submissive to Mr. Georgetti -- but rather, objective people who will listen to and implement what they are told.

We listened to the NDP members' speeches during the first round on this second reading debate, and clearly they were all speaking from the same text -- a little list of talking points that included quotes from opposition members taken out of context and twisted. I'm asking them not to do that in the rest of this debate or over the next six months, if the government accedes to the hoist motion, but to really listen to their constituents -- to the business people of the province -- and decide, on the basis of their responsibility as elected hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly, what is best according to the people that they represent. And it is not sectoral bargaining; that is not a good thing for the economy.

I ask them to think about their record, their accomplishments -- and they have to look at the current results in the economy of British Columbia as their accomplishment. It's seven years down the road, far past the point where they can blame it on the Socred administration of the past. Humorously, since my team, the class of '96, joined the class of '91 and became the big official opposition team -- the biggest that British Columbia has ever had -- we've actually heard members on the government benches refer to the Harcourt administration as the previous government, even though most of them were in it. That's kind of comical but kind of pathetic as well. Indeed, this bunch seems to be doing worse than the Harcourt administration.

This is a chance for them to pull back from the precipice of this mistake that they've been contemplating with Bill 26 and not impose it on the people of British Columbia after all. That's what we're asking them to do -- to avoid the usual deal-making and incompetence.

As I drove up and down the mid-Island highway this weekend, I kept passing these signs that said: "Your tax dollars at work." The government probably intends that to be a positive message, but it really isn't. When people see how their tax dollars are squandered, when they hear the stories of the things that happened during construction of the inland Island Highway -- the wasting of time, the total incompetence. . . . I drove into a driveway in Nanaimo to visit a friend, and there was a brand-new hot-water tank standing in his driveway with the fixtures all attached. I said: "What in the world happened to your hot-water tank?" He said: "Oh, that's not out of my house. I bought a salvage house." He bought a one-year-old house on the right-of-way for the inland Island Highway. It had been built there when the government knew, or should have known, that it wanted to build a highway there, so the government had to buy it and dispose of it as salvage -- for peanuts compared to the cost of actually building it. That is rank incompetence, and it's the sort of thing that this government has to get past in order to get the economy of British Columbia back on track. Certainly they shouldn't be doing things like imposing sectoral bargaining through Bill 26.

An analogy that I started to use at the beginning of my three efforts to do a second reading speech on this bill was the analogy of the Last Spike debate -- thinking of governments of the past and their great accomplishments -- and the amazing feat of building a railway right across North America, right across Canada, and meeting at the point where they planned to meet. We've seen examples of that since -- the railway tunnels in Rogers Pass -- where engineers can start from opposite sides of a mountain range and tunnel and actually come precisely together where they think they're going to be. They turned out to be absolutely perfect in their engineering and predictions. Well, this NDP government, this socialist government, has been building a railway, but it's a railway that's not going to connect to anybody else's.

When I was at the Yellowhead Interprovincial Highway Association conference in Prince Rupert recently, the cabinet ministers for transportation across the Prairies were there. Our cabinet minister didn't show up, unfortunately. The minister from Alberta actually told us that Alberta has given up on the east-west connection through British Columbia and has turned its focus southward. It is spending multimillions of dollars improving its transportation infrastructure network to run north-south, rather than through British Columbia, for the transportation of commodities.

Again, that is because of incompetence on the part of this government and that combination of overtaxation, overregulation and interference in labour-management relations. That is what has caused us to be an unattractive jurisdiction in which to do business. This NDP railway will never meet the eastern end. The last spike that's being driven in British Columbia is going to be the last spike in the coffin of our economy. We've had to use that analogy repeatedly. It's not exaggeration; it's the way that things are going. Nobody else is building the kind of railway that the NDP has been building in British Columbia.

The minister has asked repeatedly: "Why do you Liberals keep talking about the economy when you're supposed to be debating Bill 26?" He still hasn't made the connection that Bill 26 is all about the economy. It's going to hurt the economy the way that all of his and his administration's previous moves have hurt the British Columbia economy. Alberta gained 22,000 new jobs in 1997, and British Columbia lost 19,000 jobs.

Interjections.

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, I see that you're having difficulty hearing me over the minister's loud conversation. If you'd like to just mention that to him, I'll sit down for a moment.

The Speaker: Hon. member, the noise seems to have dissipated.

[10:30]

The crumbling infrastructure in British Columbia is another issue, of course. This government has simply not been

[ Page 9538 ]

How can it astound the minister that we think Bill 26 relates directly to the economy? Of course it does. Under this NDP administration, this socialist administration, British Columbia has gone from having the best economy -- the very finest, most robust economy in the whole country -- to the worst economy in Canada, from first to worst. What a sad result that is! What a dramatic indication of the failure of the NDP approaches that we've been talking about! Bill 26 is guaranteed to worsen that situation -- absolutely guaranteed. The minister and the government have been hearing that from the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, from the B.C. federation of business, from business groups of all types and from employers. I think they've even heard it from unions. They've certainly heard it from us, day after day. But they keep ignoring that input, and that's a very bad thing for British Columbia.

Once again, we'd like to see this government hoist this bill -- get it off the order paper and at least take six months to have some genuine public input on the issue. How can this government not accept that this bill is going to affect the economy? They have seen per-capita income for British Columbians decline every year since they've been in power, except one. In every year of the last seven years, except one, British Columbians' per-capita take-home pay has dropped. The minister sneered when I last pointed that out, and I think that's because his income hasn't dropped. He's doing just fine, thanks very much. The minister and his spouse are both making cabinet ministers' salaries, both pocketing $150 a day while they're here, both driving government vehicles. He doesn't feel any pinch because he hasn't had any pinch. His nest -- continuing the poultry metaphor -- is thoroughly feathered. The pensions, of course, are going to kick in for those two people. How could they have it better? So he sneers when we say that British Columbians are suffering and that take-home pay has gone down every year -- except one -- in the last seven years because of his NDP administration.

These people, this minister, need to come to grips with reality. It is investment and it is business that create jobs in British Columbia. It isn't government regulation. It isn't government taxation, where money is taken away from the notional rich and spread out to the government's friends and insiders. Job creation doesn't include bringing in every hack, flack and bagman from failed NDP administrations across the country and giving them a job in the civil service here, demoralizing our real civil servants, causing disarray, promoting people not because of merit but because of connections to the party. Those things have had a terrible effect on British Columbia -- and a multiplier effect as well.

We've had speakers on this side talk about the essentials of building an economy anywhere, including the retention of existing business -- that's certainly a prerequisite, to at least keep what you have; the expansion of existing business -- if you can possibly create a friendly environment where businesses can expand, that's a good role for government to take; and the attraction of new business. Those are three components to building an economy. This government hasn't been successful in any of them. Hundreds of jobs have disappeared from British Columbia over the seven years that this NDP administration has been in place.

This government chose a man to co-chair the economic conference in the month of May who is the executive director for the Kamloops Economic Development Corporation -- in Kamloops, obviously. His name is Robert Fine. He did a presentation to our Rotary Club in Kamloops not too long before that conference on how KEDCO was doing its work in the area. He told us very frankly that months previously, KEDCO had given up on trying to attract new business from outside the province to Kamloops, because it just isn't going to happen. That's clear to him; that's clear to economic development officers all around British Columbia. Nobody intends to come to British Columbia with money and create jobs, because this government is poised to take it away from them, to hang them up on the assembly line like plump chickens for the plucking, to overtax them, to overregulate them and to take over their relations with employees. They're not going to stand for that, so they just don't come.

Mr. Fine said that their efforts were to try and retain the existing businesses in Kamloops and -- I find this part painful -- to attract business from elsewhere in British Columbia. Well, certainly Mr. Fine and KEDCO are doing the job for Kamloops when they do that, but it's no net gain for British Columbia if the economic development officers all around the province are just spending their time, energy and resources trying to win jobs from other B.C. communities. That's not a gain for B.C.

Instead, this government ought to be listening to those people, and when they are told, as they've clearly been told. . . . You've heard them over and over, hon. Speaker; I certainly have. I did at the Kamloops economic development conference. The Premier said he heard these things when he had his prebudget, pre-sessional consultations with business. They've been told over and over again: "You've got to cut taxation, you've got to cut regulation, and you've got to stop interfering in labour-management relations."

Bill 26 is exactly the opposite of accepting that kind of advice. It's only going to hurt the economy of British Columbia. We're going to continue spinning our wheels and going in reverse. That's what the economy of British Columbia has done under this administration. That's why Robert Fine and other economic development officers have to try and win business from elsewhere in B.C. rather than having any hope at all that business and investors will come from outside B.C. and create jobs here. The government hasn't listened. It can listen; it's never too late. It can accept this hoist motion. It can lift this bill off the order paper and have a genuine consultative process for the next six months and listen to the input that is received. Otherwise we're not even going to get anywhere on the retention aspect of economic performance for our government. Businesses and investors will continue to leave British Columbia, and we're going to get down to one of these "last one out, turn out the lights" situations. That's no joke; that's no exaggeration.

B. Barisoff: We're seeing it happen in industry.

K. Krueger: As the member for Okanagan-Boundary says, we are seeing that in various industries. We've certainly

[ Page 9539 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. Hon. members, there are opportunities to speak, and those opportunities may be taken. Also, comments can be made only from a member's seat. I remind all members of the House of those points.

K. Krueger: The Minister of Agriculture is a jolly fellow and kind of likeable, but he does forget the rules. Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm pleased to see he has the rules in his hand, and he's got the grace to blush a little bit.

In Alberta we've seen a 24 percent increase in capital spending. In Saskatchewan during the last year, under an NDP administration of all things, they saw a 22.7 percent increase in capital spending. Why would that be? Why would those two very philosophically, ideologically different administrations -- the Klein government and the Romanow government -- have those fantastic results when British Columbia is moving backwards and when we're not seeing those investments in capital spending? Why would that be? Could it be that this NDP mantra of tax 'em, regulate 'em and take over control of their relations with their employees is as destructive as the B.C. Liberals, the B.C. Federation of Business and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce have been saying all along? Well, that's a fact, and we'd really like these people to come to understand that.

Since 1992 the Labour Code in British Columbia has tilted dramatically against the side of business, in that delicate balance between labour and management, and in favour of whatever Mr. Georgetti and the B.C. Federation of Labour want. The recent changes to the Labour Relations Board itself are another indication, loud and clear, to anybody considering keeping his money in British Columbia, let alone bringing new money to the province. It all continues to be severely out of whack, and it probably will be until we dump this NDP administration. It is a clear indication to business and investors that it's hopeless to look for any change while these people are in power.

Similar approaches by Premier Bob Rae in Ontario should have given this government pause. The whole country saw his results: 60 months in government and $60 billion deeper in debt. That's a billion dollars a month. How bad is it going to be here? Initially, it looked as though it wouldn't quite get to the billion-dollar-a-month-of-new-debt level that Mr. Rae and his NDP administration racked up, but we're starting to have our doubts. It's starting to look uncertain that we won't get down to those depths that Mr. Rae first plumbed for the NDP in Canada. A billion dollars a month in debt in Ontario -- and how much here? Unless we can generate new investment, unless we can help private industry create new jobs in British Columbia, we're going to continue that downward spiral. Bill 26 is accelerating that. It's exacerbating the problem.

Potential investors look at British Columbia and see that there was a wildcat walkout on a B.C. ferry, with people who presumed to shut down B.C. Ferries because of somebody working in the gift shop on the ferry that they didn't think should be there. There's a wildcat walkout, and the government says that the offenders will be punished. A lot of time goes by, and then there's suddenly a $30,000 gift to the union to try to make sure that it doesn't happen again. That's not exactly progressive discipline in the minds of potential investors. That's another indication that this government is a puppet dancing on the strings of the B.C. Federation of Labour and Mr. Georgetti and the big union bosses -- who the members opposite hate us to talk about and have told us they hate us to talk about.

This bill has been touted by the government as being the result of consultation. It's gotten to be in British Columbia that the term "NDP consultation" is such a blatant oxymoron that people just sort of grimace when you say it. It's like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence. It's one of those oxymorons that people just don't accept and never will.

What did the job creators say? They said over and over again: "Don't touch the Labour Code; don't mess with that. That will really make things worse."

Interjection.

K. Krueger: They did not listen, hon. member.

That's exactly what this bill sets out to do. It sends a bad message that the NDP in British Columbia under the present Premier, along with the present Minister of Labour, is going to stay its course. It's going to continue following the same old failed methods. It's going to continue beating its head against the brick wall, and British Columbians' heads with it, unfortunately. And it hurts. It doesn't hurt the minister. He said that; he hasn't felt any effect himself. He's got his nest well feathered, as I mentioned earlier. But it really hurts British Columbians to have their heads bashed against that wall by this government. The NDP is well on its way to nailing shut the coffin of the economy of British Columbia, and Bill 26 is a major spike being driven into it.

This whole process, this pretence at process, has been another confirmation of how phony NDP consultations really are. They are set up to suggest that they are following due process, that they are doing the right thing, that they are doing government leadership and management the way people expect it to be done in the late 1990s and going into the next millennium. Then they just do what they want, or worse yet, what their buddies want -- what the nineteenth cabinet minister, Mr. Georgetti, wants.

[10:45]

[ Page 9540 ]

Before I ever committed to seek nomination as a B.C. Liberal candidate, I had a talk with the leader and said that I was never going to be his yes-man. He told me that I'd have a free vote on everything except the throne speech and the budget. He has lived up to that, hon. Speaker, as you've seen. When we've wanted a free vote, we've been given a free vote and we've exercised it. But these poor members have to keep their lips zipped and vote the way the government says. What the government says is whatever Ken Georgetti tells them to say -- whatever the nineteenth cabinet minister says. I could not believe my ears when the Premier of British Columbia came out with that at the Order of British Columbia ceremony. He is so blatant about it that he said it publicly with a smirk on his face, and Mr. Georgetti's followers in the audience tittered.

I didn't think it was funny at all. I don't think anybody who is unemployed in British Columbia or anybody whose business is struggling or any businessman who has realized that he's not going to expand here because this is the wrong place to put your money, found that remark funny; nor do they find that reality funny or acceptable. There is going to be a price to pay for every one of those members opposite, every one of those government members who let Ken Georgetti call the shots in British Columbia instead of doing what was right for B.C. and who let Ken Georgetti twist the Premier's arm to bring in Bill 26, which was published by Mr. Kelleher and Mr. Lanyon in February with the warning that now might not be the right time. They seemed unsure that any time would necessarily be the right time to introduce this legislation in British Columbia. They were unsure, but Mr. Georgetti wanted it. Of course, he wanted Bill 44 last year, and he's insisting that he at least get the Son of 44, Bill 26, at any cost.

When the B.C. Liberals use a legitimate tool of the government to try and ice that bill, to kill it, to take that bloodsucking Dracula bill that's trying to kill the economy and drive a stake through its heart, what does Mr. Georgetti say? He wants life breathed back into the vampire. He wants the bill brought back. He calls the B.C. Liberals' legitimate tactics "grad pranks," and he speaks for the government. He and Mr. Gardiner, the provincial secretary of the NDP of all people -- the two of them -- presume to speak on behalf of the government of British Columbia. Apparently they do it with authority. Not only are they never refuted by the Premier or any cabinet minister but they turn out to be speaking for the government because the government does as they say. That's a shame.

This government abuses process every which way, hon. Speaker. All of their consultations are phony; all the use of the rules of the House and all of the rules for how government works are bent in their favour. I remember when the NDP ministers opposite were opposition MLAs, and they were firebrands. If they caught a Socred cabinet minister putting a bottle of wine on his expense account, they would hound him into resignation -- and he would do it. Those Socred cabinet ministers would resign when they did the wrong thing. But we never, ever see any of these people opposite resign, do we, hon. Speaker? One after another after another, those Socred cabinet ministers toppled voluntarily. Then the NDP would say: "Well, now it's 11. What an incompetent government!"

A few minutes ago the government Whip was holding up a picture of Mr. Vander Zalm to me -- even though he's not allowed to use props in the House, of course. But once again the rules are to impose on the opposition, and the government does whatever it wants. As the cabinet ministers are fond of saying, "the government can do anything it wants." So the government Whip holds up a picture of Mr. Vander Zalm to me as though that's supposed to intimidate me. I remember when the NDP hounded Mr. Vander Zalm into resigning. I think he rightly resigned. He had erred dramatically, and he didn't deserve to hold the office of Premier any longer. He knew it, and he said so by resigning. So they would do the honourable thing, but these people won't. They won't resign regardless. They won't even do the honourable thing when it comes to hoisting or killing a piece of bad legislation that they've imposed at the behest of their friends and insiders, the big union bosses -- Ken Georgetti of the B.C. Federation of Labour, the nineteenth cabinet minister.

We've called upon the members opposite to read for themselves -- not to read just what their spin doctors hand them -- and to insist that things like this report be left in their in-baskets. We were astounded when the government members repeatedly and publicly protested, on the record, that the B.C. Liberals were voting against Bill 26 at first reading, as if they were astounded. They said: "You haven't even seen it yet." Well, of course we had, hon. Speaker. You had seen it. It's in this book entitled "Looking to the Future," which was given to all of us in February and includes Bill 26 word for word, except for a few tiny amendments that can be and have been particularized for the members and for us on this sheet of paper -- less than half a page, not very many words on it. Those are the only changes from what was published in February 1998. So why did the government members say that nobody had seen the legislation yet and that the B.C. Liberals were wrong to vote against it at first reading when nobody knew what was in it? Of course we knew. Why didn't they know? I've never had an answer to that.

It seems to me that they only read those talking points that they get, those things that they try to rub in to the opposition as they make their pathetic attempts at justifying Bill 26 in their second reading speeches, those misquotes and out-of-context remarks that they try to somehow beat us over the head with. I encourage those members to read for themselves, to genuinely listen to their constituents and to speak up in caucus and here on the floor of the Legislature.

Hon. Speaker, the government repeatedly referred to Bill 26 as modest changes. Here we have the government's "Bill 26 in Brief," published for all and sundry in June '98. It says, "B.C.'s new construction labour relations legislation," and in the very first sentence, it says: "The B.C. government is making modest changes. . . ." Just "modest" -- it's a kind of Nazi-style use of language, where you play down the very negative things. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: Point of order.

The Speaker: The member will take his seat. Point of order, Government House Leader.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's extremely offensive language, and I would ask the member to withdraw it immediately.

The Speaker: I appreciate the point. Thank you for your intervention, hon. member. It's unparliamentary. . . .

K. Krueger: I withdraw the offensive term.

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

[ Page 9541 ]

They repeatedly said in their literature that they were introducing this to bring stability to the economy of British Columbia and to the construction sector. So we say to them: "Well, where's this alleged instability been? What examples can you give us of the instability in the construction sector of British Columbia that has caused you these concerns?" And, of course, they mumble and look down. The only example they can come up with is what happened at the Port Alberni mill, and they agree that it isn't really a case in point at all. There is no instability. There's nothing driving this except Mr. Ken Georgetti's agenda and the B.C. Federation of Labour agenda.

The government news release dated June 17, 1998, announcing Bill 26 talks about wanting a stable, competitive market. What's competitive about sectoral bargaining? What's competitive about removing the rights of workers and employers to negotiate working arrangements between themselves in a way that will work in the economy and make them competitive? What's competitive about taking away the rights of workers, employers and investors and causing investors to be uninterested in British Columbia? There's nothing competitive about that. There's no instability that drove this legislation. There's nothing modest about this. It's a huge leg in the door -- it's way more than a foot in the door -- for the big union bosses, the people we're talking about. They're no friends of workers. They're just another level of politician, one that most British Columbians don't get to vote for. Only a few people -- that small percentage of union membership that votes in union elections -- decide who those honchos, those people who are calling the shots, are. Those people elect Mr. Georgetti, and he is the nineteenth cabinet minister. What a shoddy way to run a province! No wonder we see the pathetic results we see.

It's abuse of process every which way -- and the NDP ramrodding Bill 26 through is another abuse of process -- but as you see, hon. Speaker, we're not going to take it lightly. We'll debate this amendment, and if the government chooses to defeat this amendment, we can do other amendments. There are a lot of tools at our disposal, and we can reuse some of the tools. We're determined to cause the government to withdraw or at least hoist this legislation. So if they're serious about anything else that's on the order paper, it would be a good idea to get on to something else. Bill 26 isn't going to happen, if we can possibly stop it from happening.

We're calling upon the NDP MLAs to not be yes-people anymore, to not just do what they're told by the government Whip and by Mr. Georgetti, through Mr. Clark -- or maybe directly by Mr. Georgetti -- and, as the members over here say, to use a little bit of common sense and show some respect for their constituents and for future generations of British Columbians, who are being saddled with this horrible problem of debt, unemployment, and deficit after deficit in spite of promises of back-to-back balanced budgets. Show some respect for British Columbians, present and future, and stop this one-sided way of delivering government that doesn't work for British Columbians.

We don't see how the members opposite can be so blind. Surely they don't believe the things they say when they say that this is a good bill for British Columbia. How could anybody believe that it's a good bill? How could anybody on that side be proud of the results that are staring us all in the face? We don't want to have to wait until we beat them in the next general election. We'd like to turn the problems around now. We'd like to help the government get the economy on the rails and start driving the thing out of this hole we're in. But unless they listen to their constituents or to us, who have listened to their constituents and ours, things aren't going to turn around. After all, who cried out for this legislation? Who asked for it? Was it workers? There's a very small number of workers -- I think it's 11,000 -- in British Columbia who actually work for employers that are presently caught in the situation that has driven Mr. Georgetti to want to have sectoral bargaining in this particular industry. Of course, Mr. Georgetti wants it in all industries in B.C., and he's made no bones about that. He wants to unionize the province, and sectoral bargaining is his highway to doing it. When he couldn't get it in many industries, as he tried last year, this year he's trying to get it in at least this one.

There's that small group of companies -- those unfortunate people in the CLRA, the Construction Labour Relations Association -- who are locked into hidebound, outdated, fossilized collective agreements that oblige them to do things that don't make any sense in the competitive markets of the 1990s. The only reason they've been able to keep working is that they can work on the government's fixed-wage projects, building schools and so on that cost far more than they should because of this government's policies. Instead of finding ways to get out of that box, to negotiate new, contemporary, reasonable, commonsense collective agreements with those unions, those companies have reached out, with Mr. Georgetti's help, and they're trying to get everybody else in the sector in British Columbia into the same box with them -- have everybody locked in so they're not competitive. How can the government refer to creating a stable, competitive market through Bill 26? What utter falsehood that is!

[11:00]

We have likened this bill to pulling the plug on a patient who's on life support. The economy of British Columbia is on life support, and the plug is being pulled by this government. It's part of the NDP process of taking over people's lives, and it's wrong. That's the way people see it. If this government would actually listen -- open its ears to British Columbia, go out and conduct a proper consultation process over the next six months, as this hoist motion calls upon the government to do -- that's what the government would hear: that Bill 26 is the wrong thing for British Columbia, exactly the wrong way to be moving. This bill, which was published in February and apparently wasn't read by the members opposite, is a destroyer for the economy of British Columbia; it's further economic bad news. So much for the consultation process of the NDP.

[ Page 9542 ]

I'll turn the floor over to my colleagues to continue this debate on the hoist motion.

R. Neufeld: I rise to put my views on the record in relationship to the amendment that was put forward by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson to hoist Bill 26 for a six-month period. Take it out in a real consultative fashion to people across the province, so that they can have a look at Bill 26, have it explained to them and have the government of the day explain to people across the province -- those people that are losing their jobs on a constant basis, those communities that are seeing the lifeblood sucked out of them, their industries closing down. . . . Have members from the government go out and explain to those people in those communities, where we see grocery stores closing, where we see small businesses closing, where we see unemployment of youth at an all-time high of 20 to 24 percent, I believe. . . . Explain to all those people why the government of the day thinks that Bill 26 is a good deal for British Columbia.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

You know, as we listened to debates earlier in the session, much was said by NDP members about Bill 26, the changes to the Labour Code and how members of the Liberal caucus hate unions and the people that work in the unions. Nothing could be further from the truth -- nothing at all. That's socialist spin at its best. If that's the best spin they can give, it's a very poor spin. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you're going to have an economy that's booming -- an economy that people want to work in, live in and create business in -- you're going to have to deal with unions to a certain degree. You're also going to have to deal with the non-union sector.

But to force either of those, either side, onto people is unfair. To force non-unionization is unfair, because I think unionization is required in some industries; there's no doubt about it. It performs a good job for those workers who are that way. But it's also just as unfair, Mr. Speaker -- and I'm sure you'll agree with me -- to force unionization on everyone in the province. That's a fairly fine line to walk. It's difficult to do at best. But I think that's what we -- and I mean both sides of the House -- are elected to do: to deal with those issues in the best way we can.

That's why we on this side of the House don't believe that the total unionization of the construction industry, and thus kind of moving on down to the residential industry, is good for the province of British Columbia. I think people should have the choice of whether or not they want to unionize. I know that may be a novel idea for a few folks on the other side of the House, but I think they should have that choice. There's nothing wrong with choosing whether you want to belong to a union or you don't want to belong to a union. But to continue down this path that this government has taken since being elected in 1991 has. . . . They have continually made it easier for unionization. The records will prove that this has taken place in the last seven years.

What's also taken place in the last seven years is that our debt is almost unmanageable. We have now gone from the number one economy in all of Canada to number ten.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: There are members across the way that seem to be proud of that. That person actually says we're only number nine. Listen, I don't care if we're number nine or number ten. We've gone from number one to number nine or number ten, and that's the issue we should be dealing with today. That's what people should be starting to think about. That's what the government of the day should be starting to think about. What are you going to do? You can have everyone in a union and no work. That's exactly what's taking place.

It's something that actually big business, small business. . . . Even people that are strong NDPers recommended to this government that in this general economy we're in today, the last thing we should be doing is messing with the Labour Code. This province is on life support. We see businesses leaving this province on a constant basis either for Alberta or Ontario or for other places that actually are quite happy to have small business in their provinces and to create the jobs we need. We see our young people leaving our province in record numbers to look for work in other provinces. We see people in their mid-age of work leaving this province to look for work.

It's astounding to me that we would see such insulation on that side from what's really happening in British Columbia and that they still blindly go ahead and introduce into the House Bill 26, the Labour Code amendments -- changes that will make it easier for sectoral bargaining. The members across the way talk about how this will only affect ICI construction -- industrial, commercial and institutional -- but there is a great mix in this province of residential along with that. Many people that work on those construction sites will also work in the residential construction business. It's just a small crack in the door for those unions to be able to get into that business also. What does that do? Well, some would have us believe that all unionized workers are well trained and do the best work. I don't believe that for a minute. I think there are some problems on both sides of the fence -- whether you're non-union or union. I don't think you can take that to the bank.

The other issue is cost, if you're talking about building residential housing or anything like that, and what effect that will have. I'm reminded of what took place when the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, I believe, was responsible for the Ministry of Labour. He had built a new home, but he would not use union labour. It's interesting. That's not the only member from across the way who's done that. But that member for Esquimalt-Metchosin chose to use a non-union company. When asked the question as to why he would decide to use a non-union company, his immediate response was: "Well, it's much cheaper. I can't afford to pay a union member to build my house." So I don't know what has transpired over there, if all the NDP members have now finished building their houses. Maybe that's it. Maybe they've all built their new

[ Page 9543 ]

So there are some real reasons why we have to look very carefully at what we're doing today. Jack Munro and Jim Pattison are two people from totally different political worlds, but both are people who are well known in the province, I tell you. Both advised the Premier that trying to make changes to the Labour Code, trying to make the climate for investment in British Columbia tougher than it already is, was the wrong thing to do. So what did we see the NDP immediately do? They totally disregarded the message from those two people. And at about the same time as he was talking with those people about it -- with the business community and others in the union movement, that we shouldn't mess with the Labour Code -- they were secretly drafting new labour legislation that they were going to bring to this House that they knew would dramatically change the present Labour Code.

An Hon. Member: Modest changes, they said.

R. Neufeld: They said modest changes, and we all know what the NDP means when it's modest. It's the same as spending money: "It's just a modest amount -- only half a billion here and half a billion there. Nothing to worry about."

Hon. Speaker, it amazes me. Whether you look at newspaper articles or at all kinds of other comments from people within the small business community, from chambers of commerce, from unions, from people that work in the unions -- and I have a number of letters that tell me that -- they're all saying: "British Columbia's economy. . . ." What we're talking about is the economy, the thing that kind of keeps this province going. Everyone says: "Don't mess with the Labour Code. Don't make changes. Leave it alone." What did we see the socialists do? Boom.

[11:15]

But it's not what's happening in the province. They pretend to represent young people. Central to the province's budget speech was the construction of 1,500 new campsites. "Across the province of British Columbia, we're going to build 1,500 new campsites. That is one of the centrepieces of our budget and our economic strategy for the new year." But only 500 of those are really going to be built this year. Now get this: it's 1,500 to start with, but when you dig through it, only 500 are going to be built this year. Why don't you just tell the truth to the people? To employ young people, you're going to build 500 campsites this year. Not the socialists. "We're going to build 1,500." Then it slowly came to light that along with that, they were going to close 800 campsites.

Now this math just doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think it makes sense to a lot of people. It certainly doesn't make sense to our young people who are leaving British Columbia to look for work elsewhere -- someplace where they actually have something happening other than 1,500 campsites.

I'll have you know -- maybe you're not aware; not many folks that represent lower mainland ridings have the opportunity to travel to the north -- that where I come from, one of the most northerly constituencies, is where most of the campsites are being closed. Isn't that interesting? We're going to keep a whole bunch of them open down here in the south, but we're going to close a bunch in the north.

It's a message that's sent out to the business community and to people: they have to leave B.C. to find work. Can you imagine leaving the province of British Columbia to find work? We have one of the best provinces in Canada. We have everything at our fingertips. We have a forest industry, or we used to have until these folks got into office. Now we don't have a forest industry anymore. We had a mining industry until these folks got into office. Now we don't have a mining industry anymore. We've got oil and gas, and they're starting to mess with that. I'm a little bit afraid of what's going to take place there, but it's still doing okay. We've got some of the best landscapes for tourism, some of the best cities, some of the best areas. We've got the northern Rockies, a jewel in British Columbia, a jewel in North America that we can be proud of and that can bring tourists to British Columbia. We have some of the best deep-sea ports in all of Canada. We have a huge agricultural industry, except that all the processing is closing down and leaving British Columbia. We have a manufacturing industry which is closing down and leaving British Columbia. This is what this great province has to offer. This is what this great province had before the socialists took power in 1991.

What have we got today? We've got people leaving the province in droves. They are going to other parts of Canada to find work and to invest their money. Actually, British Columbia is in an investment recession. It's sad to say that a province as great as British Columbia. . . . People that were in this Legislature many years before us had a dream. They built railroads, highways and hydro dams, all so that people could actually come to British Columbia, build plants, produce items and move them to markets and ports and sell them worldwide. Those dreams of the people who came before us have been shattered to a certain degree in the last seven years by this government and their nonchalant way of looking at British Columbia and its ability to maintain its number one position in all of Canada. That's unfortunate for all of us.

Who would think that in seven years this government would have seen the debt rise as much as it has and the unemployment rate now being one of the highest? We've got some places in British Columbia that have a 15 percent unemployment rate, and people are leaving the province to go elsewhere. People who have lived all their lives in British Columbia -- on Vancouver Island, in the lower mainland, in the interior or in the eastern part of British Columbia -- they are prepared to sell their homes and their possessions, to put together what little bit of money they have left and leave this province to go to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Ontario in search of work.

You would think that would be enough of a legacy that the Premier and those people who control this party and this government would start looking seriously at what's happening in British Columbia and say: "Yes, I think that we should take Bill 26 out to the people of British Columbia and have a six-month hoist." As I said when I started, ask all those people

[ Page 9544 ]

I know that the NDP hates business. They say they understand it; in fact, the Deputy Premier put that pretty plainly to the bankers. He put it so plainly that they kicked him out of the bargaining room and brought someone else in. I think the deputy minister from the Premier's Office went in and finished the negotiating. That's the person who came in and said he understood business and was going to straighten the banks out. Well, he did; he took most of their debt, transferred it to the people of British Columbia and gave us an antiquated pulp mill for only about $300 million. Hey, folks, that's the economy; that's how she works. We buy a pulp mill that's terrible, the worst polluter in the province of British Columbia. Let's get it onto the books of the province so that every British Columbian would be responsible for this $300 million. And we won't employ a soul there; we'll leave it closed.

That's how much these folks understand business. They can't add or subtract or think to the future. It doesn't matter what you read, whether it's the Province or the Times Colonist or the Vancouver Sun newspaper, or whether it's a paper in my community or in any small community across the province. They're saying: "Folks, you've done enough damage. My goodness, sit still for awhile. Don't totally kill the province of British Columbia. There is a bit of a thread left. Let us at least attempt to try and get this economy back to number one."

Changing anything in the Labour Code will not entice investment to the province. I listened to the member for Victoria-Hillside speak earlier. He talked about how these were minute changes; they weren't big changes. They were changes that should have been there a long time ago. They were changes that would not affect the economy of the province of British Columbia. If that's the case -- if it was so simple, so easy for the NDP to see -- why didn't they bring those changes in in 1992? Why not in the fall of 1992, with the total rewrite of the Labour Code for the province? If these were such simple parts, so easy to understand, why weren't they part of the bill at that time? I wonder how we could have a government that is apparently so in tune with labour that it would not have seen the need to have those simple changes done in 1992.

We saw what happened last year, 1997, when massive changes to the Labour Code were introduced into this House. The government of the day. . . . Actually, I don't know who really got them to see the light. Someone did, and they pulled that bill. It was on the order paper for only three weeks, I think. They pulled it, and for good reason. Someone convinced them that it was going to do damage to the economy. Today this government says: "Be damned about the economy. I don't care about the economy. I don't care that workers don't have their jobs anymore. I don't care that communities are actually closing down. I don't care that communities on Vancouver Island, which were once proud employers of people who worked in the forest industry and held good-paying IWA jobs, are gone. We're going to continue down this road of destruction as long as we're elected."

I'm not sure where they're heading. I guess only a socialist knows. One can only think where they're heading. It's to the total destruction of the province. What else could one think? As I said, when you look through the statistics and you see that 150 businesses. . . . Actually, they're businesses, and I know that's a bad word to the NDP. But those are men and women who own businesses that employ people. They write a paycheque every couple of weeks. They're businesses that keep families going, that keep families together. They're businesses that actually keep communities going -- community centres, swimming pools, rec centres, health care, education and all those things that we desperately need dollars for to be able to maintain. Those are the businesses that we need in British Columbia. We don't need them packing up and moving to Alberta -- 150 of them. And the folks over there should be proud of that? I don't know how they can walk out of this place and face people on the street.

Maybe they don't. Maybe they don't go out there and face those unemployed people on the street, those people who have lost their businesses or those people who are moving their businesses elsewhere because of the totally uneconomic climate in British Columbia.

If it only took seven years to take us from number one -- from the best economy in all of Canada -- to number ten, just imagine what these wizards could do in one more term. Bill 26 is bad for business, and it's bad for the economy of the province. It's a bill that will wreak havoc on jobs. Instead of seeing just thousands leaving British Columbia, we will see thousands and thousands of people leaving British Columbia. Why? I haven't had one member across the way tell me why they would like to see this happen -- why they would want to see business, jobs and young people driven out of the province. What is the intent in that? Is it because our population is too large? Have we got too many people living here? Would that be the simple answer?

[11:30]

Hon. Speaker, I thank you. I'm sure I'll have many more times to speak to the Labour Code, and I'll look forward to that.

G. Hogg: It is a delight to follow my colleague from Peace River North. He has almost convinced me that this is a positive motion before us, in terms of the hoist put forward.

Just prior to coming into the House today, I had a phone call from a constituent with respect to Bill 26. He presented comments with respect to what we were dealing with and how we were managing it. He said: "There have been motions; there have been bills; there have been amendments; there have been debates on recesses. What in fact is going on? How do we make this understandable?" Certainly from the perspective of somebody watching or listening, it may appear to be a procedural quagmire that we are lost in.

[ Page 9545 ]

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. If we could get to the amendment on Bill 26.

G. Hogg: The amendment is exactly the one we come to, right after the second reading. . . . Thank you, hon. Speaker. I hope that kind of background will help the constituent who called me, who I am sure is watching in the hope that he will learn what this amendment is about and why we're putting it forward and debating it -- the amendment being to hoist this motion for six months. In looking at that, I have to look at what opportunities might present themselves to the government, to the people of this province, with a six-month hiatus in terms of this bill.

As I look at this and try to look at what everyone has been saying -- there have been so many opposing and controversial points of view presented -- the question I ask myself is: how do we know what we know? How do we know the things that we fervently believe, as we stand up to debate and discuss this motion? Each of us, I guess, has a different test that we apply to that. One of the tests that Camus talked about in one of his quotes was: "Who you are speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say." He talks about the perception, and I think that perception with respect to this issue, to this motion and to this amendment is one which is of great concern to me and one which has also been clearly presented through the media as being of great concern.

We must get beyond the perception. We must get on to speak to the issue specifically, the issue of the labour legislation, and what six months of putting it to the side will do -- whether or not that is, in fact, good for the people of this province, whether it is good for all of us. The issue is whether or not it is the right legislation at the right time. Is this the right time? Is there another time which might be a better time? Or is there a time at all?

Let's explore whether or not it is the right legislation. Let's look at the minister's criteria for making some decisions with respect to that. I did not just want to look at my own sense of when it was right and what was right, for evaluation of it; I wanted to look at the minister's. I went back and looked at the minister's comments. The minister said that the criteria he employed was that he looked at Bill 44, made some adjustments to it and came back with Bill 26. He stated in this House, on Thursday, June 18: "We are not introducing recommendations that that panel" -- and this is the panel with respect to Bill 44 -- "made, simply because neither the business community nor the labour community accepted what the panel recommended. Therefore we concluded it was wiser not to do anything with the recommendations."

The minister looked at what the perception was, looked at how both labour and business responded to those recommendations, and said that neither one of them liked it; therefore it was being pulled. Those were the criteria he used for making that decision. They didn't accept the recommendations, he said. Therefore he concluded that it was wiser not to proceed with anything, not to proceed with the recommendations they had.

When I looked at how the minister was able to come to the conclusion that they were not being accepted, it's a little more hazy, in terms of trying to respond to that and look at that. But I'm assuming that he did that as a result of media responses. He made references to phone calls he'd received and letters which had been sent to him.

If the same test were to be applied to Bill 26 -- the same test which the minister applied to Bill 44 -- we might well determine that this legislation and the recommendations which have been termed by the minister as moderate, reasonable and balanced. . . . If they receive the same test, we may well find that they too should be withdrawn -- readjusted in order to fit the needs of the previous test that he applied. As for the test for balance, again I quote the minister: "I know these amendments are balanced, because I've had almost the same number of complaints from the business community as I have from the labour community -- not a bad indication of balance, it seems to me." So he's looking at the type of responses that he has received and the impact of those responses upon himself, and he's saying that because they're equal -- because he's received the same number of complaints -- it's balanced. And because the balance is in numbers, he determines that the legislation is equally well received and therefore balanced.

Hon. Speaker, it seems to me that we are searching for consistency in the processes of decision-making. We're looking for the same processes, for the same principles to be applied in different situations. Generally speaking, as a test of internal congruence in decision-making, we must ask whether or not the same number of complaints from the business community as from the labour community truly constitutes in numbers -- that is, in quantity and quality -- the same protestations which the government received for Bill 44. If the answer to that question is yes, then it seems to me that it would be incumbent upon the minister to take the same actions that he did with the same set of information, the same set of data, with respect to Bill 44. He should be taking that action with respect to Bill 26 as well.

So again, using the minister's words: "We are not introducing recommendations [made by the panel]" -- that's the Bill 44 panel -- "simply because neither the business community nor the labour community accepted what the panel recommended." Let's use that test, then, further and further, to look at Bill 26 to see if in fact, using that test, it should be supported. The same test the minister used. . . . He used the test and pulled the bill, or at least did not reintroduce many of its provisions. Well, it doesn't seem to me that Bill 26 is well received by many. Even the Premier, the self-proclaimed nineteenth member of cabinet, stated that he was not very happy with it; he didn't believe that it went far enough. There is perhaps the most prominent spokesperson on behalf of labour in this province saying that he is not happy with Bill 26.

The litany of business leaders lined up and being vocal is overwhelming. Let me read into the record the comments of at least one of those, the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Hon. Speaker, as you're aware, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce maintains a strict political neutrality; it's part of their constitution. They maintain that arm's-length distance and don't get involved in any type of political organizing.

Interjections.

G. Hogg: They said this right here, so it's absolutely and entirely correct. If some of the hon. members have some

[ Page 9546 ]

An Hon. Member: They're just deciding what they're going to have for lunch.

G. Hogg: Hon. Speaker, I've been told that they perhaps were not making reference to the chamber of commerce. Let me perhaps refocus them to the chamber of commerce and the letter from Mr. Winter, where he says: "Although we strongly disagree with the provincial government on the Labour Code issue, there are other areas where we agree with the government and indeed work with them. Business Works, the workplace-based training program, is an excellent example." And he states, in response to some of the comments made: "If we took a political stance, it would compromise our ability to work with government on the issues where we agree."

He goes on to talk about his concerns with respect to this bill. As I made reference earlier, when the minister was talking about his criteria -- his test for determining whether or not we should proceed with this -- he used the comments of business as one of the criteria that he would employ. Mr. Winter states: "There are two impacts. It will raise the cost of construction throughout B.C. which, through rents and other indirect costs, will have an impact on every small business in the province." That is a large concern, which is put forward by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and which we've heard repeated as a concern from many aspects and corners of this province.

The second impact which he references is: ". . .if the government believes the advantages this bill provides to the big unions are a matter of fundamental human rights, then it stands to reason that it will want to spread such legislative privileges to other sectors of the economy. The business community believes they must stop this legislation now, or it will be used as a template to create similar legislation." Hon. Speaker, that is why the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, as a member of the coalition, is going to fight the legislation. It does not mean that they are anti-government; it does not mean that they are anti-union. It means that they are pro-business and that they oppose this legislation because they believe it is the fundamental right of each employer to negotiate his own collective agreement.

Given that the B.C. Chamber of Commerce -- and the coalition of which they are a part -- and the highest-profile spokesperson for unions in this province have both expressed concern about this, then it seems to me that the two criteria the minister used in making his decision to withdraw certain recommendations in Bill 44 apply again in this item and it should therefore also be pulled.

[11:45]

This hoist motion before us will give six months for the government to look at and review the potential impact such legislation might have. It will give them a chance to respond appropriately to the issue that was put forth by the panel and the one red flag which was ignored in this process. So real or imagined, the impact of that will be felt.

A further study was recommended to me when I was doing my research and looking at the impact of Bill 26 and the potential saving grace that a hoist motion might be able to provide. That study was entitled "Looking to the Future," a report of a construction industry review panel. It states on page 46 of that report:

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

We have the highest marginal income tax rate in North America, meaning that as we earn more, we have less to spend in this province. We have gone from number one in job creation to number ten, from being the province which created the most jobs to the province which has created the least. Last year there was a decline of some 19,000 jobs in British Columbia, the only province in Canada to actually lose jobs. At the same time, our neighbours to the east in Alberta gained some 22,000 new jobs. From 1990 through 1997, government spending per capita in British Columbia was the fastest-growing of any province in Canada -- it grew by 28 percent -- while government spending in many provinces declined, as much as 17 percent in some provinces. Disposable income is declining in B.C. The amount of money which the average British Columbian has to buy food, to provide shelter and to pay for rent and mortgages has declined by 2.3 percent in the past year.

I don't believe that the economy, the context and the timing are right or correct for Bill 26. I think the motion before us -- the amendment, the six-month hoist motion -- gives an opportunity for the government to initiate a number of measures which may in fact make it more timely and more appropriate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Time is very important.

G. Hogg: "Time is very important," the hon. member says, as he points to his watch and suggests to me that. . . .

An Hon. Member: He wants to get a ham sandwich.

G. Hogg: Well, I could put forward the motion that we adjourn debate for a break. However, then you might have to listen to me again later today.

Interjections.

G. Hogg: Pardon me?

[ Page 9547 ]

G. Hogg: Hon. Speaker, I will. . .

An Hon. Member: Reserve your right to continue.

G. Hogg: . . .reserve my right to continue and move that we adjourn debate at this point.

The Speaker: That's to adjourn the debate to the next sitting, member?

G. Hogg: That's correct, hon. Speaker.

G. Hogg moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)

M. Coell: We were talking last night about parks and campsites, and I just want to finish up on that. We had talked about the development cost per campsite being $10,000. The average yearly maintenance cost per campsite was $640. I think that was the number; I'm just going by memory. The ministry is developing new campsites, and I just want to clarify for myself: once these campsites are built, is there new money in this year's budget to maintain these? Or will they have to be maintained using the last year's budget for maintenance, the budget for maintenance for the 6,000-plus we've got?

Hon. C. McGregor: The 500 campsites that are currently under construction won't come on line or be in operation until the next calendar year, and so the operating expenses will be included in next year's budget.

M. Coell: I guess the question is for next year's estimates, then, as to whether the budget for campsites has grown by 500 times $640 when you've got an extra 500 campsites, rather than the budget being the same as it was this year. I'll be watching for that as well. I suppose that question can wait until next year.

Just one final question on campsites. With regard to the 1,400 campsites that the Ministry of Forests runs, has there been any discussion this year about -- or does this minister intend to look at -- running those campsites? Are there going to be discussions with regard to that? Or is the ministry satisfied just to let the Ministry of Forests run those campsites?

Hon. C. McGregor: In the past there have been discussions between the two ministries, and sometimes there has been a transfer of campsites that more clearly fit the mandate of B.C. Parks. Those kinds of negotiations are often ongoing. But as the member knows, that's a future policy matter and not subject to debate during these estimates.

M. Coell: I realize that. If I could just add, it seems that that particular ministry was quite quick to off-load or just get rid of those campsites. I think the mandate of this particular ministry would be more likely to save those campsites and enhance them, rather than treat them like a commodity that you would do away with when you're cost-cutting. I would suggest to the minister that this ministry would do a better job of managing those campsites, if you're having that discussion later in the year.

If we can move to the greenhouse gas action plan, I have a few initial comments. I would be interested in knowing whether the ministry feels that global climate change is a significant environmental threat. What is their position on global climate change at this point?

Hon. C. McGregor: Let me start by saying I appreciate the member's kind remarks about our Parks ministry, and I feel the same way: that we do a very fine job. The staff is very capable, very competent, and they care very much about the values that they conserve in B.C. parks.

[10:15]

Nonetheless, most governments, in particular through the negotiation of the Kyoto protocol in December of 1997, have recognized that there is a need for developing and industrialized countries to take very serious actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This ministry has in fact taken the lead in galvanizing that debate across Canada. I certainly can't take all the credit for that; nonetheless, in a recent meeting with Christine Stewart, she acknowledged that British Columbia was clearly a leader on this question. The work we had done around the creation of the Greenhouse Gas Forum is a multi-stakeholder approach bringing together industry, environmental groups, local governments and others in a forum through which we can plan how to attack the problem of greenhouse gases and come up with innovative strategies, such as the greenhouse gas emissions trading pilot, using a market-based model to find the most cost-effective ways in which we can reduce greenhouse gas overall. We're clearly innovative and leading edge, and we are going to set the path across Canada for how we approach this greenhouse gas question.

[ Page 9548 ]

The forum is continuing to meet to give advice to government on how to approach this question. Staff are working very actively at this time putting together a proposal to take to the next joint meeting of the ministers of environment and energy, which is scheduled for October in Nova Scotia, I believe, where we're going to bring together our action plans. We'll have our quick-start strategies, as they're called, which we can share amongst governments on ways to begin the process of moving toward reducing greenhouse gases quickly. Then, looking to the longer term, we'll be doing an analysis of the economic impacts and making decisions nationally and provincially on the basis of that analysis. B.C. is very front and centre in the work that's ongoing, and I look forward to the member's other questions about this topic.

M. Coell: The minister mentioned that there's a fair amount of discussion going on in the international and scientific communities about greenhouse gases and their effects on global warming. I just wonder whether the ministry has in place its own ability to track the impacts of global change or who they're relying on for information on global change and greenhouse gas effects.

Hon. C. McGregor: The inventory work in terms of current production is done nationally by Environment Canada. Natural Resources Canada does future predictions on greenhouse gas emissions.

M. Coell: So those would be the studies and the information that the government would use in making its decisions to create programs or to put more emphasis on one program than another. One of the areas. . . . I guess with a growing population it's to be expected, but my understanding is that since 1990, B.C. has actually been creating about 15 percent more greenhouse gases. I wonder if the minister can confirm that for me.

Hon. C. McGregor: The member is correct in the fact that greenhouse gas emissions have risen, by our latest calculation, about 16 percent above 1990, largely as a result of population increases, because our per-capita greenhouse gas emission has remained largely stable. But it does speak to the need to take additional actions, and this is one of the questions that we must really struggle with.

In British Columbia we have a resource-rich economy. In fact, we rely on hydroelectric sources for our electricity, which is already a very clean technology. So there are limitations on our ability to make changes to how we manage our electricity, whereas in other provinces across Canada, for instance, it's coal-fired. There's an opportunity for them to reduce greenhouse gases significantly simply by switching from coal to natural gas, a cleaner fuel. In B.C. we don't have that option, because we already use a cleaner greenhouse gas source for the generation of electricity.

There's also the issue of the size of the province and how much we depend upon transportation corridors to move goods and services and people. We're very reliant on transportation. In fact, almost 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are from automobiles. So it speaks to the importance of taking measures related to greenhouse gases from the transportation sector and the challenges that will bring to a society that is dependent upon the automobile and also has commuters who commute long distances, particularly in the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley region. It speaks to many of the challenges we have in British Columbia and the efforts we'll have to make in addressing this question from a national perspective, because we do believe -- and I've spoken numerous times on this question -- that we need to adopt a national strategy that addresses some of the unique circumstances in particular provinces. I would say that at the national table with other ministers of energy and environment, there is the common view that we need to invest in those matters which can reduce greenhouse gases overall, on a national level, and which will address some of those issues unique to particular provinces, including those in British Columbia.

M. Coell: I think the action plan that B.C. has embarked on does the opposite of what the minister is saying. I think she's correct in the view that you need a national strategy because of the different characteristics of air pollutants in different areas, and B.C., having the automobile and being a very large province, does have that problem. In order to get the success rate that we want, is it realistic to think we can do that? We don't have the other things that we can draw down on, except the automobile. That seems to be the major source of greenhouse gas air pollutants.

We just don't have the big, greenhouse gas-creating industries that you can find solutions for, so we have a problem that other parts of the country don't have. Taking that into consideration, I just wonder how we're going to meet the targets we've set for ourselves. There's only so much you're going to be able to do in that one area, but you still have to draw down another 5 or 10 percent in other areas. I just wonder whether the ministry is contemplating that and how they're going to deal with that problem. At the end of the day, it would appear that we're not going to be able to make our targets, precisely for those reasons the minister has given.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the first point to note is that the effort has to go forward before we decide whether we can or can't make it. This province has a long history of being committed to this question. The member made reference to the greenhouse gas action plan, which was developed long before there was even consideration on a national level of the question of greenhouse gases. It speaks to the commitment this province has had to the issue and the efforts that we have taken in a variety of ways to try and move down the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that we've risen by only 16 percent, commensurate with our population growth, speaks to the efforts that we've taken.

As the member notes, it has to be a multiple design strategy, because there is not just one source of greenhouse gas

[ Page 9549 ]

The national strategy is designed to take a look at all of those different sectors, multiple layers and strategies to assist us in reaching our goal to reduce greenhouse gases. Do I know today whether or not we're going to meet our goal? No, I don't, but I do know that this province is committed to working nationally on actions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

M. Coell: We talked briefly about the program for trading units of pollution. I wonder whether the minister can tell me if there's anything in this year's plan for the government to take part in that program. I'm thinking of B.C. Transit in particular, or B.C. Ferries and B.C. Hydro.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to correct what the member said about pollution trading. This isn't about pollution trading; it's about emission reduction trading. I think it's important to get the terminology right. There is a misconception among the public, I think, about what exactly is being traded. It is the emission reduction that is the traded component.

In terms of some of the major partners with the government, B.C. Hydro is the first Crown corporation to have joined us, but we certainly hope that one of the opportunities that may come as a result of the emissions trading project is new investments in B.C. Transit, for instance. The member may recall last night's discussions around ethanol plant development and so on to deal with wood waste residue and also increasing ethanol production to go into gasoline. Those are some of the possibilities, none of which have been finalized yet. There are some exciting possibilities, and Hydro is the first major government partner to sign on to the pilot.

M. Coell: With regard to B.C. Transit, which the minister mentioned yesterday in the Legislature with regard to the estimates process, I'd like to touch base on B.C. Transit as it relates to greenhouse gas production. Has the ministry done any studies as to the effect of the present SkyTrain on air pollution or on the benefits of SkyTrain?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, our ministry has not done any studies.

[10:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, B.C. Transit has undertaken those types of studies, not our ministry.

M. Coell: When approvals are given for increases in transit in Vancouver -- or in Victoria, for that matter, although the Victoria area definitely does not suffer from air pollution like the greater Vancouver area does -- is the ministry asked to approve or to make recommendations with regard to different. . . ? I'm thinking that Vancouver has electric buses, gas buses, SkyTrain and the light rail or medium rail. What I'm looking for is: is this ministry involved in the decision as it pertains to the environmental benefits of those particular choices?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are always ongoing discussions between a major Crown corporation like B.C. Transit and our ministry, because we do have an interest in pursuing, for instance, the recent acquisition of more natural gas buses. That was something that we worked on with the Transit board to influence that decision, because we felt it was a good environmental decision as well as a good transportation decision. We do have a deputy ministers' committee on transportation, which includes the ministry responsible for B.C. Transit, the Ministry of Employment and Investment, ourselves, and Municipal Affairs, as well, because of the GVRD and capital regional district component. So there are mechanisms through which we can have these discussions about the environmental benefits of public transportation.

M. Coell: I would be interested in hearing what role the Ministry of Environment would play in the approval of light rail or SkyTrain, if there is a role.

Hon. C. McGregor: When we're contacted by B.C. Transit to discuss environmental issues, obviously we have a role. We talk with them about whatever concern they may have. We have the deputy ministers' committee, as I said. Currently the new SkyTrain proposal is being spearheaded by Transit. As I understand it, they're also working with GVRD. But don't quote me on exactly who's involved in that, because it is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, who is also the minister responsible for B.C. Transit. That's what I broadly understand the process to be.

M. Coell: Yesterday in the House the minister said that she'd answer some questions on the SkyTrain proposal, and I'd like to take that opportunity. With regard to the ministry's involvement -- the minister could correct me -- what I understand is that the ministry would only be involved if asked, and they haven't been asked. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, we don't have a direct approving role in terms of the development of the proposal. But obviously it's in the early stages yet. The office is only just up and running in Vancouver. There may be future roles for us to play, but at this point in time, it is in the early stages in terms of the process.

M. Coell: With the Environmental Assessment Act, I wonder if the minister could describe to me how that would take place. If this were a project somewhere else in the province or something, it may have come under the Environmental Assessment Act. Who would trigger that act to take effect? Would it be the board of the Assessment Act, or would it be the ministry? I'm wondering how that act gets triggered, so it would become involved and actually do an assessment of a project.

[ Page 9550 ]

M. Coell: In this case, either B.C. Transit or the B.C. government would have to trigger the response.

Hon. C. McGregor: The SkyTrain office or. . . . I don't know the exact title of the agency. They are the proponent; they would have to make the application.

M. Coell: Is there an opportunity for someone else to make that application? Can this ministry make the application? Can a private individual make that application?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand the act, only the proponent can put forward an application on their behalf.

M. Coell: In the case of an aluminum smelter being built in the province, the proponent of that smelter would have to go the environmental assessment office and ask. . . . Is it not in legislation that they have to ask? That's my problem. They would have to go and ask; they would be legislated to ask.

Hon. C. McGregor: There are thresholds that trigger what is covered by the environmental assessment process. That may be what the member is making reference to. We don't have anyone here from the environmental assessment office at this time. We did have someone here yesterday. We've gone out to call the staff person, in case there is some. . . .

I think it's important to make mention of the fact that the environmental assessment office is arm's length from this ministry. They are an independent office. They administer the act, and they work with proponents. This ministry only becomes involved when a referral is made to me as Minister of Environment. Sometimes there are joint referrals, so it often comes to me, but it also goes to the Minister of Energy and Mines or to the Minister of Employment and Investment. We are ministers who sign off and, on the advice of the environmental assessment office, either approve a project at stage 1, stage 2 or stage 3.

I'm not sure what the member thinks the role of this ministry is related to the environmental assessment office, but it's important to understand that it is arm's length, that this ministry does not direct the environmental assessment office but that the process is triggered by legislation and the proponent's application.

M. Coell: I'm willing to wait until the staff get here to carry on with those questions. What I was getting at was the legal obligation of SkyTrain. What's their legal obligation? My understanding is that a company developing an aluminum smelter or a mine would have the legal obligation to go and request an environmental assessment, under the act. I'm wondering how that would be different from what the minister said the previous day, in that SkyTrain would not have to go under the Environmental Assessment Act. I also have some questions with regard to the federal environmental assessment act and how it fits it. I'll save those until after lunch, if you wish your staff to be here, and we'll continue. I'll carry on with a couple of other topics, then, for which I know your staff are here, and then come back to that one.

The area of eco-fees in the stewardship program for pesticides, kerosene, slug bait and numerous other items has probably generated more mail in my office this year than it warrants. It strikes me that this was an ill-conceived program -- that you're actually paying tax on tax. I'll give the minister a few examples of some of the things that have happened. There's a tax -- an eco-fee -- on snail bait, for example, and by the time someone's finished with their box of snail bait, all that's left to recycle is the box. There doesn't seem to be a reason to pay a fee to use something that is totally used up. Another example would be someone who heats their house with kerosene. It has probably doubled the cost of heating their house, and at the end of the day there's no kerosene left. It seems to go on and on. The pesticides that someone buys to spray their apple trees -- at the end of the day they have a plastic container and no residue. There's no residue with most of the eco-fees, yet they are very hefty fees.

I wonder if the minister can outline what the goals of this project are supposed to be. I gather the ministry set up the program with the industry, and there must have been some goal that they wished to accomplish with eco-fees. How this program is going to be audited is another interest that I have.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to start by giving the ministry a pat on the back in terms of the management of hazardous wastes. With the industry stewardship programs that have been set up, when added to those that existed within the ministry, 95 percent of household hazardous waste is now recycled or reused in some way as opposed to ending up in landfills, where it potentially has serious impacts on water supply and human health.

It was an important program to begin. In fact, if we go back as far as 1991, when household hazardous waste was first dealt with by this ministry. . . . What we did was develop pilot collection depots in eight locations around the province, and we encouraged people to bring in things like paint. The member may recall. . . . I know that I participated in a local pickup of hazardous waste material. What we found, as a result of assessing that program, is that less than 0.5 percent of B.C. householders were serviced by that model, and it cost taxpayers more than $1 million a year.

Clearly we had to find a different model. The model we've gone to is an industrial stewardship model, in which the principle is that the polluter and the user pay -- not the more broadly based taxpayer. If I do not use a hazardous waste product, I am not paying, through my taxes, to have that product disposed of. The consumer who wishes to use that poisonous, hazardous product pays an eco-fee, and the producer has a responsibility to manage the return of that waste product and safely dispose of what's left of it.

I don't want to understate in any way the concerns that have been raised by consumers on some issues, such as kerosene. I'm sure the member knows that kerosene sold in bulk as a home fuel is exempted from the eco-fee. Only smaller containers of kerosene are currently subject to the eco-fee. That is one example of where we're currently working with the industry to consider adjustments to that eco-fee structure, simply because it is, by and large, a fuel source, and there are limited amounts left in residual quantities that need to be returned. I think that needs to be acknowledged through the fee structure.

[10:45]

[ Page 9551 ]

M. Coell: I guess one of the frustrations that the citizens are having right now is that they have eco-fees on things like pesticides and slug bait -- gardening products -- and they're using the entire product. Even if there was a place to recycle it. . . . Most of the province doesn't have a place to recycle it. To me, that goes against all the principles of recycling and deposit and return. It just seems like someone is gouging someone with a fee for something they're using all of, so there's nothing to recycle. Even if they wanted to recycle it, there's no place to take it -- no depots set up -- in 90 percent of this province. I don't know how the ministry can allow this sort of inflationary gouging of the population. It just seems that it has no basis to continue.

Hon. C. McGregor: I disagree with the member. It is an important management issue for us to deal with hazardous waste. By the end of the year, there will be 35 depots around the province, which will greatly increase access for everyone to take their products in. Unlike the member, my experience with the general public is that they want to take steps to protect the environment, and they don't want to throw away products that are dangerous or poisonous or that could cause damage to the environment. In fact, I don't know if the member has done what I have done over the years: pack partial containers of pesticide products and paint from home to home, as I've moved, because I wasn't prepared to throw it away. That's the way the average consumer feels about these products as well. They understand that there can be a hazard to the environment by simply throwing things in the garbage -- having them end up in landfills and eventually contaminating their water supplies. They want to take steps to return products so that they can be safely reused and recycled, and they're prepared to make efforts to do that even if they live in smaller communities and need to drive into a larger community a couple of times a year to do it.

The member may not be familiar with how people manage recycling initiatives in northern British Columbia. I've been in some of these recycling depots run totally by volunteers, who hand-grind their own glass, put it into the back of their pickup trucks, and drive it to Vancouver because they care so deeply about the need to recycle products and to do something on a personal level for the environment.

M. Coell: I agree with the minister that most people want to do what's right for the environment. Here's a program that doesn't do that. It doesn't make any sense. Thirty-five depots. . . . You're going to have people from Revelstoke having to drive to Kamloops to recycle something that doesn't exist -- they've used it all. And there's no return on that eco-fee. You pay an eco-fee, you use the entire product, and you have a box and no place to return it. That, to me, doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense for a government to try to convince people to do the right thing by the environment, when they think it's a program that doesn't do anything. So much of what eco-fees are for are products that are all used up. There's very little you wouldn't use eventually, whether it took you one or two years. What I'm saying is that even if you open 35 depots, there are hundreds of cities in this province, and you're going to have some people having to drive from one city to another city to recycle -- what? They've paid a fee, and there's nothing left.

I don't know how the ministry expects to get public support for more programs when you have a program like this. When someone buys it, they look at it, and they go: "Sheesh, how can government manage anything?" And this is a very high-profile program, because everyone who has a garden this year has paid a fee. They've all gone in and seen eco-fees, and they've all asked these questions. I don't know how the ministry is going to allow this program to continue, when it really isn't accomplishing anything. There's nothing to recycle; there's nothing to return. There's just a fee, and no one knows where that fee is going, what it's doing, what it's developing or what good it's doing for the environment. With that, I wonder if the minister is able to shed any light on this program for me.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated earlier, the program is designed for users and industry to pay, not for us as taxpayers to pay broadly. If you choose to use a pesticide product in your home, then you will pay an eco-fee to be able to manage that product. The member says that there is no benefit to this program. That's absolutely false. This year they are estimated to return 40 million litres of used oils. The cost of handling that product and recycling it is estimated at $2.4 million. What will the cost be to manage 2.9 million equivalent litre containers of leftover paint? It will cost $3.1 million to return, recycle and reuse those products. What will the cost be to manage the 300,000 equivalent litre containers of leftover solvents, flammable liquids and pesticides that will be returned in this calendar year? It will be $1.8 million. There will also be 130,000 litres of gasoline, at a cost of $200,000, and 11,000 kilograms of leftover pharmaceuticals, at a cost of $200,000.

So the member is totally incorrect when he says that there is no benefit to this program and that nothing is being returned; there are many things being returned. The individuals who don't have leftover pesticide product don't have to return it, and they have no need to make any trip anywhere, because they've clearly used all of their product.

M. Coell: I guess the big question is: why would they pay, then? Wouldn't it be the people who have the leftovers, who aren't using it properly, who would pay? Why would you charge someone who is totally using the product for the ability to manage it? That's where I'm coming from. With regard to paints and oils, those programs have been involved for a number of years and have been quite successful. What I'm commenting on is the new program of eco-fees announced this summer. So I think the minister and I may have a disagreement on why someone would pay. What I'm trying to point out is that there are a lot of fees that you pay when you return something, or you get a deposit back when you return something, but the vast majority of people who were confronted by this fee this year have nothing to return and at this point no place to return it.

I don't think it is fair to say that by the end of the year, we'll have 35 depots. Those depots should have been up and running before the program. You don't start a program and then have the depots kick in a year or, I suspect, two years

[ Page 9552 ]

An Hon. Member: Gone again.

M. Coell: Okay.

The question of the stewardship programs that are up and running -- has the government done any audits on those stewardship programs? And are there any planned for this year?

Hon. C. McGregor: Just momentarily, I'd like to go back to the topic of the eco-fees, because I think there is one point that the member is not aware of, which I think is important for him to note. Prior to bringing in place the residual pesticide management programs, there was public consultation on models that could have been used.

One of the models that was discussed was the very type of model that the member describes, where the fee would be paid only by those who return the product. That was not widely felt by the public, nor by other stakeholders, to be an effective means of managing the program, largely because the concern would be -- for me, just on a personal level, thinking about why that might not work: would you return a product if you were the one who had to pay to recycle it? So when the public consultations went on, people saw greater value in having a reduced cost, and all who used those hazardous products paid it in order to be able to pay for the overall system -- as opposed to having a different type of model that would have only those with residual products pay. So that was one of the options that was initially considered as part of the consultation process, but not used.

The member should also note that there are currently 22 depots in operation. There are plans to bring on more. I've certainly encouraged the member -- and I've talked to other MLAs on this question -- that if there is a need for more than 35, we're quite prepared to consider that and work with industry to create more depots in order to have the kind of access that's necessary to deal with these products.

On the question of auditing, each stewardship agency is required to submit an annual report, as well as copies of their audited financial statements.

J. van Dongen: I want to maybe pick up on this discussion with the minister a little bit, because I've also certainly had some concern expressed about this program. In the statistics that the minister gave, I wonder if she indicated the total dollars received by the province through the eco-fee system.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's important for the member to note that the government receives no revenue from the eco-fee. The eco-fee revenue goes to the industry stewardship agency.

J. van Dongen: This stewardship agency, then. . . . They receive these dollars, and they expend all these dollars themselves on the operation of these depots. Is that how the money is expended? Is there accountability to the minister or to the ministry for those dollars?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, those issues are reviewed through the annual reporting and auditing function. But the member points out the issue that I have concern with as well, which is for this ministry to be able to. . . . In the eventuality that the fees being charged are too high and that industry is not expending all of those fees on the cost of recycling the product, then there needs to be a way in which we can say: "You must reduce that fee." The amendments to the Environment Management Act, which I introduced in the House for stewardship agencies, will give this minister the ability to do that. I think it's the right thing to do.

J. van Dongen: One of the concerns expressed to me was that one individual had some diesel fuel that he needed to dispose of. This was part of an estate; he was helping a neighbour. He didn't know any of the history of it. He says that it took him a week to get rid of it. He ultimately gave it to an auto wrecker that had a way to use it. But he really complained about the lack of a depot and a facility to use the product. So I think that's a concern. How long has the current system -- this stewardship board -- been operating, and what has been the performance to date in the ministry's evaluation?

Hon. C. McGregor: Could the member indicate which stewardship board he's making reference to?

J. van Dongen: That gives rise to another question I have: what is the range of products on which eco-fees are collected? Is there a direct correlation between those products and a stewardship board? How many boards are operating? Does that help the minister?

[11:00]

J. van Dongen: Is there a direct correlation between the products in which an eco-fee is collected and one of these four stewardship boards?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes. The fees are collected by the boards.

J. van Dongen: How long have these four boards been operating? Did they all go into effect at the same time?

Hon. C. McGregor: The paint care board has been around for three years. The solvents, pesticides and fuels board began in December '97, and for the pharmaceutical sector, we're not sure of the startup date. They began voluntarily before the regulation came into effect.

[J. Smallwood in the chair.]

J. van Dongen: I think the minister said that one had been operating for three years. I guess the question I'd like to ask is: what is the match, then, between revenues and expenditures by that particular stewardship board? Would some form of written accountability be available in terms of the revenues and expenditures and what the expenditures went into?

Hon. C. McGregor: Certainly over the three years of operation, they have proven that there's an accurate assess-

[ Page 9553 ]

J. van Dongen: So that was the sum total of all the boards that were operating in 1997. Or is that one agency -- what the minister just read me?

Hon. C. McGregor: That was just for the Paint Care Association.

J. van Dongen: Particularly because we have this new legislation that's been tabled by the minister, Bill 40, and I think the interest from constituents on this issue. . . . I'm wondering if the minister could tell me whether these reports of existing boards -- the kind of report the minister just read out, but a more complete financial report -- are publicly available. I would ask that the minister make as much of that information as possible available to the critic and ourselves, because I think it would help us to deal with the current problem with our constituents and also give us a good base of information with which to look at Bill 40. I wonder if the minister could give us that information.

Hon. C. McGregor: I would be happy to provide the member with copies of the annual reports and the financial information that's been reported to us. That's not a problem at all.

R. Thorpe: Changing subjects and moving on to the expanded deposits for beverage containers, could the minister advise us how many FTEs in the ministry were assigned to this project for the fiscal years '97-98 and '98-99?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're doing a calculation based on time spent in the corporate policy branch, people who work in pollution prevention branch and the deputy minister's own time, because she co-chairs the Beverage Container Management Board. We would estimate that there's about 1.25 to 1.5 staff time in this calendar year and the same in the upcoming year.

R. Thorpe: How much money related to this subject is in your budget for the fiscal year '98-99?

Hon. C. McGregor: The costs of this initiative are largely staff time. However, there have been the startup costs of the board in terms of travel, and so on, to bring members of the board from around the province to these meetings. This responsibility, of course, will be transferred to the board, so this is only a transition funding question. Currently it's a subsidy of about $4,000 to $5,000 per meeting.

R. Thorpe: Would that be in the $50,000 range for the year or the $100,000 range for the year? What would be your quantification of that number?

Hon. C. McGregor: The staff costs would be about $150,000, and the board-related expenses would be about $25,000 in this calendar year.

R. Thorpe: The minister has commented many times that the expanded deposit will save municipalities approximately $7 million per year. How many studies has the ministry done to substantiate that figure?

Hon. C. McGregor: Those estimates are on the basis of our knowledge in terms of the costs of dealing with solid waste around the province. Our staff in regions and at headquarters have a lot of knowledge and information about solid waste management issues and what it costs to manage that waste, and we also worked with UBCM staff.

R. Thorpe: My question was fairly specific, though. The minister has made statements about $7 million. Can the minister tell me of any studies specifically done to substantiate the $7 million figure that the ministry throws out?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'll certainly take the member's question under advisement. We'll ask the staff to do the research and get back to him.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, for these purposes, I'm going to conclude that no studies have been done. If studies had been done, the minister would say: "Yes, a study has been done, and we'll provide that study to you as we research through the files." So we're assuming that no studies have been done, unless the minister wants to stand up and advise us that studies have been done specifically to substantiate the $7 million figure.

[11:15]

Hon. C. McGregor: We've just perused all of the press releases and so on to make sure that what the member is quoting is accurate. We can't find any reference to the comment he's making. But certainly, what the deposit refund system is largely designed to do is that there be no cost to the consumer as long as they return the product on which they paid the deposit. That's how it works for pop products now, and that's how it's designed to work when we expand it to include other products.

R. Thorpe: Well, hon. Chair, the minister did announce this on April 7 and April 8, 1997. I'm sure that the minister will have the opportunity to have her staff check both the CBC's news broadcast and the BCTV news broadcast, in which the minister very clearly stated that this would have no cost to the consumers of British Columbia. So we'll give the minister the opportunity to refresh her memory and have her staff refresh her memory. Perhaps we can save that question for a little bit later.

But that begs another question: what studies, then, have been done on what the impacts of the cost increase will be on the consumers of British Columbia, related to this project?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated to the member earlier, the deposit refund system is designed to have the deposit paid back to the individual who purchases the product. That is, by and large, how the system operates. It isn't up and running yet. We are currently working with the Beverage Container

[ Page 9554 ]

R. Thorpe: Well, I believe, through the management board, the minister has received correspondence that says this will be the most costly and inefficient beverage container system in North America. Since the minister has received that correspondence -- and the minister wanted me to be specific -- I wonder, then, if the minister could address that specific correspondence which she received.

Hon. C. McGregor: I receive thousands of letters. If the member wishes to read a letter into the record at this time, then he can certainly go ahead and do so. However, he well knows that he will receive a response, if he hasn't already, to his letter. I don't know what letter he's making reference to. I'm not going to stand here and try and guess what the member wants me to say.

R. Thorpe: Encorp has advised the ministry that the costs at their level for this expanded deposit will be approximately $24 million. Can the minister confirm that she and her staff are aware of that cost?

Hon. C. McGregor: The deputy minister sits on that board. I would inform the member that Encorp has never raised that number in any of the meetings, where they sit as a full and participating member of the board in decision-making around beverage container management.

R. Thorpe: I just want to be clear here that the minister, the deputy minister and none of the ministry staff that are present here today have no knowledge. . .have not received correspondence, directly or indirectly, or have not been told verbally that the Encorp system will cost $24 million to operate.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I said, the representative at the board for Encorp has never raised that amount.

R. Thorpe: Has any other board member raised that amount or a similar amount?

Hon. C. McGregor: Again, the deputy minister has told me that she has not heard that amount raised by Encorp or any other member of the Beverage Container Management Board. Hon. Chair, I ask that the member move on to a new line of questioning.

R. Thorpe: I will continue to ask questions related to the expanded deposit because this minister has made a commitment to the public that there will be no cost impact to British Columbians. I have copies of letters -- this one here is from February 10, 1998 -- that were sent to the minister. I realize that the minister gets thousands of pieces of paper. But surely someone on the staff must read them and would think that numbers like $45 million, $75 million and $24 million should be brought to the attention of someone senior, especially if they're incorrect, because you would want to put those issues to rest. I don't understand why the minister seems to be getting rather irritable about this particular issue. I don't understand it. I will just ask the minister this: has the ministry conducted any cost-benefit analysis of this system?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member may not be aware that the decision to move forward on this has taken some nine to ten years. There has been active consideration of this program expansion for all of that time. In fact, there are volumes of material that have been submitted to our ministry on environmental issues and related costs, on the cost to the consumer of not doing it and on the costs of landfills. There are voluminous amounts of material that one could make reference to on the question of expansion of the beverage container system, not the least of which is the most recent work done by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon when she was assigned by the previous Minister of Environment to widely canvass this topic amongst stakeholders, consumers and so on. She engaged in an eight-month study, and there is a lot of material related to that as well.

For the purposes of the record, I would just like to indicate that the information we have from Encorp Pacific Inc. indicates their cost for an expansion of the beverage container system is $1.5 million for a point-of-return computer tracking system, $3 million for an awareness campaign and $5 million for their new depots -- they are anticipating 100, at $50,000 per site -- for a total of $9.5 million.

R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister would be prepared to share that Encorp document with us.

Hon. C. McGregor: We will find the originals from which the staff drafted this and provide them to the member.

R. Thorpe: Thank you. But I don't believe my previous question was answered. The reason I asked the question was because in the spring of this year the Premier said that he strongly favoured cost-benefit analysis for such projects. So my question to the minister is: has a cost-benefit analysis of this expanded deposit project been completed -- yes or no?

Hon. C. McGregor: I must apologize to the member; I'm sorry. We have so many volumes of material on this question, there is no way to have a complete list of how much work has been done on this question over the last nine or ten years. But we certainly will put some staff on it to go through all of those studies and determine which one of those might fit the description the member is giving.

R. Thorpe: I'm perplexed. We have a major undertaking in the province of British Columbia, designed to look after the environment -- an issue on which people have written letters and letters -- and this minister cannot tell us whether a cost-benefit analysis has been done on the project. Again one can only conclude. . . . One may have been done back in 1991, but we all know that that would be irrelevant in 1998 terms, especially as the whole industry has changed so very much. My question, then, to make it a little bit easier: is the minister aware of whether her ministry has done a cost-benefit analysis on this subject within the past two years?

Hon. C. McGregor: We've done extensive research on those points related to cost and benefit, but we don't know the dates of those studies, so we'll have to get back to the member on that.

[11:30]

[ Page 9555 ]

R. Thorpe: Perhaps the minister could advise, since they're not familiar with the term or the definition of the term. . . . I'm just going to focus on the last two years, because it has sort of taken on a new life in the last two years. Has the ministry, based on what the various costs are for the product as it is today and what it may be tomorrow on the retail shelf, vis-à-vis the competitors and the different packages they compete against, done any analysis in that area?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, we have looked at that, particularly as it relates to Alberta. We've been doing some studies of the information they have available to them, largely because they've had an expanded beverage container refund system for some considerable time. We wanted to see how the costs looked from Alberta's point of view, so we could use that to help us in decision-making here in B.C.

R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister could tell us the top two or three key points we learned with respect to this subject from the Alberta model.

Hon. C. McGregor: I don't have the full details of all of what was looked at, but I do have a little bit. First, they noted in their latest report that they have an 80 percent recovery rate, and they list how many containers that is in Alberta. I think it is a fairly high recovery rate, and they're very pleased with that. They've noted that there's no decline in sales of beverage products overall. There were also large amounts of unredeemed deposits that were put to the use of the industry board so it could use that to offset the costs of managing the depot and return sites.

R. Thorpe: In reviewing different jurisdictions, did the minister review what is taking place in Saskatchewan to date? What knowledge did you gain from Saskatchewan?

Hon. C. McGregor: We've reviewed all of the jurisdictions where similar beverage container management systems exist in Canada. We don't have the material here, but if the member would like it, we would be happy to provide him with a copy.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the Saskatchewan experience of a major British Columbia producer from Kelowna known as Sun-Rype, which employs a substantial number of British Columbians and supports the British Columbia agriculture industry tremendously, I believe that they have advised the ministry on several occasions that they believe that the regulations, as proposed now, could have a significant impact on the viability of their operations and on jobs in the Okanagan. Can the minister please address those concerns and perhaps shed some light on what is being done to address those concerns?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, we are aware of the concerns that have been raised by Sun-Rype, and we are actively working with them, including representatives from not only our own ministry -- the pollution prevention branch -- but also Agriculture and Food, as well as the juice producers themselves.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise us what specific areas these various agencies are working with, what issues we are trying to address in working with Sun-Rype and the status of those?

Hon. C. McGregor: We assume the work we're doing with the Juice Council includes Sun-Rype, but I don't know for certain if it does. Largely, the issue that's being worked on at the moment is to determine if there is a way of providing some level of assistance in locating or building a recycling facility here in British Columbia for poly-coated containers, more commonly known as Tetra-Packs.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise us what the status is of that? Are we near completion? Are we hopeful something is going to be done? If so, when? What is the status? Where are we in the spectrum of addressing the issues and concerns?

Hon. C. McGregor: I understand that the ministry met about three weeks ago with Dan Wong, who is currently working on a feasibility study of such a proposal, and that he seemed quite optimistic at the time about the possibility of it moving forward. We haven't heard since that meeting, but we are certainly hoping to hear from him soon.

R. Thorpe: I know that the ministry has received. . . . I know the minister gets thousands and thousands of pieces of correspondence, but I am sure that when correspondence comes in from major international companies like Nestlé, Perrier and even strong international companies located here in British Columbia, like Clearly Canadian -- dated May 29, June 1 and June 2 -- somehow I have to believe that this correspondence gets addressed by someone, gets reviewed by someone.

One of the things that this correspondence is talking about is small brand-owners and the potentially dangerous -- in their opinion -- and significant impact it can have on small brand-owners. What analysis has been done to assess and evaluate the alarm bells that these companies have given off about the survival of their products in the marketplace and about job loss in British Columbia?

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. C. McGregor: We are working on the question of the small brand-owners. In fact, we've been working specifically with Encorp on this question as a part of their beverage container stewardship plan. One of the issues was the handling fee that would be charged to small producers, and we had Encorp go back and adjust that to reflect the concerns of the small producer. We've also had Encorp agree to restructure their board of directors so it will include representation from small brand-owners. There may be other issues that are currently outstanding, and we're continuing to work on those as well.

[11:45]

[ Page 9556 ]

The Chair: Noting the time, minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, our staff meets with Encorp on a fairly regular basis, as well as through the beverage container board, although I met with them at the end of May. It's an ongoing discussion. It is not the minister who directs the fee reduction under the regulation; it is the director. That directive went out on April 1, 1998.

R. Thorpe: It's interesting that it would go out on April 1, and yet the correspondence I have from small brand-owners is dated June 1, May 29 and June 2. You would think that perhaps they would have been made aware of this. I'm just wondering if perhaps after lunch the minister could provide us with responses to Perrier's May 29 letter, to Nestlé's June 1 letter and to Clearly Canadian's June 2 letter, in which they would have probably, I think, addressed these issues. Perhaps the minister could address those comments.

Hon. C. McGregor: I will endeavour to find out why that information hasn't gone to the small producers, and we'll make sure that they do get it if they haven't already received it.

The Chair: Minister, a motion may be in order.

Hon. C. McGregor: Given the hour, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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