[ Page 9557 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is Peter Rubin, who, when our families would get together when I was younger, I would view as a little kid. Now he will be clerking with the Court of Appeal in this province at the end of this summer. I'd ask my colleagues in the House to please join me in making him welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: I have a number of different people who I would like to introduce. Joining me for the announcement on the CPR review today were Lynn Rolko and Judy Carter-Smith from the B.C. Association for Community Living, Viola Thomas and Scott Clark from the United Native Nations, Grace Nielsen and Paul Lacerte from the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, and Iain Cunningham and Robin Pike from the Federation of Child and Family Services of B.C. Also with me earlier, but not able to be in the gallery today, were Ivan Paquette and Jim Pavich from the Métis Provincial Council of B.C. Will the House please make these individuals welcome.

L. Reid: Many of you will know that I was a teacher prior to being elected. A very important part of our district are the two individuals who represent Richmond. They are in the gallery today. Sylvia Gwozd is the chairperson of the school board, and Ken Morris is the secretary-treasurer. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

J. Doyle: Today in the gallery, all the way from Edgewater in the constituency I represent, are Jeff and Loni Funnell, with their daughter Heather and their son Jeff. Would the House make them welcome to Victoria.

Oral Questions

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF URBAN TRANSIT PROJECTS

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand the EA Act, the construction of new or modified urban transit rail projects constitutes a reviewable project if the project consists of eight contiguous kilometres or more of developed track.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. First supplementary, the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, wait just a moment until some of the noise subsides. Hon. members, order, please. The member would like to ask a supplementary question.

M. Coell: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate that answer in the affirmative. The Environmental Assessment Act states that in order to carry out its purposes, to protect the environment, it must assess all reviewable projects through an "open, accountable and neutrally administered process." Will the Minister of Environment tell us when we can expect this open, accountable and neutral environmental review process to begin? Or it will be done between the four walls of her office with the Premier looking over her shoulder?

Hon. C. McGregor: This question was well canvassed, I thought, in estimates this morning. When the proponent makes an application is when the review can begin.

G. Campbell: Obviously, when the government has announced that they expect a major urban rail transportation system to start by August, it raises some concerns. Let's look at what happens in the rest of this province. One of the transportation projects which is currently under environmental assessment review is the Greenville-Kincolith road in the Nass Valley. It's a 23-kilometre gravel road being built by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways between Greenville and Mill Bay to connect a Nisga'a village to the rest of the provincial highway system. If a gravel road in the northwest is subject to a review, can the minister tell us how she expects to get a major urban rail transit system started in August without any review whatsoever, when she knows that the rail transit system will have social, environmental and economic costs?

Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate that the members are aware of what the thresholds are for transportation projects. I appreciate the information about Kincolith. I was well aware that it was subject to the environmental review process. Once again, hon. members, I would point out that a proponent must make an application to the environmental assessment office before any assessment can begin.

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

G. Campbell: The proponent of this particular project happens to be the Premier of the province. We have an aboriginal village. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The member continues.

G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

. . .of 350 people whose only access to the world is via air or sea, and that's always been weather-dependent. They've been asking to connect by ground for some time. So they now have a gravel road which is subject to environmental review. At the same time, the Premier and the government are announcing a major rail transit system that is going to be imposed in greater Vancouver and which won't meet its initial requirements. Somehow or other it's going to start, without an environmental review, by the middle of August. Can the minister explain to us why it makes sense to have a gravel road subject to an environmental review, but we won't have a major urban rail transit system subject to an environmental review?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's important to speak a bit to the role of the Minister of Environment in the environmental

[ Page 9558 ]

In the case of the Kincolith road, if the member would like to have a briefing on what the environmental assessment office is up to around that particular matter and the concerns -- environmental, social and other -- that have been raised by the project committee, I'd certainly be happy to set that up for him.

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

G. Campbell: What I would like is to know that the Minister of Environment is going to stand up for the environmental review process which she imposes on every other person and authority in the province. Is she going to stand up for that environmental review process and demand that it take place when the government is involved, just as it has to be imposed when citizens are involved?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I've pointed out to the members opposite on several occasions this afternoon, there is currently no project proposal that has been submitted to the environmental assessment office. Until that activity takes place, there is nothing that this minister can do.

NORTHERN DOCTOR SERVICES

On the bright side, it appears that an amount of $20,000 to $30,000 would probably satisfy those differences. The doctors believe they have made enormous contributions already. Can the minister tell us what steps she has taken -- what steps she is taking -- to ensure that that agreement is finalized today?

Hon. P. Priddy: As the member knows, when the Dobbin report was presented, which is what people believed would lead to a settlement of this, I said that I would adopt, and that the government would adopt, every single solitary recommendation that was in there.

The agreement is not with physicians; the agreement is with the regional health authorities, who will be administering those dollars. And on those agreements, the letters have gone out to the health authorities that those actually are in place.

In relation to the recently publicized information, as of this morning, when my staff met with the BCMA, I think there was only one unresolved issue, and they expected that to be solved today. So it is done.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you. This government is committed to those doctors providing for their patients services that they have withdrawn.

[2:15]

J. Weisgerber: One unresolved issue doesn't mean that there's a deal in place. Indeed, I've seen this government walk away from agreements before on a single issue, and those people in northern. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

J. Weisgerber: You know, it's disturbing that health care in northern British Columbia always seems to be a source of amusement to members opposite, particularly those on the cabinet benches.

The fact of the matter is that doctors have arranged locums on the strength of the agreement that they believed would be signed today. Those locums won't come to northern British Columbia unless an agreement is resolved. Can the minister assure this House that indeed she will take a personal interest to ensure that that final item doesn't result in a breakdown but rather in a final agreement?

Hon. P. Priddy: If I was not taking a personal interest -- which I do -- I would not have had my staff meeting with the BCMA this morning to work out the final details. I cannot imagine that doctors in northern British Columbia would disrupt health services because of one issue that does not relate to on-call amounts and does not relate to locums; it relates to some things around continuing medical education. That they would disrupt services. . . .

Interjections.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF URBAN TRANSIT PROJECTS

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Only a Liberal. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

[ Page 9559 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the minister hasn't finished, but there is so much noise that no one can hear anything.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Maybe it's my tone, hon. Speaker. I'll change.

Those that would say that SkyTrain is not the best environmentally sound project to come into the lower mainland in the last 12 years do not understand the quality-of-life issues that we who live in the lower mainland are facing: increased health care costs, increased pollution that leads to damage in the area of farming, and increased environmental costs, where the number of vehicles that are coming onto the roads increase exponentially over and above the population. This project will follow every rule that needs to be followed so that we in the lower mainland will have an improved quality of life eight years earlier than originally anticipated.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

M. de Jong: Only an NDP government would enact environmental legislation that has sent investors fleeing from the province and then exempt themselves from those very provisions. What hypocrisy!

I've got one of those multiple-choice questions. The Minister of Environment can answer or the House Leader can answer; any of them can answer if they dare. The people who are looking for similar special treatment, a fast-tracking of their application, want to know. . . . Can the Minister of Environment or the House Leader -- I don't care which -- tell us if her government's decision to ignore its own environmental legislation is based on the fact that (a) the line is going to run through seven NDP ridings, and government can do anything in B.C.; (b) the new line, if it's going to be open in time for the next election, can't go through a full environmental review process; or (c) the Minister of Environment is going to be punted right out of cabinet if she doesn't do what the Premier tells her?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, let me pose my own question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Hon. members. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me ask: which members of this House support the 71 percent of the population who say: "No more delay; build the project"? How many people support that? How many people in this Legislature support those who live in the lower mainland who say: "Our quality of life, including air and environmental quality, is the most important issue we face"? How many people over there support that?

We will uphold our legislation. We will uphold our commitment to increasing public transit, delivering on the Livable Region strategy and improving the quality of life. We will not let the opposition bind everybody up in an area that they do not care about, at the expense of this project.

The Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Peace River South, who rises on what matter?

J. Weisgerber: A point of clarification, hon. Speaker. Are we talking about the same SkyTrain that the dirty old Socreds brought in 12 years ago?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I think it's actually going to be called the Grace McCarthy line.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Petitions

Orders of the Day

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

G. Hogg: When I was last speaking on this amendment prior to lunch, I was talking about the economy in that context. The amendment would allow the matter to be hoisted for six months. That would give the government time to initiate a number of facilitating measures which may assist this province in dealing with such types of legislation. It would give the government a chance to reduce the amount of red tape that so many persons, organizations and companies must go through in order to apply for various measures. It would give the government a chance to reduce the regulations.

The Forest Practices Code has been talked about many times in terms of its regulations and the impact it has had on the economy of this province. It would give them a chance to reduce the income tax and put more money into the pockets of the people of this province, so that they could inspire the

[ Page 9560 ]

It also gives the government a chance to try the method which both Vince Ready and Stephen Kelleher recommended to this government in their February 1991 interim report. They said that the problems which exist in the construction industry and in the building trade sector should be resolved through the collective bargaining process, not through legislation. It seems to me that this option should be explored. The give and take of the collective bargaining process would provide an opportunity for us to look at whether or not it can resolve the issues and concerns which the government has put forward and proposed that they can deal with by this legislation.

Six months would give the minister time to retest his own criteria. The minister stated the following in a letter that he wrote to a business organization: "Let me close by stating the criteria that I will use when evaluating the recommendations from the two panels, as well as submissions from interested groups such as yours." The minister listed five criteria for evaluating any piece of legislation that came forward. Those five criteria that he stated were:

"(1) We must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in the national and international marketplaces.

"(2) We must ensure that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected.

"(3) We must create a climate of [stabilizing energy] which will encourage investment and create jobs.

"(4) We must consult carefully with the key stakeholders before making changes to law, policies and regulations.

"(5) We must work to bring. . .labour and government together to address issues of common and public concern."

[2:30]

The first criterion: "We must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in the national and international marketplaces." If we use public economic indicators to test this and to decide whether or not we are ready for this legislation -- per capita incomes and job growth rates -- they would clearly show that at this point in time, we are not ready. But clearly those criteria could remain in place and be evaluated by arm's-length organizations. We could look at those and see whether or not there is any change, and therefore we might be more receptive to any types of changes that might occur. If we can agree on an evaluation process that might decide how we would move toward that -- some strategies that would allow us to effect evaluation and change in this economy and in this province, which allow it to be more resilient and more alive. . . . There has been much talk about strategies that we might employ to do that -- such things as a reduction in the marginal income tax rate, a reduction in regulation, a reduction in red tape. Using the minister's first criterion, then, if we take those measures and those strategies, I think that over a period of six months, we could have some sense of whether or not they're having an impact.

The second criterion: "We must ensure that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected." Well, I just made reference to the recommendations of the Kelleher-Ready solution. Their solution was that this could be resolved, dealt with, managed, by way of the collective bargaining process. It does not need to be managed within legislation. That mandate has not been given; that has not been tried. I think we owe it to the recommenders to stay out of legislating this into place when in fact the parties who are part of it can, through the process of collective bargaining, resolve the issues themselves -- at least be given the opportunity to do that.

Hon. Speaker, the third criterion is: "We must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs." Stability is a very difficult concept to understand and to put within the economy -- not just the perception of stability but the reality of stability, stability that will encourage investment, that will allow investment to arrive and to survive in B.C., and that will welcome investment. We've talked often of the strategies which may assist us in getting towards that end. Again, by making modifications to issues such as the corporate capital tax and the marginal income tax rate, I think we can start to see some more investment. We can start talking in terms of the type of investment that is going to Alberta, where they are projecting $40 billion worth of construction projects over the next few years. It's that type of income and investment that we really need to stabilize our economy and to allow our economy to start to grow. Clearly we don't want it stabilized in the form that it's in today. We want it to have the ability to grow and to create jobs.

The fourth criterion is: "We must consult carefully with the key stakeholders before making changes to laws, policies and regulations." While six months is a very short period of time to allow for an active consultation process, it certainly allows time for us to create a format and a structure within which it could take place. We could have meetings around this province. We could in fact do that in a non-threatening, non-biased way. We could employ an all-party committee to go around the province and talk with all of the affected parties, all of the persons who have an interest and an investment in seeing this province grow and be alive. We'd have a chance to gather the information that we need to make an informed decision. We'd have a chance to look at the economic impact that this legislation might have in each part of this province. We could look at the nuances, the impact it would have on small businesses. They exist in parts of the interior, the north and the Okanagan. It would help us not just to look at it on the lower mainland but to tie all that together -- give us a sense of the overall economic impact it would have.

The fifth and last criterion is: "We must work to bring. . .labour and government together to address issues of common and public concern." Well, the consultations I referred to, the public meetings they made reference to and an all-party committee going out and gathering information and rolling that up based on a set of principles that could be agreed upon would give us a good structure, a good format, a good understanding and a good chance to move forward in response to the issues that have been put before us. Hon. Speaker, in the past this government has used third-party groups to do just this type of thing. They've brought people in; they've used them; they've allowed them to set up a committee structure to tie it together. I think it's time that we used some of the committee structures that are available to us in this House to actually do the same thing. We have the ability to get the input and to find out what the people of this province really want. We have the opportunity to roll that up in a context and in a manner which will give us a chance to put forward a structure that will respond to those five criteria, which the minister himself said were the criteria necessary for making a good and valid decision.

[ Page 9561 ]

G. Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to get into this discussion on the hoist motion. I think that the word "certainty" has been used a great deal in the debate, both in terms of the words of the minister. . . . I hear it frequently from members of the Liberal opposition. They say that what we need in British Columbia, at a time when we are being challenged on the economic side of things, is to provide some certainty for people who are making investments in British Columbia to know that their investments are going to be secure. In dealing with the debate and the text of the proposed bill, we have to ask ourselves whether or not this hoist motion actually provides additional certainty. Or does it create greater uncertainty within the overall workplace and in the labour force?

In the way the debate has proceeded up until now, we know pretty much where each of the parties represented in this Legislature and the independent member for the Peace stand with respect to this legislation. When we eventually come to what I'm sure will be a standing vote, it will be no surprise as to how people will cast their ballots. When people rise to vote for this piece of legislation, we know pretty well what the outcome will be, because the government has, by majority, the ability to move this through. Therefore as a member of the opposition, I would have to say that when you are opposed to legislation and you have an opposition strongly held, you have to be able to use whatever measures you have at your disposal to try to change it, at the very best, and, at the very worst, to simply delay the implementation of this bill.

I want to give a compliment to the Liberal opposition for the way in which they have opposed this labour bill. I think they have used the limited tools they have at their disposal enormously effectively. The idea that they would take this bill out through House adjournment, have it as a dropped bill. . . . I think the fact that it had to come back by a motion indicated that the government was very much asleep at the switch. They very much felt that they had, almost by divine right as a result of their majority, the right to do with this House what they will. I think that's been proven to be wrong. It has been proven that the opposition has a role to play.

I think the Liberal opposition have committed themselves. The question is: do we, at this point in this debate, move toward the next step, which is the hoist motion, when we know almost with certainty that at the end of the day, this hoist motion is not going to succeed? Or should we be seeking to look at the text of the material and, in committee, start to put questions to the government with respect to some of the inequities that exist in that bill?

As we are now playing out yet another part of the opposition scenario in stalling this bill's implementation, what concerns me most of all is that there are some very real and very pressing issues in front of British Columbians that should be addressed in this House that are not currently being discussed. We had an announcement today by the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, who told us that by virtue of federal law, we are going to have somewhere between 25 and 50 percent of B.C. land claims disputes resolved by the end of the summer. That's what the federal minister said. We have the Nisga'a agreement out in negotiation, which should be coming to this House for debate now. It is an urgent matter.

It becomes more urgent, because if we want to look at what is causing uncertainty -- and that's how I started my comments with respect to this hoist motion -- it is not this labour bill, which looks at a subset of a subset of unionized construction trades, that causes uncertainty. It's the broader issues with respect to how we are going to be able to continually manage the resource base of this province and who, in the final analysis, is going to have control over the lands of this province. That is a far more urgent, far more pressing debate than worrying about a minority of a minority within the construction trades.

I don't share with the Liberal opposition. . . . Believe me, I've listened carefully, I've read Hansard, I've read the text, and I've gone out and consulted with people, union and non-union. I've talked to people in the business community. I simply don't share the fear they have of what is in the text of this bill. I don't believe it's real.

Now, I know that there are sentiments that run high with respect to non-union workers who are fearful of trade unions in general. I know there are people who would say, because they are inherently anti-union, that the rise of more trade unions is a bad thing. Well, fair enough. That's their position; they have a right to it and they have a right to express it. But it is not in this bill. That is not what is reflected in the language and text of this bill.

So I'm hoping this House will take seriously a far more pressing and far more urgent matter, and that is how we will resolve this question on aboriginal land treaties. We must get to this soon. We can't do it if we're going to be charging at windmills, so to speak, and that's what I believe we're doing. With the greatest respect, I think that the Liberal opposition have masterfully used the limited tools they have in opposition to fight this bill. I understand their opposition, and I respect their opposition. I just don't happen to agree with it from the text that is in the bill that is in front of this House today.

Delgamuukw -- and I just want to point this out by way of discussion on why we should not be continuing the debate on this hoist -- says something that all British Columbians should be standing up and paying attention to. It says that aboriginal lands that are under claim -- that is, those lands that are considered to be treaty land -- should be treated as section 91 lands under the Canadian Constitution Act. That means they are under federal jurisdiction. That's what that means: Crown lands traditionally and conventionally provincial are under federal jurisdiction. We have now got the federal minister coming in and making what are essentially treaty discussions with respect to resource revenues that are critical to the well-being and survival of this government and this province by suggesting that there is going to be some kind of an agreement on the basis of Delgamuukw.

We must move on this question. I cannot stress it urgently enough. This is a critical question for this province. It is far more significant, far more important, than whether the sub-trades of the unionized construction workers have to deal with a master agreement on a unionized job site. As a priority,

[ Page 9562 ]

[2:45]

I urge the opposition to make its point -- I believe that has been done -- and allow the business of this House to move on so that we can get down to the really important, critical issues that all British Columbians are going to have to address. If we fail to do it, it will be done for us, and I can promise you that it will not be done in our best interest. So I urge all members of this House to bring this issue to resolution, allow this bill to stand the test of its vote in this chamber and allow us to move on with pressing business that is critical to people in British Columbia.

C. Hansen: I appreciate the comments from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I take it from those comments that he would be supporting the hoist motion. Frankly, I agree with the sentiment that there are a lot of very critical issues that we have to deal with in this House. Certainly, if we can come to an agreement in this House -- all of the members -- that we should in fact hoist this legislation, put it aside, then we can get on with some of the other pressing business that is before this Legislature, as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast outlined.

It reminds me of the advertising you see on television for one of the networks, where they're out to win them over, one viewer at a time. When it came to this hoist motion, I knew that it had the support of the 33 members of the official opposition, and now I gather we have one more MLA supporting our motion, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. We're winning them over, one MLA at a time. I think once we get to the point where we have a majority of MLAs prepared to support this motion, then truly we can set this legislation aside and, as the member rightly pointed out, get on with some of the other business that we have to deal with in this Legislature.

When this legislation was first called for debate three weeks ago. . . . It was introduced on a Wednesday, shortly after 2 p.m., and in a move that rarely happens in this chamber, the legislation was called for debate the very next morning, at 10 o'clock. The minister started out with some opening comments, and then I spoke at length for the two hours allowed to me. During that time, I started out by questioning why this legislation was being rushed into debate. Why not let it have the light of day? Why not let British Columbians have a chance to read it and look critically at how it would affect their individual companies and their individual communities?

Now that we have had two and a half weeks pass since the first introduction of the bill -- three weeks, as of tomorrow -- we clearly see why there is a need for that kind of broader discussion. I know that if the government had had their way, second reading would have passed the very day that it was started. Even then, I don't think that British Columbians would have had the chance to really consider the ramifications that the legislation would have. As a direct result of the time we took debating the main motion on second reading and the time that has been spent after my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson moved a motion of adjournment, British Columbians have been allowed to get a better understanding of what's in this legislation and what the ramifications are. That has been a very important discussion, because we start to realize now that the ramifications are much broader than the government would let on -- are much broader than the Minister of Labour would let on.

There are two reasons for that. One possibility is that the minister was not aware of the broader impact that this legislation has. The other is that he was wilfully ignoring it. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he simply wasn't aware of the broader impact. I hope, in the course of the debate, that he has started to appreciate the broader ramifications. Certainly I hope he gets that sense from the volume of mail that is coming into his office. The reason I know about the volume of mail that's coming into his office is because I get copied on most of those letters. I certainly know from the volume that has come to me -- that have been cc'd to my office -- that the minister is getting a lot of mail. I would anticipate that there are considerably more letters coming into his office that I don't even see, that are not copied to me. I hope that the minister is paying attention to those letters.

Hon. L. Boone: One.

C. Hansen: The Minister for Children and Families is indicating that she has received one letter. I find that astounding, because I have received dozens of letters from her constituents, and I'd be very surprised if the individuals who are writing to me aren't also sharing those views with their own MLA. Perhaps what's happening is that those correspondents are writing directly to the Minister of Labour and not copying their MLA.

I see an enormous concern about what's in Bill 26. I think it's important that the government pay attention to those concerns and that we then take that one step back -- which is what this hoist motion is all about -- and give time for the consideration of those views that are out there, rather than ram this legislation through, which was clearly the government's original intent.

In my initial comments on second reading on Bill 26 -- in the two hours that I spoke -- I really only got a chance to get through about half of my remarks. I started out by talking about the two major concerns that I had with this legislation. The first major concern was the effect it would have the economy. The second major concern was that even if we were in a state of a good, buoyant economy, this is not good legislation. I only had the opportunity, in the time that I was allocated, to get through the first stage of that. When you start to look at why the legislation is bad legislation, irrespective of the economy, it gives a good reason as to why I think this hoist motion should be endorsed. As I mentioned earlier, I'd be very pleased to see five members of the government indicate that they would support this hoist motion; in which case, we could put it to a vote and get on with other business, as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was urging.

[ Page 9563 ]

I've heard members from the government side criticizing the fact that we voted against this legislation on first reading. That was one of the consistent messages. They kept saying that we hadn't even seen the legislation, so how could we vote against it? What they were probably unaware of was that the Ministry of Labour had arranged for us to be briefed on the legislation before it was introduced for first reading. We did know exactly what was in it. We didn't see the formal bill, because that would have been a breach of protocol of the House, but we basically saw every word that was in it.

At that point, when we knew what was in the legislation. . . . First of all, we were quite surprised, because we thought they would back off from the Kelleher-Lanyon report quite significantly. What they brought in was the full-blown draft bill that was in the report that came from the construction industry review panel. At that point, when we had that briefing, we knew that it was bad legislation, and that was good reason to vote against it. We also knew that any change to the Labour Code at this stage in our history would have a detrimental effect on the economy, and that was reason enough to vote against it. We had not just one good reason to vote against it on first reading -- which was the state of the economy -- but we also now had knowledge of what was in the bill, and that was the second good reason to vote against it.

If there's another good reason for us to hoist this legislation for a period of time, it is because of the state of the economy today. The impression that I get in listening to the government members who spoke to this legislation to date is that they clearly don't understand that the Labour Code is not just a statute. The Labour Code amendments that are being made in Bill 26. . . . This is not just a bill. It's not just a piece of legislation that has come into this chamber. It's not just the words that are contained in these six pages that are important. What's important is what this initiative symbolizes to so many people who are looking at British Columbia as a place to come to create jobs. The message that we got quite clearly before this legislation was introduced in this chamber was that any change to the Labour Code by this government -- any change; it didn't matter what was in the legislation -- was going to be an enormous negative signal to those who were considering British Columbia as a place to come to create jobs.

I've had people who support the government who have said: "What if all that legislation had done was to bring back the secret ballot for certifications?" That is something that we certainly have advocated and would like to see. Clearly that's not a credible thought, because we know that this government, given all of the indicators that had come out ahead of time, was going to use any change to the Labour Code to further shift the balance in favour of the big trade union movement in British Columbia, upsetting the balance that we have. I want to get into that a bit later in my comments and talk about just what that balance entails and what is at risk.

The other thing that we have heard often in the speeches of government members is that this is a very minuscule bill, that the change is so small that it affects just the ICI sector of construction -- ICI being the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors of construction. This is a fairly significant portion of the construction industry, so it is not insignificant in itself. Where I think the government members are wrong is in saying that the ramifications of Bill 26 are only contained within the ICI sector of construction. What we now know, and what we are learning daily, is that the ramifications extend well beyond the definition of ICI construction in this province.

If the hoist motion is defeated by the government and we follow through with this debate, then certainly when we get into committee stage, one of the areas that is going to be very important is nailing down what the definition of ICI is and finding out what the constraints are on that definition. Right now it is very wide-open language that could be all-encompassing when it comes to the construction industry. But the other side of it is that regardless of how we wind up defining ICI construction as a result of this bill, it is going to have ramifications in other sectors. I've heard members of the government side say during this debate that Bill 26 has nothing to do with residential construction. Many of the members said that. Clearly they don't understand that. I know that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who probably knows the construction industry in this province better than virtually anybody else in this House, probably appreciates the fact that this will have ramifications for the residential construction sector.

[3:00]

The other thing that I don't think is appreciated by many on the government side is that the companies that are operating today in ICI construction that are operating outside of the craft union structure don't do just ICI. Within the members that currently belong to the Construction Labour Relations Association of British Columbia, there may well be companies that are so specialized -- I know for a fact that there are -- that they are specialized into just the ICI sector. But that's not the norm for the construction industry. You, hon. Speaker, will often see situations where a company is working on a school extension, let's say, or an industrial project in this province, and then the very next day the same company will be working on a residential project. So you've got the same workers, who may go from doing electrical work in a hospital in the morning to doing electrical work on a new condominium development in the afternoon.

Is anybody going to say that somehow those workers are going to work under one collective agreement in the morning and then, when they go to a different place, there's another collective agreement? Some people might nod and say that's possible under Bill 26, but let's think of it in reality. Let's think

[ Page 9564 ]

From an administrative point of view, it would be an absolute nightmare for a company to have a workforce that is working under different collective agreements, perhaps even on the same day. When we get into some of these other sections, I certainly want to be able to deal with that in more detail, but I think what's clear today is that one of the reasons this motion should pass is because we need more time for companies throughout British Columbia to look at how it's going to affect their individual circumstances.

More importantly, we have to look at the impact it's going to have on specific groups of workers. I think there's an assumption on the government side that this legislation is somehow going to benefit workers, but when you start winding up with multiple collective agreements being imposed, then clearly it's not in the interests of the workers either. I will go into that at greater length later as well.

One of the other things that has been said by government members is that this does not affect small business. In fact, I heard the Minister of Labour say this as well. I was very surprised to hear those words come out of his mouth, because the impact Bill 26 will have on the construction industry. . . . These are not big companies. Even the largest construction companies in British Columbia today are not big companies. We do have a lot of medium-sized companies in the construction industry today that are doing some fairly significant projects in this province, but by and large, the majority of companies that are working in the construction industry today in this province -- the few that are lucky enough to have work -- are small companies.

When you wind up imposing a process leading to a master collective agreement, you're not imposing that just on big companies; you're imposing that on companies of all sizes. In fact, it's surprising that the minister would claim that it doesn't affect small business, because one of the amendments contained in Bill 26 allows a bargaining unit that has only one employee. That is a change, of course, from the Labour Code as it currently exists. As it exists, it talks about a bargaining unit comprising employees. Because of the fact that it's plural, it has been deemed to not apply to a bargaining unit of one person. What this legislation will do is change it so that a bargaining unit can have only one person in it. I think that clearly indicates, right in the wording of the legislation, that this does affect small business and will have a huge impact.

It also affects small businesses that are not in the construction industry. This comes back again to the point that members on the government benches have said: that this legislation affects only a small number of companies in a very small, narrow segment of construction. The section it affects is industrial, commercial and institutional. What this means is that after this legislation is brought in, there are going to be upward cost pressures on the construction of every commercial facility in this province.

When you start looking at the retail stores that small businesses are dependent on in this province, when you start looking at the commercial space in office towers and in small communities in British Columbia -- just those small neighbourhood offices that have your doctors' or dentists' offices in them -- this legislation will directly affect the costs that those small businesses must incur when it comes to the cost of the facilities they need to run their businesses. To say that Bill 26 doesn't affect the small business community is simply wrong.

When I hear members on the government side make those kinds of claims, it makes me appreciate that they do not understand the impact of Bill 26 and why it is so vitally important that we put Bill 26 aside and allow time for the government members to appreciate the implications, so that we can come forward with good legislation from this Legislature.

Hon. Speaker, the other thing I have often heard is that Bill 26 is nothing like last year's Bill 44. People have talked about it. I know that some of my own colleagues have talked about Bill 26 as being the son of Bill 44, or that it doesn't go as far as Bill 44 but is a thin edge of the wedge when it comes to bringing in the full ramifications of Bill 44. Well, I would argue that Bill 26 is as bad as Bill 44. I'm the first one to recognize that it's not as all-encompassing as Bill 44 was when it comes to impacting on every single sector of the construction industry. That comes back to the issue of what defines ICI. How broad does that definition of ICI reach? Could we stretch the definition of ICI to be all-encompassing when it comes to the various construction sectors that were specifically targeted in Bill 44?

What we see now in Bill 26 is not a front-door route in order to go after the residential construction industry, but a backdoor route that's going after residential construction. We see varying interpretations of ICI that could start reaching out and grabbing other sectors of the economy under this definition of ICI. Clearly, until we have a very clear and unequivocal definition of ICI from the minister, then certainly there will be those fears that this definition can pull in those other sectors, resulting in Bill 26 having the same far-reaching effect as Bill 44 would have had, had it proceeded last year.

The other issue I would like to point out to members is that we are looking at Bill 26 in the context of July 1998. We were looking at Bill 44 in the context of July 1997, one year ago. You could bring in legislation that may have a detrimental effect on the economy in one year, which five years later may not have the same detrimental effect. We have two bills we are trying to compare, but we're comparing them against two different years. In the last 12 months, we have seen a significant deterioration in the economy of this province. The context in which we look at Bill 26 today is not the same context that we were looking at Bill 44 a year ago. Clearly we have seen an erosion of our economy in those 12 months. The impact that Bill 26 would have on the economy today is clearly as serious as the impact that Bill 44 would have had on the economy in the summer of 1997.

Let's just look at some of these numbers. If you start looking at the number of unemployed people in British Columbia, which is now at 198,000. . . . These are the numbers that came out of B.C. Stats on June 26. It points out that the number of unemployed has grown by 12.1 percent in the 12-month period -- 12.1 percent growth in only 12 months. That's the unemployment rate when Bill 44 was introduced to this chamber compared to the number of unemployed when Bill 26 was introduced. Again, you start looking at the unemployment rate as well. When Bill 26 was introduced, we were facing an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent. A year ago, when Bill 44 was introduced, we had an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent in this province. It's actually interesting, just as an

[ Page 9565 ]

We can't just compare Bill 26 with Bill 44 without looking at the context of the B.C. economy in which those bills were introduced. Interestingly, the average weekly earnings in this province. . . . We talk about the need for a high-wage economy in this province. What's happened in the last 12 months is the exact opposite. The average weekly earnings in British Columbia in April this year were $612, and that is down from a year ago. Can you believe that? We are actually at a point in British Columbia's history where, year over year, our average weekly earnings are declining. That is a sad fact.

When you start looking at what's happening to our exports in British Columbia, manufacturing shipments have dropped 9 percent in 12 months. If we look at merchandise exports of raw materials, they're down 19.5 percent. Can you believe that? It's almost a 20 percent drop in our merchandise exports from a year ago.

Personal disposable income. It's bad enough that our average weekly earnings are falling, but our personal disposable income -- that's after taxes, after this government and other governments have taken their grab of taxes out of British Columbians' pockets -- has dropped by 2.3 percent. It has actually declined. British Columbians today are poorer by 2.3 percent than they were a year ago in terms of what's left in their pockets.

I think the other thing that's important to note, when we start comparing Bill 26 and Bill 44, is what the future holds for this province. One of the most serious alarm bells should be going off in everybody's head in this chamber when you start looking at in-migration to British Columbia. We are at a point where the B.C. population is just under four million people -- an estimated 3,959,000 people as of April 1. If you start looking at the trends that we've had over the past number of years, this should have been the year that British Columbia surpassed a population of four million.

[3:15]

If you suddenly take away the people moving to this province from other parts of Canada, we're now actually in a net outflow of people from this province to other parts of Canada. In terms of in-migration from other countries, we have seen a very, very dramatic drop. The only thing that has been fuelling our economy is disappearing on us, and that is what is ahead of us today. That is why this bill and the effect it will have on our economy is much more serious than even Bill 44 would have been last year in terms of the effect it will have on our economic growth.

The other thing we have seen in the last year is the dramatic drop in the number of housing starts, a direct result of this drop-off of in-migration to British Columbia. We are seeing that the construction industry has been faced just recently with a reduction in the anticipated housing starts, from 27,000 at the start of this year to about 23,000 or 24,000, I believe. There's a very significant drop in this year alone. We're in a situation where the construction industry is already facing some very serious challenges.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I should draw your attention to the fact that the 30-minute time limit is up.

C. Hansen: I'm the designated speaker, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: And you are the designated speaker. Thank you.

An Hon. Member: More! More!

C. Hansen: I was just getting warmed up.

I think that it is clearly a mistake for people to say that Bill 26 is a mere shadow of Bill 44 and what those ramifications would have been. But as I indicated earlier, when I first spoke to second reading on Bill 26, I really only had the chance to get through about half of my remarks. I had a chance to talk a lot about the impact on the economy. But I ran out of time before I had the opportunity to get into what we think this bill is intending to do and the ramifications of the language that's actually contained in the legislation. As I mentioned earlier, the very fact that this bill is being introduced to change the Labour Code is one reason to vote against it, because we are at a time when that sends out all the wrong signals.

I do want to spend some time talking about why we disagree with what's in this legislation. I think that if you look at it from the point of view. . . . If we had the most dynamic economy that British Columbia has ever seen, this would still be bad legislation. So I want to take some time to address some of the points that are specifically contained in it.

First of all, we have to question the motivation and the rationale for bringing in these amendments. Clearly there are a lot of challenges facing our economy, facing the labour movement in this province and facing employers who are dealing with a changing workplace -- changing needs of both employers and employees. It's interesting that when we're faced with all of those challenges of globalization, of increased world competition, the need for workers to have better skills in order to meet those competitive challenges in the future. . . . When you start looking at the new industries that are coming into B.C. -- the new high-tech industries -- and at the role of public sector employment in British Columbia, there are so many challenges when it comes to the relationship between labour and management. Yet this government has chosen this particular area of labour-management relations to bring in amendments.

You've got to ask the question why. Why is it that we are making these amendments? I argue that there are only two very small groups that benefit from these particular changes. One of the groups is the building trades unions. I want to talk in some detail about the building trades unions -- the craft form of bargaining that we have seen in North America for many decades now. The building trades unions have seen a very significant decline in their membership and in their ability to remain competitive in this changing environment. So this legislation is clearly designed to give a helping hand to those building trades unions. Really, that's the only group that has any significant benefit from this.

You might also argue that the Construction Labour Relations Association benefits as an organization, because if

[ Page 9566 ]

I think that the answer is quite clear: the agenda that is behind this particular piece of legislation is not one to strengthen our labour relations climate in British Columbia. It is clearly one that is there to simply pay back some favours to the building trades unions for the support they offered to the current Premier during the leadership campaign and to the New Democratic Party during the election campaign. You know, when you start stripping all of this away, there is nothing more to explain that.

Hon. Speaker, I believe my colleague may have an introduction to make. I will defer to him temporarily.

B. Penner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Speaker; thank you, members. I see in the gallery my legislative assistant Bobby Virk. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce him to the House, because I have not done so before. Bob began working for the B.C. Liberal caucus last March in a temporary position and was later promoted to our permanent staff. His talents are well utilized by myself as well as by the member for Richmond Centre and the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. Bob was born and raised in Victoria, and his knowledge of the city and the many people in it is of great benefit to us as we do our tasks on a daily basis here. He was educated at the University of Victoria, where he took a number of business courses to supplement his entrepreneurial skills.

On a volunteer basis, Bob is very active in the Indo-Canadian community in Victoria and is president of the India Tigers Field Hockey Club. This group has organized many youth events in the city, and they encourage youth to get involved in their community. Through sporting events and through fundraising drives, these groups provide a recreational alternative for Victoria's youth. As you can tell, Bob is a great asset not just to the B.C. Liberal caucus but to the community of Victoria. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to introduce him today.

C. Hansen: I think we have to ask what the motivation and the rationale is behind Bill 26, because it clearly benefits one very particular, very small group when it comes to the overall economy of British Columbia. Yet the impacts of the changes are going to be far-reaching and are going to detrimentally affect a very broad sector of the economy as a whole. I think that members of the government side should ask themselves: "Why is it that, of all of the changes that could be brought into the Labour Code, changes that New Democratic Party members would obviously like to see, and of all of the changes that could be brought into labour-management relations in British Columbia, they, as a caucus, as a governing party, have chosen this particular target?"

Clearly, if you start looking at the collective agreements that are in place today in the building trades. . . . You know, these are well-paid workers, especially when you start comparing them to other workers in British Columbia. I know that the Minister for Children and Families is very familiar with wage rates that are paid to homemakers in British Columbia under collective agreement. You know, they're nowhere near the scale that we see paid in the building trades unions. So when it comes to priorities, here we have a government that is singling out this one group of very well-paid workers and giving them special advantages and special opportunities when it comes to the tools that they need for organizing workplaces. Yet we don't see the same kind of concern on the part of this party or this government for other unionized workers in British Columbia, who are completely at the other end of the wage scale.

I think that there may be some who have a belief that anybody who is in a unionized job, anybody working under a collective agreement, is somehow well paid in this province. Clearly that's not true. I know that members opposite appreciate that we have many workers in this province who are working under collective agreements, and many of them under collective agreements within the provincial government sector, who are making only marginally above minimum wage. Yet here in Bill 26 we've got a very special advantage that is being given to one small sector of the trade union movement, a sector that already enjoys some of the highest unionized wage rates in British Columbia.

So, hon. Speaker, why is it that construction employees who happen to be members of the building trades unions should be given this special advantage? What Bill 26 will mean is that workers who happen to belong to building trades unions will have an advantage when it comes to labour stability that newly unionized employees will not have. The reason I say that is because if you have a long-term employee working for an employer who becomes newly certified under this master collective agreement that will be imposed, they will then be subject to the seniority rules within that union.

What we have is not a great opportunity for new workers who are not currently in those building trades unions to somehow come in and get full-time employment with the wage rates that are currently in those collective agreements -- or may be, after this new master agreement is negotiated. But what we see is that those newly unionized workers in this ICI sector are going to wind up finding that, within the union hiring hall, they're going to be significantly down on the seniority list and that those who have been members for many years are going to be at the top of the seniority list.

[3:30]

[ Page 9567 ]

The cost of building trades is much more expensive for a couple of reasons. It's not primarily the wage that is a significant difference, because there is relatively little difference in many of those wage scales. But if you start looking at some of the various funds that the employer is obligated to fund when they're working in a building trades environment, you wind up with. . . . Those are all adding cost to the bottom line. You start looking at the costs of having multiple jurisdictions on a job site, and those clearly add to costs.

What we have seen up till now is that there has been no incentive on the part of building trades to negotiate realistic collective agreements that allow them to increase the market share they have. Now, we probably have members opposite who are thinking: "There's a member of the opposition who's talking about market share in the context of trade unions. Trade unions -- isn't that sort of somewhat different? If you're running a retail store, you're worried about market share. Or if you're running a McDonald's hamburger stand, you're worrying about market share. But if you're operating a trade union, this has nothing to do with market share."

But clearly it does, because what we have seen in the building trades unions over the last 20 years is the declining market share that the building trades unions have been able to realize when it comes to getting work for their members. What we have is a system, which this NDP government has established, that basically has been propping up the building trades unions and the collective agreements they have in place today. Government has been propping them up through government construction and through things such as the fair-wage act. So there has been no incentive for the building trades unions to make sure that their portion of the industry remains competitive.

There has been no incentive, when you've got a government that says: "Fine. Whatever wage rates the building trades want to negotiate, we'll apply those wage rates to government projects" -- such as the HCL agreement, for example. There has been no incentive to ensure that wage rates are kept to a realistic level, that they are competitive in British Columbia and that allow those building trades unions to compete side by side, holding up their master collective agreement with pride and saying: "We'll go up against a non-union company in this province, or we will go up against a wall-to-wall union company in this province, and we will compete for those projects based on our master collective agreement."

What you've got is a government that has come in through these other various initiatives saying to the building trades: "No, no. You don't have to be competitive. You don't have to ensure that there is ample work for your members, because we as government will make sure that our projects pay a wage scale that meets the costs of those building trades agreements." And by costs, as I mentioned earlier, it's not just the wage costs; it's all of the other costs that go along with those packages.

What we have in this province today is a master collective agreement in the building trades that the government of the day is prepared to support and is prepared to pay those rates -- whether or not they're competitive, whether or not they're realistic. Then, when it comes time for the building trades unions to have to compete with non-government projects, they invent something called enabling -- a market recovery program. Let's stop and ask what this means, because Bill 26 is the first time that we actually entrench a provision for enabling. The way it's worded in there. . . . I must say that it may be a very small measure to address a problem that exists in this fantasy land of building trades unions-management relations today.

But let's talk about what enabling is. Enabling is when a building trades company is going to go up against a company that is unionized by another union -- a wall-to-wall union. The wall-to-wall union and that company clearly have lower costs because of the jurisdictional disputes, because of the extra funds that are added on. So you've got the unions who are prepared to go to the building trades employers and say: "That's okay. We know you can't compete with our collective agreement, so what we're going to do is subsidize you to pay the union rates to the building trades members." So rather than the market pressures that are going to allow competitive wage rates, we've got a process where the unions and the companies together will sit down and figure out what they've got to do to win that project, which is a non-government, private sector project.

H. Giesbrecht: It sounds really terrible.

C. Hansen: The member for Skeena said that it sounds really terrible, and I know from the tone of his voice that he meant that it doesn't. Let me explain to him why the problem is there with this process of enabling. You wind up with the union paying funds to subsidize the hourly rate of their members. So it's saying to the members: "You will still be paid the hourly rate that's in the collective agreement. You will still be paid. . . ."

I know the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has a better understanding of what the individual rates are, but they're in the high-$20 to low-$30-an-hour rate for many of these trades. They're saying: "The individual worker is still going to get paid $30 an hour, but to be competitive and for this company to win this contract, we can't afford to pay more than $26" -- let's say -- "an hour." Rather than having some reality come into the collective bargaining process and economic forces saying that $26 an hour is the reasonable rate that allows the company to stay competitive, what we have instead is a union that will subsidize the employer. The subsidy doesn't go to the individual worker.

Also, the union doesn't go to the worker and say: "Well, look. Can you take a $4-an-hour cut on this particular project, so that your employer can get the work for you?" Rather, what happens is that the union will draw on their enabling funds to pay the employer the extra $4 an hour so that the employer can pay the $30 an hour that goes to the individual worker.

You have to ask yourself: where does that $4 an hour come from? It's not a case of unions having an endless supply of money they can use to subsidize these rates. So where does this $4 an hour come from? Clearly it comes from public

[ Page 9568 ]

When you start looking at what is in Bill 26, that's what it's all about. What Bill 26 is saying is: "We don't want to have to continue to subsidize forever. Therefore let's force everybody into that sector. Let's force a master collective agreement that will mean that enabling will become less and less necessary." I recognize that one of the sections in Bill 26 is to make the requirement that if a union provides this subsidy to one particular company that is bidding on a project, then they have to provide the same subsidy to all companies that are bidding on this project.

What it really comes back to is why the building trades have found themselves in this dilemma in the first place. Why are the building trades finding that they have a declining percentage of membership? One of the things that many will tell you is that the reason Bill 26 is needed is because the construction industry is so unique -- it's not like any other industry. They will say that the construction industry is built project by project.

So if you have a building trades union, or any union -- wall-to-wall union, an industrial-style union -- that goes into a workplace and signs up 55 percent of the workers in that workplace, there's an automatic certification. Something we have mentioned on many occasions is that the 1992-93 changes to the Labour Code, which this government brought in, took away workers' rights to a secret ballot. It is no longer a case of going in and making sure that the workers' wishes are reflected through a democratic process. Rather, there's a simple process of signing membership cards, whether that's in front of the union organizer or other workers, such that once 55 percent sign, you will have an automatic certification.

One of the reasons why Bill 26 is said to be necessary is that they can't conclude a collective agreement once they have that certification. You wind up with a construction project that has the 55 percent sign-up. They go to the LRB, and they're certified. Then you find that in the time that is allowed for a collective agreement to be decided on and signed, the project is finished and the workforce has dissipated. You wind up with this empty certification. That is the problem that Bill 26 is trying to address. The problem the building trades are facing today is that they are getting the certifications, but they can't get the collective agreements because the project will end before that.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

A collective agreement is a process of negotiation. Collective bargaining is a process of compromise. If there is an inability on the part of either a union or a company to negotiate a collective agreement, then it is clearly the inability of those two parties to come to what is needed for a compromise. So you wind up with building trades unions that now have a master collective agreement in place sitting down to negotiate a collective agreement with a newly certified employer in that workplace and saying: "It's my way or the highway." That's not what collective bargaining is all about.

That's not what negotiation is all about. If any union gets a certification in a workplace, and they sit down with a reasonable willingness to accommodate the needs of the employer, it is much more likely to result in a collective agreement than if they walk into a negotiation and say: "Well, we've got your workplace certified; here's the master collective agreement; you'd better get to like it, because that's what it is." The individual company will look at that and say: "Well, we can't live with these provisions." So there's a need for accommodation in order to meet the needs of that particular company. That is not what we have seen to date.

The problem that the building trades unions have today when it comes to empty certifications is a problem of perception of what collective bargaining is all about. It is a perception that says that there have to be master collective agreements.

[3:45]

Hon. Speaker, I have touched on the issue of empty certification. I want to move on to some of the provisions of our existing Labour Code. It's interesting when you look at the purposes of the Labour Code as it's currently worded. There's a very interesting clause that was inserted when the Labour Code was introduced by this government in 1992. I just want to read this from section 2 of the Labour Code as it now stands. Section 2(1) lists six different purposes of the code, and this is the second one, subsection (b): ". . .to encourage cooperative participation between employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues, adapting to changes in the economy, developing workforce skills and promoting workplace productivity." Those are interesting words. Those are words for which I think you would find very broad acceptance in British Columbia -- a recognition that the economy is changing, a recognition that there is a need for productivity enhancement for labour-management relations to work.

It's interesting that there is a Labour Relations Board decision that has just come out in the last little while that talks specifically about this particular clause. It's a decision that came out on June 5, 1998, so it's just a month and two days old. In here, I think, is a real lesson for everybody who has an interest in labour-management relations in British Columbia. In this Labour Relations Board decision they talk about what they call the new equation in labour relations. They specifically refer to the purposes section of the Labour Code that I just quoted from. It says, in talking about this section, that they "in fact embody. . .a mutual accommodation approach of those parties in the labour relations community who are most

[ Page 9569 ]

An Hon. Member: Used to be.

C. Hansen: My colleague says: "Used to be." I hope that's not the case. I hope that the Labour Relations Board is still today the neutral arbitrator of labour relations issues in British Columbia. But I do know where my colleague is coming from there, because we've seen some indications that clearly put that in jeopardy. There is a threat to the neutrality of the Labour Relations Board because of some of the personalities that are involved and as a result of some of the initiatives of this government and in particular the appointment process that they have used. I hope that the integrity of the Labour Relations Board will be intact and that this government will ensure that through the actions they take in the next few months in terms of appointments.

As I mentioned, this particular Labour Relations Board panel set out some of the criteria for this new equation in labour relations. For the employer, this is their read of that particular section. Let's recognize what the Labour Relations Board's responsibility is. Their responsibility is to interpret the code, to look at the jurisprudence that surrounds labour relations in British Columbia, not to come up with their own grand designs for social engineering of labour relations in B.C. They are the court, they are the arbitrators, they are the ones who have to look at the language in the code and elsewhere and come up with the interpretations that will apply.

And this is how they have interpreted this particular purposes section of the Labour Relations Code. They have said, for the employer: "The interests of the employer are productivity and flexibility." These are words that they have pulled from that particular clause. When they talk about flexibility, they're talking specifically about the language in the Labour Code that says: ". . .adapting to changes in the economy."

When they talk about the goals of employers in labour-management relations in a modern society and in our modern economy they say: "The goal of the employer is profitability and success." Profitability is not the dirty word that government members would like to pretend it is. We're not talking about big fat-cats that are going after profit in order to buy a second yacht or a house in the Caribbean. We're talking about profit that allows small business owners in this province to put food on their own table and to pay for their own mortgage, just like everybody else in this province has to. So clearly the goal for the employer is profitability and success.

Now, it's interesting, because they've been very careful to look at the balances in this, because balances are all-important in labour relations. They look at the interests of the unions and the interests of the employees. And they recognize, again, in drawing on the interpretation of this particular section, that the interest of the employees is job security and training -- or, as the code itself says, "developing workforce skills."

Clearly the unions and the employees also have goals, and the goal that every employee seeks is greater job security and better wages and benefits. This particular ruling of the LRB goes on to say: ". . .the progressive nature of this new equation can be seen, for instance, in the code's explicit acknowledgement of the need for productivity." The code that was brought in by this government recognizes that need. We want to have the ability of both parties to reach their goals -- for the employees, job security and better wages and benefits, and for the employer or the business owner, profitability and success.

How are these two goals mutually compatible? They're compatible through increases in productivity. That's how you can have the win-win scenario; that's how you wind up with business owners and employees in win-win situations -- they can have their cake and eat it too, through increases in productivity.

This particular report goes on to say that much can be said of "adapting to changes in the economy," which is little more than plain language for a definition of flexibility. In this respect, the existing Labour Code imbeds probably one of the most important interests of an employer, and that's flexibility. We have talked about that numerous times in this House -- about the need for flexibility in our Labour Code and in employment standards. I know that government members have criticized us for using that kind of language, but this language is directly out of the Labour Code: ". . .adapting to changes in the economy."

Hon. Speaker, let me just go on to quote this report again. It says: "The same can be said on the union-employee side of the equation. Job security and training are the two most deep-seated concerns of unions and employees now facing the full brunt of the current economic reality."

The current economic reality is this changing economy and a changing workforce, and it is in the interest that we come up with legislation in this House that's going to result in the ability of both workers and employers to meet those challenges together, not separately. We can't have the workers and employees working against each other. Otherwise everybody will be the loser in the end.

If I can quote another section from this report, it says: "This new equation in labour relations recognizes and encourages success and enrichment on both sides. On the employer's side that means profitability." Then it talks about the employee's, which is. . . . Sorry, let me come back: "Like productivity and flexibility, it can no longer be dismissed as merely the agenda of one party." It's in everybody's interest. "It is an essential part of the core equation in the code for successful labour-management relations."

I'll just pull out a couple more quotes from this particular part, because I think it gets to the nub of what is before is. That is the question of master collective agreements versus enterprise-based bargaining. It says:

"Similarly, success for the employees and their unions will require job security and training throughout the course of employment. Through the countervailing power of the collective bargaining system, better wages and better benefits are a further integral goal of this equation. They are to be achieved as a part of the overall success and profitability of the enterprise."

"They are to be achieved as a part of the overall success and profitability of the enterprise." The individual company has to be profitable. "Within this new equation, the interests of both parties thus merge. One way of understanding this is to look at it from the point of view of employees. They need security of employment from layoff, but that security of employment can only be as strong as the enterprise itself."

[ Page 9570 ]

"Similarly, the ability to gain better wages and benefits will depend on the profitability and success of the enterprise. That in turn depends on the enterprise's productivity and flexibility."

Interjection.

C. Hansen: He says they're not sending mail to him. I find that surprising, hon. Speaker.

G. Plant: They've given up on him.

C. Hansen: Perhaps the small business community has given up on the Minister of Small Business standing up for their interests. If the Minister of Small Business were to stand up for the interests of small business in this province, he would be standing up in opposition to Bill 26 in this House.

Earlier in my remarks, I noted that we had the support of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on the motion to hoist Bill 26, because he thought we should get this off the agenda so we can get on to other matters. Now the Minister of Small Business should stand up. . . . Send me a note saying that you're going to support this motion, and if we get a couple of your other colleagues. . . .

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, members.

C. Hansen: My apologies, hon. Speaker. I will defer to my colleague for an introduction.

J. van Dongen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. van Dongen: I see in the gallery today a strong supporter of the B.C. Liberal Party, Mr. Louis Audette. Louis was born and raised in Montreal and was educated at the University of Ottawa. He received degrees in social science and in law. After obtaining his degrees, Louis felt that he needed to see the country to truly understand how francophones and anglophones can co-exist in the same country. He moved to B.C. in 1994 with a friend, and after a brief stay in Vancouver, he is now proud to make Victoria his home. Louis recently wrote the Canadian securities exam and is awaiting his results. He is looking for related employment in Victoria, but tells me he may have to consider moving to Alberta. In 1995 Louis met my legislative assistant. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Member, introductions are generally short and to the point.

J. van Dongen: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

In 1995 Louis met my legislative assistant, Karen Bill. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Member, please just make your introduction.

J. van Dongen: I ask the House to please make him welcome here today.

[4:00]

I just want to read a quote from the former chair of the Labour Relations Board, Stephen Kelleher, who, of course, was one of the architects of the construction industry review panel report. This is a comment that Kelleher of the Labour Relations Board made in 1984:

"When one reads the 1973 Labour Code, what is striking is not how much the code has changed but rather how few changes there have been. While there have been significant amendments, when these are measured against the original statute as a whole, the Labour Code remains a very durable piece of legislation. Given the freshness of the approach of the 1973 legislation, that is a surprising fact."

Members on the NDP side have talked about Bill 19. In retrospect, Bill 19 was not just an attempt by the government of the day to swing the pendulum on Labour Code balance in British Columbia but something that led to a fundamental shift in where the pendulum was located. We often hear people complain about the balance in labour relations as a pendulum. Whether the government in power is considered to be a business government or whether there is a trade union government in power, this pendulum has been swinging from side to side, depending on the party in power.

What we have seen in the last ten years is not a shift in where the pendulum is swinging but where the top of the pendulum is located. What we saw in Bill 19 and, more importantly, in Bill 84 -- which was brought in by the NDP government in 1992 -- was an effort to fundamentally change the balance.

I want to quote from Paul Weiler, who was one of the principal architects of the original 1973 Labour Code. In fact, he was the first chairman -- the original chairman -- of the Labour Relations Board in British Columbia. He said:

[ Page 9571 ]

"The important lesson to draw is the need for reciprocity, for balance, in labour law reform. When a government starts to make substantial changes in labour legislation, both the process it uses and the package it proposes have to be seen as decently responsive to the interests of both sides in labour-management relations. This is not an easy natural tendency. It is the nature of politics, especially in British Columbia, that one party will have the support of employers and the other of unions. It becomes terribly important that the elected government restrain its own supporters from the all-too-human bent to translate a victory in the political arena into major gains in the legal balance of power against its opposite number at the bargaining table."

I would argue that Bill 26 continues the destabilization, the erosion, of sound labour relations, which started with the Labour Code changes made in the early 1990s. Bill 26 is, at best, a direct challenge to the labour relations principles that we have come to respect. At worst, Bill 26 is a certain subversion of the labour relations principles that we should be trying to uphold in this chamber.

Let's look for a moment at what some of those principles should be. What are the principles against which we should measure Labour Code changes? First of all is the employee's freedom to choose. The right to choose a union comes with the right to reject trade union representation as well. If you want to state it another way, there is no true right of choice unless you have the opposite right as well.

I think that what we see in Bill 26 is an erosion of the rights of individual employees, first of all, to select the trade union of their choice and then, secondly, through majoritarian principles, to come up with a collective agreement that suits their particular needs. What we see is an erosion of that freedom of choice for employees, which should be one of the fundamental principles under which we measure all Labour Code changes.

The second fundamental principle that I think we should try to uphold with our Labour Code is the employer's freedom to bargain. The employer has the right to engage in good-faith bargaining that allows the employer to negotiate terms and conditions with his or her employees, which allow that particular company to stay in business and stay competitive. As I was talking about earlier on, it is in the interest, of both the workers and the company to ensure that the company continues to be viable.

The fundamental shift that we have in Bill 26 -- the shift away from these two principles -- is what I think is the most troubling in terms of what's in that legislation. First of all, we have a situation where employees will have their freedom of choice diminished. Secondly, the employer's freedom to bargain is diminished. We will have situations where a particular workplace will be certified in a building trades union under the ICI sector, and under the terms of Bill 26 there will be a master collective agreement imposed on that company.

Where do we have the opportunity to say that the company is going to go broke under those particular terms and conditions? Who says that a master collective agreement which is negotiated in Vancouver is going to allow a company in Prince George, Cranbrook or any other place in this province to survive? You wind up with a situation where organizers -- after Bill 26 is in place -- go into a worksite with this master collective agreement and say: "This is the collective agreement that you can have by simply signing a membership card in a building trades union." If the employer even became aware of the fact that there was an organizing drive in his workplace, if the employer were to speak up and say: "Hey, wait a second. I've seen that collective agreement, and if you wind up joining this particular building trades union, you're going to wind up driving this particular company out of business. . . ." Whose interest does that serve?

If the employer were to do that -- if the employer was aware of the certification drive, and if the employer were to make those kinds of comments to his employees -- it would be considered an unfair labour practice. That would result in remedial certification as a result of. . . . You could have a small minority of the workforce who had signed union cards. Because the employer wanted to at least alert them to the ramifications of this master collective agreement being imposed on the company and that it may in fact cost the security and ability of the company to stay in business. . . . If the employer were to do that, they would be slapped with a remedial certification. Are the majoritarian interests of the workers protected in that case? No. You might have only about 10 percent of the workforce who have actually signed union cards at that point, and yet automatic certification, with no secret ballot. . . . If the workers do not want a union, they get it. If the employer cannot afford that master collective agreement, they've got it; it is imposed upon them.

I know what the reaction would be of some in the trade union movement. Some in the trade union movement would say: "Well, if you've got an employer who is a bad manager and who can't afford to pay his employees the master collective agreement wages, then let that employer go out of business." You know what? It's the attitude of some, as well, that other companies out there that will pick up that kind of work. Hon. Speaker, it's that very attitude which is driving jobs out of this province.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: Yes, I was aware of that. It is essential that we not look at this just from the point of view of investors or from the point of view of the employers. We have to look at it from the point of view of individual employees. The interests of individual employees are not protected under Bill 26. It might seem like a great initiative when an organizer comes by and shows the master collective agreement and a building trades contract for the ICI sector. They see wage rates and benefits that are maybe superior to what they're getting as non-union workers. But clearly, if the initiative of having that master collective agreement imposed on that worksite results in the company going out of business, then the one who will pay the biggest price is the worker -- the worker who is now not earning the wage that he was earning before the certification, is not earning the wage that's in the master collective agreement and is not earning the wage that is in the traditional industrial-style unions. That worker is getting no wage at all because of government action, through Bill 26, that has resulted in his or her employer going out of business. That serves absolutely nobody's interest.

[4:15]

[ Page 9572 ]

Let's look at the construction industry as it now exists. We wind up with three kinds of workplaces in the construction industry today. We wind up clearly with a significant percentage of the construction industry that is non-union today, and we also find that this is probably one of the fastest-growing portions of the construction industry. We also have what are often termed the alternate unions: the non-traditional unions, the industrial-style unions, the wall-to-wall unions. These are a form of unionism that we had not seen traditionally in construction in North America but that we have certainly seen growing at a rate much faster than the building trades sector has in the past several decades. I think it's important that we recognize that unions such as the Christian Labour Association of Canada are bona fide trade unions. They are recognized by the Labour Relations Board as bona fide trade unions.

It so happens that some of these industrial-style unions in the construction industry are not members of the B.C. Federation of Labour. I think that may have a lot to do with the attitude that we see coming from this government in terms of how those particular unions are treated by this government and why we wind up with legislation that goes after them. I was astounded when I heard the member for Burnaby-Edmonds speaking in second reading on this. He referred to these unions as rat unions. I went back through Hansard over the last couple of years and realized that a consistent habit of that particular member is to refer to these bona fide trade unions -- which do not happen to be part of Ken Georgetti's house -- as rat unions. Why? Because they are a different style of union. They are a style that is probably more responsive to the needs of a modern workforce.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: I appreciate the fact that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has a history of involvement with the building trades. I know he was a business agent for the Operating Engineers. I certainly can appreciate his interest in trying to support that particular style of trade unionism. But why do we do that at the expense of other forms of trade unions? Instead of being a party that purports to speak for workers, why doesn't this government come forward and say it they will support all workers to bargain collectively and the rights of all unions to negotiate and sign up their membership? If they get a majority vote through secret ballot, then let those unions represent those members. Why is it that because there is an alternate form of union, somehow this government has to dump on them and the workers that choose to join them?

Interjection.

C. Hansen: I'm enjoying some of the comments coming from the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, the former Minister of Labour. The member is asking me why, in other jurisdictions in Canada, we have sign-up provisions; why, in other jurisdictions in Canada, we have entrenched master agreements for craft unions. I think the answer is clearly that the workforce is changing. . . .

Interjection.

C. Hansen: I come back to the purposes that were written into the Labour Code when that member was, I believe, the Minister of Labour. The actual language that was written into the Labour Code, which he introduced in this chamber, says that one of the purposes of the code is "to encourage cooperative participation between employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues, adapting to changes in the economy, developing workforce skills and promoting workplace productivity."

Interjection.

C. Hansen: The former minister is commenting that our party voted against those changes at the time. We now know why it was probably wise to vote against those changes at the time. The reason it was wise is because what is written in the legislation and the way a government implements legislation are probably two very different things.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. The member has the floor.

C. Hansen: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Clearly, what we are looking at today -- to try to address some of the comments coming across the floor from the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- is that we are in a changing economy. If the actions of his government -- the government of which he is a member -- had been to fulfil the purposes that are set out in this Labour Code change and if they had lived up to those words, then we would probably not see the kind of economic malaise that we have in British Columbia today. If we had allowed policies. . .the implementation of legislation would be such that it would allow us to adapt to this changing economy.

But that's not what we see in Bill 26. What we see is the entrenchment of an old style of unionism. What we hear today is a government that is trying to defend a form of trade unionism that may have worked several decades ago. But it clearly is not working today, and the building trades themselves, I think, would acknowledge that because of their declining membership.

If we can just go back to the early 1980s, when we're looking at the evolution of what has happened to the building trades unions, one of the biggest tools that the building trades unions had in terms of giving them stability, giving them the ability to not have to change with this changing economy, was the non-affiliation clause. Clearly these non-affiliation clauses give the building trades employees the contractual right to refuse to work alongside non-building trades employees. What we saw in the 1980s was that those provisions were used very often. The non-affiliation clause was actually put in by the Social Credit government as a compromise, as a trade-off for other provisions that were in here. The ability to enforce non-affiliation clauses was put in instead of master agreements and sectoral bargaining, and the former Minister

[ Page 9573 ]

In addition to the implementation of non-affiliation clauses, let's look at some of the other things that characterize the building trades unions in the 1980s. We saw the whipsawing of employers. We saw the ability of the unions to bring in selective strikes, where you've got a strike against one company while they let the industry work so that they in turn can collect dues from the members that are working in order to support those that are on strike. One of the things that we don't see in Bill 26, which was in Bill 44, is the provision that specifically says that there should not be selective strikes. That was language in Bill 44 -- that there would not be selective strikes. One of the few things where the business community actually thought Bill 44 had some merit was: let's ensure that there is not the provision for selective strikes. It's not there in Bill 26. We have to ask the question: why not? Is it that we are going back to an era in the 1980s when we saw that whipsawing? The minister has often said that this is about stability; but, clearly, when you start looking at some of these provisions, these go in the opposite direction of stability. I have also heard differing interpretations as to what Bill 26 means. Is it going to give us more stability, or is it going to give us less? Is it going to rule out selective strikes? Or is it going to make selective strikes possible as a result of its passage? Those are pretty fundamental questions that I think it's encumbent upon this minister to answer.

We saw in the 1980s that the building trades sector had labour instability as a result of jurisdictional disputes, where we wound up with one craft union disputing with another craft union about who was entitled to do the work. I recognize that in Bill 26 there is a provision to force all of the craft unions into what's called the jurisdictional assignment plan, the body which will arbitrate disputes between jurisdictions. I think that begs the question: why are we entrenching these jurisdictional differences? At a time in the world when we're going to more wall-to-wall unions. . . .

This isn't just a B.C. thing; this is happening throughout North America and other parts of the world, where you wind up with the trade union movement moving away from craft structures. It's moving away from those rigid class lines. Yet instead of bringing in legislation that's going to encourage the trade union movement to change with this changing economy, what we have is legislation that will actually entrench it. Here, for the first time, we have the jurisdictional assignment plan entrenched into our Labour Code. Instead of saying that we should start to reduce the rigid class lines so that there is the flexibility and ability to adapt, which I talked about earlier. . . . Instead of going in that direction, we're going in the opposite direction. We have it not just through the practices of the building trades unions, but we have it in statute, in legislation that is going to permanently recognize the jurisdictional lines -- those distinctions. While there may be some merit. . . . If you're going to accept the fact that we're going to entrench this form of unionism, then yes, there's a need for mechanisms for them to sort out their problems. But clearly, as Kelleher and Vince Ready noted in their report in 1996, it is those disputes, those problems within the building trades unions, that should be sorted out through a collective bargaining process -- not through legislation.

I want to talk about the jurisdictional assignment plan. It's interesting -- some of the things that the Labour Relations Board said about it in 1995. But before I move to that, let me just point out that since 1980, we've seen some fairly significant changes in the construction industry and significant changes in the type of unionism that has been most popular with individual workers. That's what is key. Unions are there to serve workers. They're not there to serve the government in power; they're not there to serve the companies. They're not there to serve the interests of the union organizers and the executive. Those unions are there to serve individual workers. What we have had in these last few years is a significant growth in not the craft union model but rather the wall-to-wall union, or the traditional or industrial style of trade union. That is the style of unionism that has seen the most significant growth in the construction industry in the last few years.

As we have this increased competition for the building trades in these last decades, what did the Labour Relations Board. . . ?

[4:30]

C. Hansen: Hon. Speaker, I know that I shouldn't tolerate the heckles from the other side of the room, but I found the comments from the Minister of -- he wishes he was. . . . The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin talks about what has been driving construction in British Columbia. It is so true. I wish it was in Hansard, because it was. . . . I will repeat it for the benefit of Hansard. What he said was that what's been driving construction in British Columbia is the construction of schools and roads. I would like to. . . . Well, I can't ask the hon. member that now, but perhaps when he takes his place in debate, he can explain to us why we are seeing a decline in private sector construction in this province. Why is it that the only construction happening in British Columbia is taxpayer-supported construction? Where's the private sector when we need them? I think he's got to go back and look at some of the changes he made when he was the Minister of Labour.

Let me come back to the comments. . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

C. Hansen: . . .that were made by the Labour Relations Board concerning jurisdictional disputes between the building trades unions. This talks about the response that the building trades had to this threat of increasing competition. This is a quote from the Labour Relations Board:

"These developments tend to diminish the significance of the pathological inability of building trades unions to perfect the jurisdictional assignment plan dispute resolution system. If the jurisdictional assignment plan has succeeded in reducing work stoppages over work jurisdiction disputes, these files confirm that it has not eliminated the posturing, the rhetoric and the resource-wasting adjudication. The cost is substantial."

[ Page 9574 ]

The minister talks about stability, yet I've got to tell you something about what is happening today as a result of this legislation. As a result of Bill 26, we have the building trades unions, which should be sitting down to negotiate new collective agreements with the Construction Labour Relations Association in British Columbia. . . . Are they? Some of them are, but what is clearly obvious from the pace of negotiation between those two bodies is that they are waiting for Bill 26 to pass. Why? You know what? It means they don't have to negotiate a collective agreement that's realistic for our modern economy. They don't have to negotiate a collective agreement that's going to allow their particular portion of the construction industry to remain competitive and allow them to recognize those realities so that they can negotiate agreements that will actually result in increased work for their members so that maybe the companies they work for can go out and bid on some projects and get those projects because they're competitive. There's no incentive in this collective bargaining process today to achieve that result.

What we've got is government coming in with Bill 26, basically saying: "You don't have to worry about the realities of 1998. You don't have to worry about the realities of market forces. You don't have to worry about the realities of our changing economy and the changing global economy." What Bill 26 says is: "You don't have to sit down and engage in a realistic negotiation between employer and employee." That is exactly what is happening today as a result of the introduction of this legislation. I would challenge the minister to explore what is happening today in terms of collective bargaining between the building trades unions and the Construction Labour Relations Association. They are not making progress in that bargaining, and the reason they are not making progress is because this government is prepared to step in and solve their problems for them. This government has come in to say: "You don't have to come up with a realistic collective agreement, because we're going to prop you up."

You know something? The problem is. . . . This government, through Bill 26, can and does have the ability to prop up this form of trade unionism to a certain extent. But what this government can't do. . . . It comes back to one of the fundamental reasons why we have opposed this legislation and why this legislation should be hoisted and this amendment should pass: it does not allow for these particular institutions, these organizations, to change with our economy, to adapt to the challenges that are there. They have faced a declining market share, and they should find ways of changing the way they do business. They should change the way they structure their trade unions, the way they bargain, the way they approach jurisdictional disputes and differences and come up with a way that allows them to adapt and to be competitive, like everybody else in this society is being forced to adapt.

You know, there are a lot of people in our society who don't like change. But that's the reality of our world today -- 1998. Everybody is forced to change, whether it's getting used to the idea of bank machines or whether it's getting used to the Internet -- getting used to the idea of all of the changes that are facing us. Why should this government come in with a piece of legislation that says to one small group of trade unions: "You don't have to change. You don't have to modernize. You don't have to adapt to changing market forces because we'll pass legislation that will basically prop you up and allow you to continue this particular style of unionism into the future. We are entrenching the jurisdictional assignments; we are entrenching a jurisdictional form of trade unionism." The former Minister of Labour should know that that is a first.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member has the floor.

C. Hansen: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin challenged me to sit down and allow somebody to stand up who knows what they're talking about. Hon. Speaker, what's clear from the comments that have come from this side is that I do know what I'm talking about and that they wish I didn't.

Also, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin will have an opportunity to stand up and support this amendment. I challenge that member to support this motion, to support the amendment. Then maybe if he thinks that his view of the world is different than my view of the world, we can take about six months -- that would be appropriate; let's take six months -- and he can educate me over that next six months. Then we'll come back and continue the debate on Bill 26. During the same six months, I will use the time to bring that member into some reality of 1998 in terms of what's happening in our economy.

I'll use the time, as a result of this hoist motion, to talk about what's happening in the trade union movement in other parts of the world that have actually adapted to change -- trade unions that are actually adapting to a changing economy so that they can better serve their members. If you've got a trade union that's going to keep its head in the sand and say that the world is not changing, then they are not serving the interests of their members. The only way any organization. . . . The only way a trade union can serve its members is if it recognizes that the world is changing and is prepared to change in a way that will allow it to continue to protect the workers.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: Hon. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is talking about going back to Bill 19. I know he wasn't in the House at the time when I was talking about Bill 19, but he might be interested in going back and reading the comments that I made in that regard, because he will know that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

What we have in this legislation is the entrenchment of this form of craft union, this form of separate jurisdictions, for craft by craft. That, instead of changing, will now be embodied in the Labour Relations Code of this province.

I know that the members opposite like to talk about how this is done in other jurisdictions, how other jurisdictions have actually embedded this craft unionism into their Labour Codes. I think what that says is that craft unionism may have

[ Page 9575 ]

You know, we often see that so many of the initiatives that come out of the New Democratic Party are harking back to another era. Wouldn't it be nice if the world today was like the world was in the 1960s or 1950s, when things were booming and there was growth and there were lots of jobs? What we saw in those other jurisdictions was that yes, some of them at that time entrenched craft unions, but we can't turn the world back to a simpler time. You can't turn the clock back, and so often that's what we see coming from this government: a willingness to turn the clock back. But clearly it doesn't work.

I want to turn to some of the material that the minister put out. It's interesting that in the press release the minister put out on June 17, to go along with the tabling of the legislation, he said: ". . .Bill 26 completes the reform process that began with the government's 1992 Labour Code review." And yet, I think what we see from other indications is that this is part of an ongoing process. We've seen other members of the executive council clearly indicate that they would dearly love to have Bill 44, and they would like to have it come back. Clearly at the time it was not shelved; it wasn't parked.

[4:45]

This is a quote from a document on the Ministry of Labour web site, entitled "Bill 26 -- Construction Industry Legislation." This is a fact sheet talking about the unique nature of the construction industry. In it are some truisms I would like to put forward -- out of the ministry's own documents -- that I think challenge whether Bill 26 is a good piece of legislation. Here's a direct quote: "Construction workers must be very flexible and mobile to maintain full-time work." I believe that's true, but what we have in Bill 26 is something that flies in the face of that. Will Bill 26 address that issue? Will Bill 26 allow construction workers to be flexible? Will Bill 26 allow construction workers to maintain full-time work? Clearly not, because that's not what we have today. What we are seeing in the construction industry is that those workers who are finding full-time work are either in the non-union sector or are in. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired, member.

C. Hansen: My apologies, hon. Speaker. It crept up on me. I will save my other remarks for a later stage in the debate.

G. Wilson: I rise on a point of order, hon. Speaker, under standing order 42 -- for I fear that I have been misunderstood, because I have clearly been misquoted. The member who has just finished speaking has repeatedly in his remarks quoted that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast supported this hoist motion. I do not believe I could have been any more clear in my remarks in suggesting that I thought that this hoist motion was, in fact, a bit spurious and impeded the more important and more urgent business of this House. Therefore I would say that if this member's interpretation of my remarks is any reflection at all of his interpretation of the content of the bill, I think we could probably disregard the last two hours of debate.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. There's no debate on standing order 42.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to join in this debate today on the motion of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. This is the motion to hoist Bill 26, and it intends to set aside this bill for six months. I think it is truly a well-motivated motion. It's one that is directed towards a bill that has serious implications for the economy of British Columbia and, I think, for the construction industry specifically.

As I said, there is a serious need to look at the overall impact of the bill. When I look at the report that was done prior to the recommendations made to the government on this matter -- this is the Kelleher-Lanyon report -- there was a comment in it that underscores the need for the government to take a second look. When they advised that the introduction of their recommendations should consider the state of the economy, they wrote: "Whether they will be introduced, and the timing of their introduction, are ultimately questions for the government to decide."

It's significant that these two labour experts took the time to put a comment like that in their report. I think that's significant. I would hope that the government would consider that. When I look at some of the comments that have been made by government members and ministers, I would have thought that the decision had already been made to tread carefully with respect to changes in the Labour Code and to other types of changes that would impact negatively on an already very weak economy. This is not just the opinion of the opposition. This is the opinion of a lot of people who are involved with the economy of British Columbia: a lot of workers, employers, outside experts -- financial experts -- and all kinds of people who have either a formal involvement in the economy of British Columbia or an informal one.

I thought that this government had decided. I'll quote a comment by the Minister of Finance on June 3: "Given the challenges facing the provincial economy, this is not the time to take a chance on introducing measures which could damage the investment climate." That was a comment by the Minister of Finance, who is currently engaged in an exercise -- at least we're told she's in an exercise -- to try to reduce red tape. She has made comments to the business community expressing concern and outrage at some of the stories that she'd heard about the red tape that people have to deal with. Yet despite these comments, the government is proceeding with this bill.

That has to be questioned by anyone considering this bill today. I'm not going to talk so much about the bill itself. I know that in the past I have talked about the cumulative impact, and I know that the government members are characterizing this bill by saying: "This is just a small change. This is not Bill 44. This is Bill 44 Lite. It's been eased off. It doesn't have the same impact." Those are the kinds of comments we hear from the members on the other side of the House. But you have to consider the cumulative impact of a series of changes like this -- all these so-called little changes. That is very, very significant. It's a cumulative impact on an already

[ Page 9576 ]

I'm also concerned about the longer-term agenda of this bill. This is one part of it, but we know that it is simply an intent of the government to continue to introduce these kinds of little changes that continue to erode B.C.'s competitiveness and the opportunity for small businesses to operate.

I think the report that was done by Vince Ready and Stephen Kelleher in February of '96 was significant. I don't claim to be a labour expert, but I have tried to read this report -- as I have some of the other reports -- and tried to understand what they were saying. That report said to me that there was a lot of concern about the situation in the construction industry and the impact of sectoral bargaining in the construction industry. That report went into some detail and some length to express that concern. This was an interim report done for the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour by this construction industry review panel. As I recall, the final report was never done, and I think that's also significant and an interesting coincidence.

The report also indicated that there was a lot of work to be done amongst the B.C. building trades unions themselves in terms of how they interacted with their employers, how they negotiated contracts, and the internal working relationships between the various crafts. There was a lot of comment about the jurisdictional conflicts and the concerns between the various sectors in the construction industry. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena talked at some length about there having been some attempts made to improve those working relationships, but that there was more work to be done based on this report by these two well-respected labour experts.

I think there were also comments in the report about the need for the craft unions to be concerned about issues of competitiveness. This is not just a case of being concerned about preservation of employers and preservation of business people. It's also a concern about preservation of jobs for those union workers themselves. We've seen what's happened in the construction industry -- and we've seen it in other industries. I personally observed it in the food-processing industry. I was involved for the better part of my life in the food-processing sector as a director of a large dairy processor. Through that period of time, I gained some knowledge of what was happening in the processing sector and in the grocery retail sector. Over a 15-year period, we've seen -- and I think you could go back even further than that to look at the root causes of what happened -- a major shift in that industry. There was a major loss of jobs in terms of numbers of jobs and a major loss of actual pay scales for workers in those industries, for workers in grocery stores.

I don't think it's anything to be proud of that workers in chain stores now are making $8 or $10 an hour -- union workers working 20 hours a week. Why did that happen? Go back and analyze why that happened. It happened because 20 years ago these workers were pricing themselves out of the market. That may go on for a period of time, but it does not go on forever. I think whether it's a worker, a union or a marketing board, we have to be competitive. In one of the earlier debates, the member for Mission-Kent talked about my previous involvement in marketing boards and my advocacy on behalf of marketing boards, and he was correct. Marketing boards -- like the opportunity and the right of workers to establish unions -- are a form of intervention in the economy. I think if you look at history, in the absence of any form of intervention, labour and farmers are certainly at the bottom of the economic pile.

I can tell the member for Mission-Kent and the members opposite that the farmers under marketing boards in this province are competitive with other jurisdictions. They're competitive with Alberta. Whereas five or ten years ago there was a differential between farm-gate milk prices in British Columbia and Alberta, there isn't one today. There used to be a 6-cents-a-litre differential between the price in British Columbia and the price in Alberta. Alberta had the lowest price in Canada; that differential is gone. The only way we keep farmers in business in British Columbia is to be competitive. It isn't pleasant and it isn't easy. I think it's a relevant comment, and that comment was made in the February '96 report to the building trades unions -- that there was a need to remain competitive.

My comments in speaking to this motion revolve around the state of the economy. The economy is in a difficult condition in British Columbia. I don't think anybody can quarrel with that. One of the outcomes of that is the job situation -- not just unemployment rates for workers who have families they need to support, but also unemployment rates for youth coming into the market. I think the state of the provincial finances is interconnected with that and is very relevant.

[5:00]

I wanted to mention that this morning I picked up a magazine that talked about the level of spending on advertising by the government. The government is one of the largest advertising accounts in the province, if not the largest -- $70 million to $100 million, if you add it all up. The spending being done by the various ministries and Crown corporations is a very significant amount of money. And what is the focus? The focus is to change perceptions, to manage perceptions and to manage people away from realizing what's really happening in this province.

Advertising is being purchased to influence people's thinking and to hide the reality of what is happening in this province -- the reality of unemployment, the reality of businesses and the reality of people leaving the province and the reality of living on borrowed time because of population in-migration, which is slowing down and has stopped. In terms of other provinces, it is now negative. All of those realities are what this advertising is designed to hide. I think it's a graphic example of the lack of a proper focus, as well as this bill and the fact that it is here today.

I want to mention one other thing, particularly with respect to the Premier's personal focus, and that is the focus on what I call mini-megaprojects -- running around all over the country and the continent looking for someone from far away who might come and invest and build a plant -- and doing deals like the SkyTrain deal, which involves someone coming here to build a plant. Those aren't real. I find the Premier to be missing a focus on what I call the everyday economy, the people that are here in British Columbia -- businesses and workers. They're here every day, grinding away and doing their jobs -- whatever those might be -- producing economic activity and providing jobs. I think it's a major misfocus that that is not recognized by the Premier.

Now we look at the reaction of business. The government has, I think, taken some pains over the past six to eight

[ Page 9577 ]

Housing starts are way down. Their activity is way down. They're scratching together projects to keep their crews together, and they are very concerned about this legislation. It's not only the construction industry. There's a very broad-based coalition of businesses -- large, small and in between -- that are concerned about this legislation. They are concerned about the impact now, and they are concerned about the impact as we go down the road -- some of the cumulative impact that I talked about. If you look at the list of people involved in the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, it's a very broad-based list. It's not just people or associations in the construction industry. The Urban Development Institute, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association and the Canadian Home Builders Association -- my own Fraser Valley chapter. . . . Certainly we know that they are very, very concerned.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I suggest that the government look at the range of other business associations that are involved in that coalition. I think it's been said before that it's not just the B.C. Business Council and big business in British Columbia. All of these associations are groups of small businesses throughout all of British Columbia. The B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association -- people who are involved in the tourist industry, restaurant and food services all over British Columbia -- the B.C. Trucking Association, recreational vehicle dealers and the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. are all actively involved and very concerned. Even the B.C. Horticultural Coalition, greenhouse people. . . . I think the government wants to minimize and underestimate the degree of concern about this legislation. I'm very concerned that it's simply a political decision and has no relation to the government's concern about the economy.

I've talked to people in my own constituency, and they're very, very concerned. People in the homebuilding industry -- people who do some commercial and some residential -- are concerned about being led down the garden path to sectoral bargaining. They're particularly concerned because a lot of them do both residential and commercial, sometimes as part of the same building and sometimes they're working on separate jobs in both industries. They are very concerned that this legislation will not be confined to the large projects -- the so-called ICI sector. They're very concerned that it will rapidly spread across the construction industry, including residential.

I talked to another member of my constituency. I found it very interesting to hear his level of really serious concern. He talked about Bill 14, another bill that was recently tabled by the government. He talked about discussions with staff at the Workers Compensation Board. They were very concerned about how to implement this bill. They weren't sure how all these new rules and regulations were going to fit into their operation, and they are the people who have to implement it. He made an interesting comment at the close of our conversation: "It's so sad to see so many people leaving British Columbia for Alberta." He sees it happen every day in the workplace. This is not politics; this is an observation by someone working every day in the field.

We can look at all sorts of assessments of the economy in British Columbia today. I just want to mention a few quotations from various media. It's interesting that despite something in the order of $70 million to $100 million of paid media, we still see some of the following comments quoted in the media: "B.C. has turned in the country's worst economic performance during the 1990s when you take account of its rapid population growth. For the second year in a row and the sixth time in seven years, B.C. experienced a decline in GDP per person." This means that our standard of living is falling. I would think that given those kinds of evaluations, the government would be concerned and would be evaluating and dealing with the causes. But it doesn't seem to me that that's happening. It seems to me that the government has a political agenda, a political debt to pay or a political IOU to build up -- whatever.

It's determined to do this, when in the words of its own Minister of Finance they shouldn't be doing it, given the state of the economy now. The only two provinces with 1996 growth rates lower than B.C.'s were in Atlantic Canada. B.C.'s exports declined 6.4 percent last year, while Canadian exports reached record highs. It's a pretty scathing statement for the province on the Pacific Rim with the big port of Vancouver that our exports are down 6.4 percent, while Canadian exports are up.

The unemployment rate in B.C. has gone up from 8.7 percent to 9.1 in the space of a year. There are 10,000 more British Columbians unemployed than there were a year ago. We talked about employment for youth. The unemployment rate for youth continues to go up, despite the Premier's former flagship program, Guarantee for Youth. The headline in the Vancouver Province said: "Where Did the Jobs Go? Premier Under Fire for Slump in Student Employment." Now we have a new program, called Youth Options B.C., and I doubt that it will be any more successful, because the government fails to address the fundamentals of a strong economy.

B.C. is a province that should be leading the country in economic growth; instead it is in last place, and today we are in a made-in-B.C. recession. The combination of increased deficits and debt, which continues to escalate, has resulted in the government imposing major tax increases. That's not going to help improve the economy or people's average take-home pay. An average family of four today pays $2,300 more in taxes than it did in 1992. These tax increases have put B.C. families in last place in take-home pay. The government simply continues to take more and more out of the economy, and people lose on their take-home pay.

Another result of the made-in-B.C. recession is that new investments and new jobs are going elsewhere. Companies are leaving the province and taking thousands of jobs with them. The provincial government continues to take more dollars out of people's personal wallets.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you might wish to take your seat for just a moment. The Chair apologizes to the member for interrupting, but I think the noise in the chamber has gotten a little raucous.

Now the member can be heard. Proceed, member.

J. van Dongen: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I want to make some specific comments about some of the natural resource industries, because I think that they indi-

[ Page 9578 ]

[5:15]

If you look at some of the government's policies that have been implemented in the last seven years in the forest sector, you can understand the problem. Things like an overly zealous Forest Practices Code -- good intent but a disaster in terms of execution, unbelievable stack of regulations, a totally unworkable regulatory system. . . . The government, now under economic duress, has had to admit that the Forest Practices Code is not working -- just an example of how slow the government has been to recognize the impact of its unfriendly policies towards business and business investment, and I submit that this bill is another example of that.

We see lots of fluff. As I said, we see lots of media advertising. We see lots of big announcements, one of them being the jobs and timber accord -- again, a very expensive initiative in terms of all of the dollars that went into PR and media relations and media time and promises of more jobs, promises of 22,000 more jobs. What has been the result of that policy, of that big announcement? The result has been jobs lost -- jobs lost.

An Hon. Member: The Asian market.

J. van Dongen: The member blames the Asian market. I can tell you that there's a lot more to it than the Asian market. I don't think anybody can deny that the Asian market is a factor. I submit that the government, even today, is underestimating the potential impact of the Asian market and is underestimating the impact of the restructuring that is taking place in the Japanese economy. Yes, the Asian market is a factor. But I suggest to the government another factor that needs to be considered in this total economic equation, and it hasn't been properly considered. . . . The impact of the Japanese economy, as I said, will be a big factor in the ultimate impact of those changes that are taking place.

Some of the things that have been within the government's control within the forest, the agricultural or the fishing sectors -- those are the things that I'd like to see the government focus on, things within the government's control. Bill 26 is within government control. Things like government-driven costs that affect the costs of wood. . . . The Forest Practices Code increased the cost of wood, and over a one-year period, wood costs went up by 6 percent, from $83 to $88 a cubic metre. Certainly there's a lot of evidence that shows that we were already out of bed in terms of wood costs, when we compare ourselves to other parts of Canada and other competitors like the U.S. We've got Forest Renewal B.C. -- great theory, but a very, very expensive operation with all kinds of administration costs, not an effective vehicle for economic development.

Hon. D. Lovick: I have been sitting here, lusting mightily for an opportunity to address this chamber for some while, because, as you know, we were listening to the kind of debate in the last short while that one couldn't participate in, namely Motion 50 and a six-hour wondrous spectacle about whether we ought to adjourn for dinner for 35 minutes. Pretty clearly, we have a conscientious opposition that is going to seize every opportunity to raise these important issues about whether we should have dinner or whether we shouldn't. How good for them to do that.

I have, as I say, wanted to get back into this chamber for a wee while to speak to this issue, but I have to begin by lowering the expectations of members opposite. I am going to save most of my comments of rebuttal for second reading. What I am going to do instead is something marvellous indeed. I am going to talk to the motion before us. I thought I might do that just for a change of pace, because what I have witnessed across the way in the last short while -- the last 30 or 40 hours -- is this amazing spectacle of everybody talking about second reading of the bill, but never talking about the bill and never actually looking at the bill and saying: "Here's what it is. Here's what our concerns are. Here's why we're speaking against it." In the same way, I have heard this motion for a hoist, and I discover nobody is talking about a hoist. Instead, they're recycling their second reading speeches, and I guess that's okay.

So let me, if I might, begin by simply telling people out there in TV land -- if anybody is still watching, if anybody out there in the world cares about what we're doing -- why we're standing here speaking now, hon. Speaker. This is called a hoist motion. What these people want to know, I suspect, is what does a hoist motion mean, and it's really pretty simple. It's an old parliamentary strategy, it's a legitimate. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Isn't it interesting? As I stand here and listen to the snittering and the snattering and the clattering across the way, I'm reminded of the old saying that empty vessels make the loudest sounds. It's pretty clear, isn't it? Perhaps they will give their vocal cords a brief opportunity, a little rest. Perhaps they will get beyond the monosyllabic grunt that they're all famous for, and allow me to speak in real English.

A hoist motion, for the benefit of other people out there wondering what all this means, is simply a motion to delay the bill. It says: "Put it on the shelf for six months." And again, it's a perfectly legitimate parliamentary strategy, and I don't fault the opposition for doing it. It's a perfectly legitimate parliamentary strategy. But you know, what normally goes with a hoist motion are some arguments for a hoist motion, and, alas, we don't have them. So I want to remind members of why one normally does this.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, just take it easy. One or two at a time, not all fifteen at a time.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, it's okay. By my reckoning, hon. Speaker, it takes about twelve of them for one of us anyway, so that's probably. . . . Carry on, carry on.

On the issue of the hoist motion, let me offer the members two very specific arguments. If I'm going too quickly, please let me know -- okay? All right.

[ Page 9579 ]

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I'm more than happy to wait them out -- and I hope you won't deduct that from my time.

The de facto hoist motion that I'm suggesting we had a year ago surely answers the question about lack of consultation and lack of discussion. A year ago the government introduced legislation that contained this piece of legislation as well as a whole bunch of other things. We listened to the opinion that was expressed at the time, withdrew the legislation and created panels of experts who travelled around, entertained opinions from everywhere and came up with a new report. In short, we did what the members asked, only we did it twice as well. Not just six months -- we gave them a year, a whole year.

An Hon. Member: And you still can't get it right.

Hon. D. Lovick: I see worker-whacker over there wants to get in, even though he had his designated moment. I'll wait him out.

The reality is that we have already complied with the opposition's request.

So let's hear the other argument. The reason. . . . Let's see if I can get this one straight; I want to be fair to the opposition. They are also arguing that we should have a hoist motion because introducing the legislation creates uncertainty and that's bad for the economy. But try this logical leap-out. If indeed it's the case that the legislation hanging out there is creating uncertainty, which is bad for the economy, if you keep it hanging out there another six months, don't you in fact increase the uncertainty and the problem? I know that the member probably doesn't know how to spell non sequitur, let alone know what it means, but I'm suggesting to him that that is a relatively simple logical proposition. If members want to demonstrate at some point the flaw in that logic, I welcome them to do so.

The obvious question then becomes: why are they doing this? What is the reason? If the two ostensible reasons don't bear up under any kind of close scrutiny, what are the reasons? And I fear that the reasons are probably. . . . This is a bit ironic, given what they've been saying for a while. You recall that the argument that we have heard with painful regularity is that we in government are doing this to reward our friends -- right? This is a pay-off.

But what if you try this out? What if you say: maybe they're doing this because they have to pay back their friends? Yeah, maybe people like the ICBA -- that famous anti-union gang. . . . Maybe they've forgotten that those are the guys that donated about $100,000 in the last two years to the members opposite. Maybe they've forgotten the fact that the same ICBA that donated that money to the Liberal caucus also donated a little money to individuals in the Liberal caucus. Shocking -- shocking stuff!

That's their right. There's nothing wrong with accepting money; that's what democratic politics functions on the basis of. But members opposite, please don't have the temerity, the gall, to stand here and suggest that this legislation is tainted because it favours, as you see it, workers. Don't suggest that. Don't suggest that there's something evil or insidious or wrong, when it's very clear that what the members opposite are doing is simply paying back their friends and carrying on this debate, which, quite frankly, has turned into a blatant misrepresentation campaign.

[5:30]

An Hon. Member: Aren't you clever.

Hon. D. Lovick: You picked it up -- good. This is really an improvement. The member opposite actually got that one. This is good.

The reality is that this is an amendment to a subset of the Labour Code -- and a subset of a subset. It deals with one particular part of the construction industry -- industrial, commercial and institutional construction, and. . . .

An Hon. Member: Nobody buys that argument.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member opposite says. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: The member opposite says nobody buys that argument. That, I submit, is the tragedy and the problem with political discourse in this province. People across the way continue, aided and abetted by their friends. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Take a Valium if need be, but relax, already. People across the way -- aided and abetted by their friends -- continue to run around saying that the sky is falling and horrible things are going to happen. As somebody pointed out here not too long ago, we have a number of letters coming in, and we're expecting more. Do you know what they are? They're form letters going through the fax machine mechanism. That's what they are. There are about three basic letters. I've looked at lots of them. And you know what? The tragedy of the letters is that most of them are totally ill-informed. They are talking about things that aren't on the agenda, that aren't in the bill.

I don't know what one can do to deal with a systematic campaign of misinformation. What do you do? If somebody stands up and says, "The bill is whatever I say it is," rather than the reality of what it is, and they repeat it often enough, and they run around and scare mom-and-pop grocery stores. . . . They go out and tell people that there's a terrible nasty thing going to happen to you. How does anybody fight back? How does one answer that? The tragedy, it seems to me,

[ Page 9580 ]

An Hon. Member: Shame!

Hon. D. Lovick: Those are strong words, I agree, and I choose them carefully. I have gone through this material at great length. I have looked at the material presented. I have seen the full-page ads, at $10,000 a pop. I have seen the letters. The reality is that they don't bear much resemblance to what the bill is actually about. That's the shame.

The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast spoke earlier, and I thought he did a wonderful job of reminding us what's at issue when you talk about a hoist motion. As I say, I accept entirely the legitimacy and the validity of the strategy of a hoist motion. I just want to draw everyone's attention to the simple fact that this House will not go for months and months. I know that; members opposite know it. I understand the Opposition House Leader has said: "We'll fight them on the beaches and on the lands and the ceilings and whatever, and we'll be here all of August if need be. We're going to move motion after motion after motion." In the past, in opposition, we said things like that too. But the reality is that, based on all of the evidence, it ain't going to happen. At some point people are going to realize that all they're doing is going through the motions. That's all they're doing.

The opposition does its job, it seems to me, when it says: "Here's what we're opposed to. Here is the strong position we are taking. We fought the good fight, but we are the minority and the minority is not going to win the battle." That's their job. To try to pretend otherwise, it seems to me, is perhaps, if carried to excess -- which I think we're on the verge of here -- an abuse of parliament. I think it is. That's my point about what the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was saying -- namely, look at all of the other important stuff that we should be discussing in this chamber that's effectively being crowded off the agenda.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Listen to the school-yard-bully approach to politics over there: "Give us our way, and then everything will be lovely." That kind of blackmail is simply not acceptable.

We had a debate about this bill that started, I think, reasonably well. I think the member for Vancouver-Quilchena began the second reading debate for the first little while. Making some legitimate points, he said: "Here are our concerns." I listened to those, then I listened to the member for Peace River North, who I thought gave a pretty interesting analysis and who said: "Look, I have some concerns. I'm going to vote against the bill." I don't agree that it's the end of the world, that the sky is falling. We also heard from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who, I thought, gave a pretty clear analysis of what it was about. Despite the fact that he's certainly no friend of this government, he nevertheless said: "This legislation is not problematic."

What I heard from there was simply speech after speech after speech, which were, quite frankly, pro forma. They were going through the motions, all on the same theme, all telling us the sky is falling and all asking us to make the leap. I can quote the Leader of the Opposition directly, I think: "Any change to the Labour Code will be bad." Now that, I would submit, is a good illustration of rhetoric gone to the point of irrationality. "Any change to the Labour Code will be bad." Huh? How can you say that? How can a rational person say that? I don't think you can. I wasn't in the chamber when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. Maybe his own rhetoric got the better of him and he was carried away -- who knows? But I do know that looking at those comments in the cold light of day, they don't make sense.

What I'm asking members to do here, hon. Speaker, is to simply -- and I've said this before -- look at the legislation and debate it on its merits. Don't go around helping in the campaign to scare mom-and-pop grocery stores. Don't go through all that stuff. It isn't necessary. They know as well as we do that this is a very minor amendment to the Labour Code. They also know that the Labour Code is not about job creation. That's not its purpose. If you look at the Labour Code and you see what the legislation is for, you'll discover it's not to create jobs. To attack it for not creating jobs, of course, is ludicrous in the extreme.

What it does, as I say, is fix a problem -- a very simple problem -- in the Labour Code that every government in this province for at least a decade has recognized: namely, that most workers, when they decide freely, on their own, want to be represented by a trade union. And, if a majority in the workplace make that decision, then they can get a collective agreement. That's what this government and people on this side of the House defend: workers' rights to belong to a union of their choice -- or not belong. If they want to do that, then they also ought to be given the assurance that most workers get when they decide to join a union: that they can sign a collective agreement. That's why you join a union: to get a contract, an agreement with your employer, that you believe will improve your working conditions, your wages and, in effect, your working life. That is legitimate. That's a perfectly legitimate purpose of the Labour Code, of enlightened labour legislation. And nobody, I hope, would disagree with that.

So what, then, is the problem with this legislation? What we're saying in this legislation is just that there are some workers who are ostensibly to be protected by the Labour Code, to have the same benefits of the legislation that other workers have, but they don't have those benefits because of the nature of the construction industry. It's very simple; it's not a difficult concept.

What occurs is that because of the nature of the construction industry, workers on a job site typically will sign up, will say: "Yes, I want to join a union. I want to be part of a union. I want a union to represent me and my interests." They get the numbers required to do that; they get the majority of the workplace -- and then what happens is that the job is over, the project is over, and they are standing there with what is called in the trade an empty certification. In other words, we -- 55 percent of us, let's say, in a given workplace -- have decided that we want to be represented by a union. We did what we're supposed to do, but the moment we came to sign the agreement, which is what it's all about, we suddenly discovered that the workplace has in effect disappeared.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: No, no. The member opposite is saying they could still join. No, that's not the point. Maybe I'll try it again. I'm sorry, member, if I didn't explain it well enough.

A majority of workers at a given workplace say: "We want to join a union; we want to be represented by a union." Are you with me so far? Fair enough. What happens, though, is that by the time they get to negotiating a collective agree-

[ Page 9581 ]

The purpose of labour legislation, of the Labour Code, is to provide workers with the freedom to join or not join a union of their choice and to set up a mechanism whereby collective agreements can be signed. That's the purpose. What we're doing in this particular piece of legislation is taking that one tiny segment of the workforce that is getting shafted because of a failure of the legislation, and we're fixing it. That's all we're doing. We're simply making it possible for workers to join or not join a union of their choice, and then to be given an opportunity to get a collective agreement. That's what it's about. It's not more complicated than that. Indeed, it's so simple that I am, quite frankly, shocked that people either wilfully or otherwise appear not to accept that simple element.

As I said at the beginning, I want to reserve most of my comments on rebuttal -- in terms of what I've heard from the other side -- until we close off second reading debate. I think I will have a great deal to say, and therefore I'm not going to use up the relatively little amount of time I have left. With that, hon. Speaker. . . .

An Hon. Member: Five more minutes.

Hon. D. Lovick: All right. I see that I'm perhaps precipitate, and we have to wait for Committee A. So perhaps I'll say just a little bit more about the bill.

One of the arguments that I struggle most with in listening to the debate -- and there are a number of them that I have recorded. . . . Indeed, I want to give assurance that I will listen to the arguments, and I will read the arguments presented by members opposite. I think I have an obligation to do that. However, at the same time I have to say that I am not going to be standing in this House listening to a debate on hoist motions or on so-called reasoned amendment after amendment after amendment. When I hear the member for Chilliwack say that he is now preparing for two hours of speeches on amendments, I am saying: "Well, fine, have a lovely time, but do it without me here, because I have other things to do that are, frankly, more important -- starting with my estimates in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs."

I do want to say that the arguments that I have reviewed thus far sadden me, largely because there is a huge leap in logic that goes on and ultimately turns into some pretty fallacious reasoning.

Let me see if I can sketch it out. It goes like this: anything you do to change the Labour Code will be bad for investment in the province. My argument would be this: that will be true if, and only if, you somehow persuade enough people that this is the case. By itself, fixing this very small part of the code will have no discernible or necessary impact on an investment climate. What has impact on an investment climate is essentially attitudinal -- it's what people say.

[5:45]

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, perception -- absolutely true. If people say, "We are worried about the economy," and they continue to say that, as members opposite continue to do, at some point the very people who claim to be advocating a better investment climate are, in fact, destroying a healthy investment climate. They're fanning the proverbial flames. I have had discussions with a number of people from the business community. Most of them have been cordial and reasonable, but we always come to a particular point of convergence and of difference when I say: "Tell me specifically what the problem is." You know what? At that point the conversation sort of ends. They say: "Well, we just think it's bad for investment and for the economy." I say: "Okay, but why?" If you push back on that, you finally discover the answer to be: "Because I say it is." The assertion of a proposition is not a defence for the proposition; it's merely a statement.

That's what I've been struggling with from the beginning. I have read very carefully all the correspondence I've received. I've looked at all the so-called arguments adduced, and I see no evidence whatsoever to support the proposition that this minor change to the Labour Code is going to have any kind of negative effect on the economy.

I see that the Committee A Chair has arrived, and therefore, without further ado, I would move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:48 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 2:29 p.m.

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

M. Coell: This morning we started to deal with the SkyTrain proposal as it affects greenhouse gases and with the review process. I just wonder whether the minister's staff that she was waiting for are here, so we could continue with that discussion.

[2:30]

[ Page 9582 ]

M. Coell: I realize that the ministry isn't a proponent of this particular one. I wonder if the minister could give me an example or maybe a list of projects that have been exempted from the environmental act review in the past two years.

Hon. C. McGregor: The only way that an exemption could be considered, as we understand it at this point, is through a regulatory amendment. You would have to amend the regulation, as opposed to granting an exemption. There is one example I can give the member. We did make a variety of alterations to the thresholds for small oil and gas projects, because they were deemed to have negligible environmental impact and could easily be dealt with through our regular permitting process. That is an example of a regulation that was amended. The effect of it was that it exempted that level of oil and gas development from review.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could tell me how many environmental assessments are being done under the act at present.

Hon. C. McGregor: There are 20 active projects in the system at this point in time.

M. Coell: I would be interested in her comments on that list of those under review, if the minister or the staff have it.

Hon. C. McGregor: I have a listing of all 20. They are: the Bronson Slope gold and copper mine; the Cascade Heritage power plant; Melvin Creek-Cayoosh; Crowsnest Cogeneration; the Crystal Peak garnet mine; Garibaldi at Squamish; the Greenville-Kincolith road; Jumbo Glacier Alpine Resort; Kamloops energy recovery cogeneration; an LNG storage facility; Moose Creek, which is a mineral-mining issue; the Pac-Rim LNG plant and pipeline; the Pingston Creek hydroelectric development; Porcher Island gold -- it looks like another mine; Prosperity gold, which is a mine; the Red Chris copper and gold mine; the Red Mountain gold and silver mine; the Revelstoke No. 5 generating station for B.C. Hydro; the southern crossing pipeline for B.C. Gas; and the Telkwa coalmine.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that. It gives me an idea of what sorts of projects are under review and the level of projects. To the minister's knowledge, have there been any exemptions granted for projects in the past two years?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I explained earlier, the process was that regulations were amended which adjusted the thresholds, and that has effectively exempted projects.

M. Coell: Would that mean that a project would still be under review but under a lesser review or no review at all? That's where I didn't understand the minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: The review is not through the environmental assessment office; it's not a formal environmental assessment review. That's not to say that there aren't permitting requirements by the ministry. A mine or anything that falls below the thresholds that are written in the regulation are not subject to environmental assessment. Then the regular permitting requirements must be met, and often environmental issues are addressed through that permitting.

M. Coell: Thank you for that clarification.

With regard to a project like SkyTrain, it has social as well as environmental impacts. In reading the act, that also takes into consideration environmental and social review. I'm just wondering at what level the minister would expect transit projects -- not just SkyTrain -- to deal with issues other than environmental ones, and whether that is something that her office would deal with in changing the regulations. When the project comes forward, if regulations are to be changed, what do they take into consideration? Do they take into consideration the items that I've suggested?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm not quite sure what the member is trying to ask. There is no transit project in the environmental assessment process, so there's no way to comment on what might or might not be done. There never has been a transit project in the environmental assessment process, because it only began in 1995. Once a project is in the process, we have nothing to do with it. I don't know how to be clearer than that. It is not our role to intervene in the process. It's clearly an arm's-length relationship with the environmental assessment office.

The proponent has to develop specs for their project. The project committee meets and determines what they believe are the issues that need to be addressed by the proponent. There are a lot of meetings and toing and froing to decide how best to do that. Stage 1 is the application review. That's when the project committee is established. In the case of the Ministry of Environment, we always have a person sitting on that committee to address environmental issues. They are part of the project committee. The public is notified. There is a public comment period. The project committee reviews the application, and then the project committee itself recommends whether the project be approved, rejected or moved to stage 2.

From there, if it is recommended to go to stage 2, the project committee will develop draft specifications. Then the public, the proponent and the provincial, federal and local governments and first nations provide comment. I think it's important to note here that we have this agreement with the federal government that we will align our processes and work together so that we aren't duplicating and creating two environmental review processes. The proponent then submits a project report, there is more public comment, and then the project committee recommends either approval or rejection, or it moves to stage 3.

The majority of projects have been subject to a stage 2 review, and some to a stage 1 review. It does depend on the nature of the project and the overall impacts that the project committee has addressed through the project review process.

In stage 3 there would be an environmental assessment board hearing. Then the ministers responsible -- and it would be multiple ministers, because it's always more than one, depending on the nature of the project -- prepare draft terms of reference. There's a public comment period. The terms of reference are then finalized. There are hearings held by the board. The board then submits recommendations to cabinet, and cabinet issues or denies the project approval certificate.

[ Page 9583 ]

I hope that helps to clarify the process.

M. Coell: One area I'm still not clear on is that if -- I'll use the example of a goldmine -- a prospector wishes to start a goldmine, at what point would that person have to go to the environmental assessment review?

Hon. C. McGregor: It would depend largely, I think, on the nature of the development that was being proposed. Somebody who is in the mining industry is likely working through the Ministry of Energy and Mines. They've staked a claim. They've had meetings at a regional or provincial level with appropriate personnel related to that question. They can provide advice as to whether it's reviewable or not reviewable, related to the proponent's proposal. Once the proponent becomes aware that what he or she is proposing will be reviewable, they can actually just call up the EA office and say: "This is what I'm considering doing. What are the thresholds, the issues and so on?" There are a lot of pre-application meetings that are often held by members of the environmental assessment office with potential proponents. Sometimes that leads to an understanding that it won't be subject to review. Sometimes it leads to an understanding that it would be subject to review, and they help the proponent to shape their application to go forward to the environmental assessment office.

M. Coell: I'll use the example of the goldmine. If someone just started digging and didn't advise the environmental assessment appeal board, what would the ministry do? What is their position on someone who starts a project without going through the review process?

[2:45]

M. Coell: If a project goes ahead without any kind of scrutiny from either the Environmental Assessment Act or the ministry, you've got a series of fines or penalties. Can the government or the ministry direct an environmental assessment review to be undertaken? Can the ministry do that? Does it have the power to do that?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes. Under section 4, the minister can direct. . . .

M. Coell: Has the minister's office done that in the past -- directed any assessments?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, there has been. . . . It was not myself but a previous Minister of Environment who issued, under section 4, a requirement to review the Bamberton development project.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could tell me the criteria that were used to direct a review of that project.

Hon. C. McGregor: The minister is advised by the environmental assessment office prior to making such decisions. Really, the criterion is whether or not there are existing review procedures which are adequate to deal with environmental issues that have provincial significance or provincial authority. It would be issues related to water. In the case of Bamberton, there were serious concerns about water quality in the Saanich Inlet; that was one of the requirements of the review -- sewage disposal questions, first nations consultation. Those are examples of the provincially significant issues that were listed in this project and therefore deemed to be a section 4 review.

M. Coell: Just to refresh my memory, did the proponent of that project ask for a review? Did they approach the environmental review board, or did they approach the ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand the history of this -- I wasn't then in the position -- there was a great deal of public opposition to the proposed development, and so in the public interest and to deal with questions of provincial significance, the minister of the day ordered a section 4 review.

M. Coell: The minister may realize that what I'm getting at is that the minister has the ability to order a review from her office on a project of significance. If a project is started without being reviewed by the ministry and the environmental review process, the ministry has the added benefit of having the ability to take someone to court, as well as to order a review and also to impose fines and up to one year in jail for the proponent. I think that gives the ministry a very strong hand in dealing with projects of major concern environmentally.

I'm not going to ask the minister to suggest what she would do with regard to SkyTrain, because I think that's yet to come, and the proponent may be, as we sit here, waiting outside with an application for her to review it -- or may not. That's in the future, and I'm sure she doesn't want to answer that question.

The point I'm trying to make -- and I'll just briefly state it and then ask the minister to comment -- is that we have an environmental review act in place -- a very thorough and, in some people's opinion, very rigid one. It is somewhat lengthy, and it has been criticized both by environmental groups and by business. I don't think it's found a home with either side of the environmental issue, but nonetheless it's in place. For the most part, major developments in the private sector use it. If they don't use it -- as in the case of Bamberton -- they're forced to use it, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think that's obviously a power: if the owner of a major project that will cause some disruption to the environment in whatever way doesn't want to comply, then the ministry has the route to allow that to happen.

With regard to SkyTrain, we talked about the benefits of that -- and the greenhouse gases and air pollution in the greater Vancouver area -- and I agree 100 percent with the minister that this is very good from the standpoint of cutting down on greenhouse gases and on air pollution. But the ministry doesn't have any studies to back that up. I asked that question, and there are no studies the ministry has that they can point to and say, "This project is going to cut that much out of the greenhouse gases problem or cut down on pollution," so I'm having to take the minister's word for it. I'm willing to do that.

[ Page 9584 ]

I want to make sure, as the critic for Environment, that this project follows the same rules as everyone else in the province. I think that's important; I think it's important for government to have that as well. I know the minister has said, "I will make sure the act is followed," but the act also allows for an exemption. That's following the act, but it's exempting it. I think we'll be looking for the reasons why this is exempted and what studies will tell me that this is the reason the project is exempted. As I say, to date we don't know whether it's exempted because there hasn't been an application, but I would assure the minister that that answer will wear thin. We all know that this is a B.C. government proposal and that the Premier is behind it, so we can only go so far on that one and then I think the ice gets a bit thin. That's the point I'm trying to make, and if the minister would like to comment on that, I would welcome her comments.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the SkyTrain's environmental benefits in the area of air quality have been fairly well canvassed. If the member will recall our conversation earlier today around urban livability and how development can be used as a tool to actually cause in-growth within municipal governments, planning of urban neighbourhoods and so on. . . . We link the workplace and where people live with public transportation, and through that cycle we encourage more and more people to use the public transportation system.

The issue related to air quality can certainly be quantified. We would have no difficulty in quantifying the number of people getting out of cars and onto public transportation, what kind of impact that would have on air quality and percentage reductions for things like greenhouse gas, smog creation and so on. Those kinds of impacts can be measured and certainly will be measured, but there has to be a facility before people will make a different choice. That, of course, speaks to the need for having the development move ahead before people have the options, because it is related closely to personal choices and convenience. The people of the lower mainland love SkyTrain. They love the opportunity it provides, they use it very well, and they broadly support an expansion for those reasons as well as for the environmental reasons.

M. Coell: I don't disagree with some of the minister's comments. I guess the one that is central to my role as critic is to make sure that government is doing its job and living within the legislation. I think that for an exemption for a project like this, the case has to be made that it can't be a one-liner that people love transit. I agree that they do. It can't be that it's an environmentally sensitive method of transportation. I agree with that. The purpose of my remarks earlier and now is to make sure that government lives within the rules that it sets. I think that's the important part of the SkyTrain proposal and the Environmental Assessment Act.

[3:00]

R. Thorpe: Earlier today, when asking about what was going to happen and expressing the concern of many small brand owners and operators that have written extensively to the ministry, I thought that I heard the minister say that a representation has been made to Encorp to look at some of the costs. But I thought I also heard that board changes had been made. Could the minister advise: were there in fact board changes to ensure that small brand owners had better representation on that management board?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, and I'd like to read into the record correspondence to Clearly Canadian Beverage Corp. "I can assure you that Encorp Pacific is currently in the process of adjusting its corporate structure to include a board of directors that is representative of its diverse brand-owner membership. That includes, of course. . . ."

Interjection.

Hon. C. McGregor: The date is July 3.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the comments that I made this morning from a document that we had received from Encorp. . . . Quite frankly, I checked during lunchtime, and it's my understanding that this document was presented to the Beverage Container Management Board. The comment that I read this morning pertains. . . . It says on page 7 of the document, under "Cost and Complexity": "The new beverage container stewardship program regulation will establish 43 separate stock-keeping units, because of (a) the three-deposit system and (b) the number of container types to be sorted. This will add to other factors, making the British Columbia system the costliest and most complex in North America."

Does the minister or the staff have any knowledge. . . ? This morning they didn't seem to have knowledge. Do they now have knowledge that it has been said by Encorp and other people that we will have the costliest and most complex system in North America?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member is probably as aware as I am that there have certainly been lots of allegations by people who are resistant to moving toward an expanded beverage container deposit refund system -- to the idea of doing so and to what the costs may or may not be. I don't want to discount what anybody says; I want to treat it seriously. I want to acknowledge that people have legitimate concerns about the costs of managing this system. But one of the principles that we put in place early on in this discussion was to work with the beverage industry to find the most cost-effective way possible to manage this. And that is indeed what the Beverage Container Management Board has been charged with doing. I think it is working through many of these issues.

The question that the member raises. . . . At this point we are certainly not able to agree with that comment. Nonetheless, I want to assure the member that we are in fact taking the question of cost to industry extremely seriously, and we are working with the Beverage Container Management Board on finding the least expensive options through which to manage. This is part of the reason why we've contacted other jurisdictions across Canada to find out how they are managing their system, what costs they have incurred as a result and which models best reflect the lowest cost for industry. So we are continuing to work on those questions.

[ Page 9585 ]

The member asked how we supported the $7 million cost to local government. That was the result of a study done by Coopers and Lybrand, December 22, 1995, called "Analysis and Report on Beverage Container Recovery Methods." There have been at least four cost-benefit studies done for the ministry since 1990 on beverage containers: several by Peat Marwick -- October '90, May '91; in January '94, by Peter Adams; and in December '95 -- again -- "Analysis and Report on Beverage Container Recovery Methods," by Coopers and Lybrand.

The third item was the status of the letter sent to the minister from Encorp or Clearly Canadian and Nestlé Canada between May 29 and June 3. The correspondence unit didn't have a record of a letter to the minister originating from Encorp. Apparently, though, Encorp has written to ministry staff twice since May 19, and we have responded on both of those occasions. As I indicated to you, we have met with Encorp on several occasions as well.

R. Thorpe: If I could just start at the end of the minister's response, I think I said Clearly Canadian this morning when I mentioned Perrier and Nestlé, not Encorp. But I could have erred; it was Clearly Canadian. Has the minister. . . ? She may have said it and I didn't hear it. Have answers been given to the June 1 letter to Nestlé and to the other letter that I mentioned -- May 29 to Perrier?

Hon. C. McGregor: Those responses have been prepared and are in the process of being finalized and sent out.

R. Thorpe: The minister mentioned two studies, both done by Coopers and Lybrand in December of '95. I wonder if the minister could forward copies of those to our office as quickly as possible.

Hon. C. McGregor: We'd be happy to provide the member with a copy.

R. Thorpe: For the record -- I want to be very clear here, because I think the minister was trying to paint a picture earlier that the official opposition was trying to be less than cooperative -- we are very concerned about the environment, very concerned about beverage containers. In fact, some of us have spent 30 years in the business that will be affected -- 22 years myself in the brewing business, which I think has a reasonable record of handling returnable beer bottles in British Columbia, and also in the British Columbia wine industry. If the minister would care to check with some of the staff -- even some that are even present with her today -- we tried to bring forward very inventive, innovative ideas many years ago.

The issue here, though, is impact on the cost to the consumer. Are we really achieving what we set out to achieve? Those are the issues. I ask the minister, when the staff has the time, to check on April 7, 1997, when you announced this. You clearly stated that there will be no cost increases to the consumer. I know that the costs are going to be a minimum of $20 million at the lowest level. When you take that up to the highest level of retail, that could be $50 million or $60 million. Now, if I take that number and tie it in with your statement earlier today that the producers and the consumers must pay, then there has to be a substantial price increase to consumers. My question to the minister is: since you said earlier -- just a minute ago -- that you do not know the cost and the impact, what mechanisms do you have in place to monitor and react very quickly if in fact there are cost increases and price increases to the consuming public?

The Chair: I would remind members to please direct their comments through the Chair.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, hon. Chair, I think it's important to go back to one of the key principles -- the approach that we in government are taking in relation to the stewardship management board. From the outset, part of the conversations that have been going on on this question for more than ten years has been with industry. Industry has opposed, vehemently I might say, a regulatory model where government set the prices and determined how much would be paid and so on and so forth. They preferred, frankly, this industry-based model, where they were in charge of determining costs and managing their own costs of the system. We could do what Alberta did, which was to create government-organized, government-funded depots and so on, and then charge fees to industry. We could have taken that model, but we deliberately chose the other model. It's partly to do with our successes that we've had with industry, but also that industry is most interested in having a model that has the kind of flexibility for them to address their own issues through their own management planning.

I guess the answer to the member's question is: the regulation will set the price of deposit fees. The board is managing the issue of handling fees. But the other costs are clearly in the hands of industry, and government doesn't control them.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure we'll get into that debate in Bill 40, which I believe is the legislation. We'll talk at that point in time, I'm sure, about what control government has or doesn't have.

I get a sense that the minister is now maybe warming up to the fact that there are going to be some costs here, and that the statement made on April 7, 1997, is not going to hold true, so now we're going to shift it off into industry. But I'm going to leave that alone, because I know that it's going to cost the consumer some money -- and, sooner or later, the ministry.

My question is: what kind of monitoring or accountability process. . . ? If the costs are a ton higher, substantially higher than anyone's wildest dream, what kinds of mechanisms are going to be in place to look after the consuming public who have been told that there will be no cost increase? That's what I'm concerned about.

Hon. C. McGregor: I've already answered the member's question.

R. Thorpe: Well, we'll go back over the record. I'm sure the question hasn't been answered.

When the minister made the announcement on April 7, I believe there was an indication of how many new depots would be opened -- I believe it was 120, if my memory serves me correctly -- and that this would create up to 360 new jobs. Could we please have a status report on the number of new depots that have been opened and the number of new jobs created?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're aware that Encorp is now actively working on the implementation of their stewardship

[ Page 9586 ]

R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I'm really trying to be as cooperative as I possibly can be on this issue. But sitting with the minister is a member of that board, and I'm led to believe that this project is one of the top seven priorities on the ministry's web site for action this year. I'm astounded at the lack of available knowledge -- figures -- that is here to be shared. Why wouldn't we know how many new depots have been created since this announcement and how many jobs have been created? This is a government that says it's interested in creating jobs.

[3:15]

R. Thorpe: Of course, there's one other option we could have: when it's No. 1 of the top seven projects of a ministry, we may come prepared. What a concept! This government is big on theory, weak on follow-up, and implementation is nonexistent.

Could the minister advise regarding the impact that this new expanded deposit system will have, or what her staff believes the impact will be, on curbside recycling in British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, it's impossible to predict exactly what will happen, but I think that there are some trends that the representatives who sit on the Beverage Container Management Board who come from local governments, one of which has an active curbside recycling program. . . . They expect that they will be able to keep certain products out of their recycling initiative, and that will enable them to be able to add more products into their recycling stream and to actually increase the options for consumers in terms of what they can pick up from curbside.

R. Thorpe: Would the minister care to elaborate on what additional items are contemplated for curbside recycling?

Hon. C. McGregor: The hon. member would have to inquire directly to the GVRD or the capital regional district, who run curbside programs, to know exactly what they have in mind. It is not this ministry's responsibility to tell them how to do that.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise how the ministry established and reached the 85 percent goal as the acceptable return rate?

Hon. C. McGregor: It was partly a result of research and comparison with other jurisdictions, but also it was partly in response to stakeholder consultations. That's also based on the present system, where the recovery rate for soft-drinks containers is at 79 percent, and beer, cider and coolers is at 92 percent.

R. Thorpe: Does the minister realize that this goal has not been achieved in other jurisdictions and that Encorp, who we've just quoted there, states in its February report that a broad-brush 85 percent is an unrealistic goal? What will happen when that rate is not achieved?

Hon. C. McGregor: The 85 percent is a target, I would remind the hon. member, and we're going to work to achieve that over time. Obviously we agree with Encorp that that won't happen overnight. There is a certain return pattern, particularly for beer, cider and coolers, which would imply that there might be a similar high-return rate for other liquor products. But we do recognize that there is a period of time in which we'll have to work towards achieving that 85 percent.

R. Thorpe: One of my colleagues reminded me that it sounds like the target for the 22,000 forestry jobs, but I don't want to get into that.

What will happen? What is envisaged to happen, and what kind of a transition period is contemplated? If 85 percent is the target, and we're at 62 percent -- in some products we're at zero right now, because they're not returned -- what is going to happen, and what kind of a transition period is envisaged for people to get up here?

Hon. C. McGregor: I've tried to be as open and frank as I can be on these questions, but most of what the member wants to know are future concerns and matters that have not yet been decided and that we are actively working on with industry and the beverage container board to resolve. So it is very difficult for me to continue to answer a line of questioning that speaks to future decision-making.

R. Thorpe: Well, let me ask this question, hon. Chair. I'm sorry that it is a future question. Is this system going to be operative on October 1, 1998?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

R. Thorpe: Backing up from October 1, 1998, to July 7, 1998, can the minister. . . ? The questions I'm asking are the questions -- if staff had the time to read the mail, the thousands of pages -- that people are asking. If we are going to be operational on October 1, 1998, why is it that we get an almost hostile response to legitimate questions from small brand-owners, from producers in British Columbia, who want to know the answers to these questions? Why can't the minister address those? Maybe it's as simple as saying: "We're going to have a two-year transitional period." Maybe that's the answer. Hopefully, the minister would like to comment.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, these questions are canvassed on a very regular basis amongst those members of the Beverage Container Management Board. I'd be happy to offer the member a more detailed briefing with my deputy minister, who sits on the Beverage Container Management Board. She's one of the co-chairs. He can go through the minutes of those meetings and ask any questions about who asked what question about what type of implementation proposal. We'd be happy to go through that if the member would like.

I would speak to the fact that this is one of the very inclusive processes that have gone on in this ministry. We engage in extensive consultation with industry. Yes, hon. member, there are people who do have questions about how things will be done, and that's a legitimate part of a change process. People need to ask questions, because we haven't got

[ Page 9587 ]

R. Thorpe: The minister, deputy minister and other staff who are here, who have some involvement with this project. . . . Perhaps we wouldn't be going through some of these questions if, in fact, these people who are writing these letters of concern (1) got replies, (2) got acknowledged, and (3) got workable solutions to the problems. That's why we're asking these detailed questions now. To this point in time, this government has continued to try to ram this through and has not provided sufficient time for this government and for those in the business in British Columbia, across Canada and North America to understand the expertise that they've gained.

I am more than pleased to meet with ministry staff, but to date those briefings have produced nothing but: "I'm sorry, but we don't know the answer; we'll have to get back to you."

The reason we're asking these questions is because these people have concerns -- small brand-owners, big brand-owners, people who are in the returnable containers business and have been in it for the longest time, people who are going to be new and people who have had experience in other jurisdictions. Will the minister commit today that if brand-owners who have questions get those questions in -- in writing a.s.a.p. -- that those questions will be addressed not only by the ministry but also by the Beverage Container Management Board?

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, I'll point out for the member's information that there actually has been a six-month delay in the implementation of this beverage container strategy -- directly in response to the concerns that have been raised by a variety of producers and industry. It's not correct to say that we aren't focused and listening to industry. We clearly have taken steps in order to address industry's concerns.

This member has never met with my deputy, nor has he requested to meet with my deputy. I take umbrage at his comments about my staff refusing to meet with him. That simply is not true. I also take issue with the member's comments about not answering correspondence, because indeed, as I've read into this record, we do answer our correspondence. The Beverage Container Management Board does a very good job of responding to small and large producers when they raise questions at the beverage container management level. The Beverage Container Management Board will be meeting again on July 31, and there is another opportunity for any number of small producers to either come to that board meeting or to talk with a representative on that board. They already have representatives on the board, so I'm assuming that they have ample opportunity to raise the questions they have around ongoing implementation.

I'm wondering what the Liberal position is on this beverage container stuff. Quite frankly, all I'm getting from the member opposite is: "We better delay it; we better delay it. We don't want to do this; industry doesn't want to do this. There might be some costs for us. We're not prepared to do our part." Those very same companies are doing it in seven other provinces across Canada, but somehow that can't possibly work in British Columbia. There are all these reasons and every question under the sun that we need to raise before we could possibly consider whether or not we should encourage more recycling of beverage products here in British Columbia.

There are some very, very good producers who sit on our board, who are anxious to work with us. I would ask the member opposite to move off the attack mode and get on board with solving the problems. I think he has a good perspective on the beverage industry, and I'd like it to be a productive relationship. If we're going to continue with accusations across the room, then we aren't going to be able to work together on how to solve some of these problems.

R. Thorpe: It seems that we've hit a nerve here with the minister. What it is, I think, is that the minister went back at lunchtime and checked the record and did in fact say on April 7 that there would be no cost increase to the consumer. And now there's going to be substantial cost increases to the consumer. When you get backed up and you have to try to defend something that happened then, obviously you go out and attack. I think that is the issue here.

Unfortunately, the minister failed to answer my question in the emotion of the moment, so I'll repeat it. This program is going to start on October 1 for large and small brand-owners located both in British Columbia and outside British Columbia who will have to comply with these regulations. If they get their queries and questions into the ministry and to the beverage container management board a.s.a.p., will the minister undertake to see that they are answered in a timely manner?

Hon. C. McGregor: We always answer our correspondence in a timely manner, so I will assure the member that we'll continue to do that.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise, perhaps through the deputy who sits on the board, what steps have been taken to ensure that the only glass producer in British Columbia, who has advised this government of the potential job loss. . . ? What steps have been taken to ensure that their jobs, their investment and their glass containers are on a level playing field, as committed by Mr. Gunton to Consumers Glass?

[3:30]

R. Thorpe: I appreciate that answer. So is the minister saying. . . ? I want to make sure; I don't want to be putting words in the minister's mouth or misinterpreting the minister's words. To the best of the minister's knowledge, do she and her staff believe that the issues with respect to the viability of the Lavington glassworks and the employment of the employees have been addressed in these lowering of fees to ensure that they're viable?

Hon. C. McGregor: As we understand it, it goes a long way to addressing their concerns and makes them more competitive as a product container. But there's no way that we, as

[ Page 9588 ]

R. Thorpe: The minister has confirmed that this new system will start up on October 1, 1998. What kind of monitoring mechanism is part of the process? What kind of accountability matrix has been put in place to monitor it on a timely basis? And what is the first date for an extensive review, versus those accountability frameworks that have been set up?

Hon. C. McGregor: There is a variety of tools. The regulation makes a requirement for annual reporting. Beyond that, there is the Beverage Container Management Board, which currently is meeting on about a monthly basis -- and will likely continue that kind of a meeting schedule as the system gets up and running -- to be in a position to monitor on an ongoing basis. That would also include the director, who is actively involved in reviewing and approving stewardship plans. He will, at minimum, be doing formal quarterly reviews, but he will also be working with the board to do it on an ad hoc basis, certainly in the beginning, and even a weekly look at the situation, so that we can stay on top of any issues that might potentially arise as a result of early implementation.

R. Thorpe: When the minister makes reference to the director, she's referring to the director from her ministry. Is it Mr. Driedger?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, the director of pollution prevention, Mr. Driedger.

R. Thorpe: The minister mentioned earlier that there was a board meeting on July 31 and that small brand-owners and others are allowed to go to those meetings. Are those meetings open just to the stakeholders' representatives, or can members that are represented by a stakeholder attend as observers? Secondly, would it be possible for myself or other members of the opposition to attend that meeting?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's up to the board to decide, but the member could certainly make application to the board formally, in writing, asking for a portion of time on the board's agenda. I think that would be appropriate, but it will be up to the board to consider that request.

R. Thorpe: I know that the minister would never use her office unduly, but assuming that the person sitting to the right of the minister is the deputy chair of the board, we would look forward to a positive response to that request.

Can the minister advise what studies have been done in the last year with respect to the impact of job creation related to the implementation of this system?

Hon. C. McGregor: There hasn't been a study done on that topic in the last year.

R. Thorpe: Have there been any studies done that the ministry was relying on as part of a job creation strategy, and if so, what was the date of that study and who was that study prepared by?

Hon. C. McGregor: I will get back to the member with a list of which studies included that information.

R. Thorpe: As I close, let me just say a few remarks to the minister and to the staff. I was in the wine industry not that many years ago -- and there happens to be a representative of your staff here. I do care about the environment. I'm the one who put forward a pilot project in the Okanagan for the return of containers, and ours was the first winery to put into place a program to return bottles to the winery for deposit. So this member for Okanagan-Penticton does care about the environment.

J. Dalton: I have a few items I want to canvass. I don't expect any of them to take a lot of time. I want to go back, if I may, because I was sitting here earlier when the minister outlined the 20 projects under the assessment review. She mentioned Jumbo Glacier. Can the minister's staff advise me as to whether that's the Golden Peaks Resort proposal in the Invermere area, or are we talking about two different projects?

Hon. C. McGregor: They are two different projects.

J. Dalton: Given that, can the minister advise us whether Golden Peaks is under the assessment review?

Hon. C. McGregor: It is not, because it is under the threshold for ski resort review.

J. Dalton: Given that I don't know a lot about ski resorts, although I do talk to people like Al Raine and others who are trying to get into the business or who are already in the business, can the minister advise the committee as to what the threshold aspect of her response means?

Hon. C. McGregor: It is 2,000 bed-units.

J. Dalton: Right. That's fine. In fact, I had the Golden Peaks announcement of January 16 in my hand, and that's why I was curious as to whether that fit into this. So that answers that. Thank you.

What I assume as well. . . . In fact, Al Raine, the one whose name I mentioned, is trying to get the Cayoosh one in the Pemberton area, up in Lillooet. Is that also exempt from review?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, it is not.

J. Dalton: Did the minister list that as one of the 20 under review? I don't recall hearing that one being listed.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, Cayoosh -- it's sometimes called Melvin Creek -- was on the list.

J. Dalton: Thank you. Later this summer -- if we ever escape from this place -- I'm going to take an opportunity to go out and see the Prosperity. I think it's misnamed, quite frankly, but they're still hopeful. I will be out in the Taseko area to see how that review is progressing or not progressing.

Now I would like to ask some questions about vote 69. Vote 69 is "Environmental Assessment and Land Use Coordination," but it's under this ministry. The minister did say this morning that the environmental assessment office is independent of her ministry. However, from some of the responses this afternoon to my colleague on the left, it would seem

[ Page 9589 ]

Firstly, can the minister advise us as to what relationship there is, if any, between the land use coordination office and what used to be the Whistler Land Co.? It has now taken on a new title.

Hon. C. McGregor: There is no connection.

J. Dalton: I am aware that the WLC, as it used to be known, is a Finance ministry department, so I'll leave that.

Within vote 69 we have two key aspects: one is the environmental assessment office and the other is the land use coordination office. I assume that these two coordinate their efforts -- no pun intended -- so that when issues come up, we're not treating one as an environmental assessment issue independent of land use issues that may arise. Is that a correct interpretation?

Hon. C. McGregor: The land use coordination office has a very different function than the environmental assessment office. The land use coordination office really leads our land use planning process, pulling together tables where communities are working on land use planning decisions. They don't engage in any level of environmental assessment or review of projects.

[3:45]

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, through LUCO. . . . Because they are the agency that coordinates land use planning, parts of their budget might be used to enable people to travel. Let's look at the particular case of the Central Coast land use planning process. People are coming from quite a large region, so there might be need for assistance in that regard. In the case of the environmental assessment office, they can give dollars to first nations, particularly, which will assist with traditional use studies or ways for them to be able to more adequately participate in the environmental review process as a members of the project committee.

J. Dalton: Thank you. Of course, we're not in the Aboriginal Affairs estimates. Those are yet to come, so I think perhaps there may be some interesting questions around that entire subject. I was just reading today, for example, on the front page of the Sun that the federal ministry has again opened up the bank vaults and is creating other committees and things, so we'll have to watch those other aspects fairly closely.

There's another aspect in here. This one certainly caught my eye, the third item under vote 69, "Corporate Resource Inventory Initiative." I see there some reference, for example, to archaeological information. Does this ministry coordinate, through that office, things with the Ministry for Small Business, Tourism and Culture? We've had some very interesting discussions in this very room with that minister about heritage inventory and archeological sites. So is there some coordination and connection between the two offices in that regard?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that agency would need to coordinate with that arm of government, as well as with the Ministry of Forests in some cases and Aboriginal Affairs. It depends on the nature of the initiative, but there's a lot of cross-government coordination on those questions.

J. Dalton: I hope that is proving to be effective. It comes to mind -- again referring back to the Ministry of Small Business estimates -- that we did ask the minister about some questions of heritage sites, and he almost magically produced a brochure that allegedly had been circulated to the municipalities -- although we contacted some of them and they didn't seem to have much knowledge of it. I'm just pointing that out as an example. If this ministry is in fact working with others, I think they have to make sure they are reading from the same page and are advising other players out there, such as municipalities and regional districts, that things such as these initiatives are going on, because there is a great deal of confusion out there.

One other thing under this item (c): "Contributions are provided to first nations for program-related work." Can the minister advise us what sort of work would be funded through that reference?

Hon. C. McGregor: LUCO is another one of those arm's-length relationships -- more independent offices -- and I'm not as familiar with where they may generate expenditures in those categories. I can get a staff person here, and we can go into more detail if the member wishes.

J. Dalton: No, that won't be necessary. I thank the minister for the offer, but I think once we've obviously had the question on record. . . . I may in fact write to her office as a follow-up; I think that's probably a more useful way. I certainly agree there's no point in having people coming and going. A ministry such as hers does lend itself to sometimes bouncing around a bit. We don't do that deliberately, of course, but sometimes it does happen.

There's one other thing, as well, and I'm just casting my eye down to the so-called bottom line of this vote 69. The estimates for '97-98 were $12,690,000, and now it's leapt up for '98-99 to $15,700,000. Can the minister explain. . . ? Also, there's a jump in FTEs from 85 to 92. Why is there the increase in money and FTEs when, for example, we read that the chief forester's budget has been slashed by 30 percent? It seems to me that the government seems to be doing one thing here and something quite the opposite on the other side.

Hon. C. McGregor: One of the increases in the expenditures is related to the environmental assessment office, and that's because of the number of projects that are coming through the office and the need for more staff support to get those reviews through in a very timely way. One of the outcomes of the review of the environmental assessment process was for us to look at mechanisms that would make us as efficient as possible in order to get reviews done in as timely a way as possible, and that's going to mean some additional resources. So that's one of the reasons why the amount is up.

The other amount that's up is the land use coordination office, and that is directly as a result of the announcement of

[ Page 9590 ]

J. Dalton: That's fine. That is correct.

I want to maybe just go back to one other thing I made a note of. When the minister mentioned, under LUCO, the travel and other costs that the government will support, would that, for example, have been money given to the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use gang that maybe still sits in some form? Would that be an example where travel money was provided to people?

Hon. C. McGregor: There is an ongoing resource board. If there is a government contribution, yes, it would come through LUCO.

J. Dalton: One other item, as well, while we're on this vote 69. On June 12 of this year, this minister and the Minister of Forests jointly announced a special management zone report and action plan. This is under the land use coordination office. I don't think we need to get into all the detail. There are some special management zones attached to this. Would I be correct. . . ? Is this just a general good-news type of release? It probably came out on a Friday -- who knows? Or are there some specifics on this that. . . ? Maybe you could check, hon. critic, as to whether that was a Friday. Was this released for some particular reason? Or was it just the good news that we all get on a daily basis from the government?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, for those who work in land or dirt ministries, it was very good news, because in fact we've been working on these questions with members from around the province on the issue of special management. One of the outcomes of the land use planning process in the Cariboo, in northern British Columbia and in other parts is that we created some parks and protected areas that have very strict limitations on commercial use and development. Outside of that, we've created what are often referred to as special management zones. The management of those special management zones has been a matter of some concern, particularly from the environmental community in some parts of the province. We engaged in a very thorough review of what practices we were using across government in special management zones, to get an idea of how line agencies -- Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry of Environment -- were approaching the management within those special management zones and to ensure that we are dealing with the other values that led to those being created as special management zones, often due to wildlife or habitat issues, in particular.

As a result of that survey work, we identified a need to better train staff and better describe and implement the provisions of the land use planning process that applied to special management zones. This announcement was made after some very significant consultation -- particularly with the environmental community and industry that were affected -- on how we were going to approach a work plan to move forward on better strategies around special management zones, a work plan that would identify some special management zones we would start with in order to implement the vision that communities generated during the land use planning process.

J. Dalton: Would an example of a special management zone be the Empire Valley acquisition? That's one I have some familiarity with, having actually visited the area, both by helicopter and truck -- and, of course, having some working knowledge of that area.

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, hon. member, that wouldn't be an example of a special management zone; that's an example of a protected area. But if we look, for instance, at the Muskwa-Kechika. . . . In the Muskwa-Kechika announcement, parts of it were designed to be protected areas or parks. Some of them would be designations under the Park Act and others, are designations under the Environment and Land Use Act but nonetheless protected and with no commercial development. Surrounding those were some special management zones that would continue to allow logging, resource extraction like oil and gas and other types of industrial development -- mining and so on -- but those developments would proceed in a way that was sensitive to the special values that were identified as a part of the land use planning process. It's one of the reasons why the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board has been given the opportunity to have $2 million annually to do planning around the values in the special management zone, about how to do, for instance, sensitive exploration activity for the oil and gas sector, how to deal with issues related to mining that might occur and make sure that that mitigates against habitat loss, or maybe it interferes in some way with animal migratory routes and so on. All of those issues would be permitted, but the board and line ministries would make sure that the values in those areas were protected as a part of the management.

J. Dalton: Certainly it's useful to have some of this background because, I must confess, I haven't obviously understood the distinction between the special management in a protected area, in a park and this and that. And, of course, we do have one of the minister's bills that we have yet to entertain in our second reading and committee discussion in this spring agenda. I guess it's now the summer, isn't it? Summer agenda. Maybe the fall agenda -- who knows?

Crown lands special account. I would like to ask several questions on that one. To start, there was an order-in-council that came out in May -- I don't have the exact date, but it's order-in-council 670. Interesting -- it has a misdescription of the ministry's office. It says "Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing." I think that was changed, but this is recent stuff, hon. Chair. May was only two months ago. It approved a non-recoverable payment out of the Crown land account in an amount not to exceed $1.451 million. Can the minister explain what that payment was for and where it went? I guess on behalf of the taxpayer, I'd like to know where that money went, what it was used for.

[4:00]

I'm told that they cover things like non-recoverable expenses in the ministry. An example is that there is a $1 million annual payment that we make to something called the Burnaby project. It was a land exchange that went on some time ago. There's an annual repayment schedule, and we are obliged to pay $1 million annually. There could be other non-recoverable expenses related to assessing, for instance, the

[ Page 9591 ]

J. Dalton: I don't think that would be necessary, but now you've piqued my interest. This $1 million to the Burnaby project -- can the minister advise us: (1) what is the Burnaby project, and (2) how long is the taxpayer on the hook paying $1 million a year? I think for example of a disaster the federal government got into many years ago underneath the Lions Gate Bridge, and we're still paying for that one -- I think it's $4 million we're paying to the Squamish nation to lease land that's just mud and old logs sitting on the beach. So the taxpayer can really get shafted if we're not very vigilant, hon. Chair.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I'll assure the member that we're not shafting the taxpayer, but we believe it's a ten-year project. We'll have to get you the details of that. It was before my time, and I'm not immediately familiar with it, but we will get the details for you.

J. Dalton: Well, I certainly look forward to that. Now, while we're just on the special account, there is a line item on page 5 of the estimates: $67 million is the projected real estate earnings of this special account. The minister, in the briefing that the critic and I have received, also kindly provided the total revenue, which is listed at $73.7 million. Are we basically talking the same figures, just being a little more optimistic in the briefing book, as opposed to the blue book?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member may also want to reference page 150 in the blue book. What we are comparing here are two different figures. The $67 million is gross sales in real estate earnings, whereas the $73 million includes those gross sales, but also the lease, rentals and royalties. Then costs are deducted from that as well, which brings it to the $73 million figure.

J. Dalton: Fair enough, then. That certainly does explain the detail I needed. Can the minister provide, under this line item "Real estate earnings," some examples as to where this money is coming from? What are we selling? Maybe it goes back indirectly to my previous question, to the WLC, which has now been renamed. Of course, that was in the job of selling Crown land, but for a particular purpose. I know there's no connection between those, but where are these real estate earnings coming from?

Hon. C. McGregor: Those earnings can come from the sale of Crown land for residential, industrial or commercial property. Those sales largely come from the lower mainland and Vancouver Island, but they can also occur in northern British Columbia, where Crown land is often the only land that's available for a municipality to extend its residential developments or industrial parks and so on.

J. Dalton: Fair enough. I don't have the blue book with me, and I don't need it, but is there a comparable figure on the expenditure side for when the government has to acquire land? If so, can the minister advise us as to what that item might be?

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have an acquisition account.

J. Dalton: But the government does acquire land. Therefore how do we account for expenditures when public money is on the line to purchase land? It is very nice to see that the government is in the business of selling land. There is the reverse side of the equation, and that is when the government is actually acquiring land and it's public money that goes into that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, it's because the province is largely covered by Crown land. I'm told that 94 percent of the land in British Columbia is Crown land. It's not usually necessary for us to purchase land in order to engage in a sale. So we don't have a special account through which we set aside a certain amount of money to acquire property to be able to sell it. Nonetheless, if we are going to acquire a property and wish to sell it, then what we would do is. . . . An OIC would be drafted. We would use the balance of the Crown land account to make that purchase.

J. Dalton: Well, would the Craig Bay acquisition up in Parksville not too long ago, for example, which was $7.77 million -- to deal with a heritage issue -- be an example where an OIC had to be struck off in order to produce that money? Would it be this ministry that would have to show the Craig Bay acquisition? Or did it come from somewhere else?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, as we understand it, it was about three years ago that this acquisition was made. It was an OIC, and it did come from this account.

J. Dalton: That's fine, then. I think we have an understanding.

I just want to ask a couple of questions about Six Mile, maybe for no other reason than that I was up there almost two weeks ago now. I stopped on the site with my two daughters and my wife, who is a rancher and has a very direct interest, of course, in what's happening with ranchland in this province. Then we drove and visited some of the neighbours -- who are the minister's constituents, but we won't get into that issue.

Maybe the minister can just quickly update us. Where are we at with Six Mile? We know the provincial interest has been overcome. The cabinet has given it its blessing. When we stopped on the site, I think there was one sign maybe, off in the distance somewhere, indicating that there may be some hearings. Can the minister advise us of the status of the project at this time?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'll indulge the hon. member with a bit of an answer, but I just want him to know that this is knowledge that I've come to in my capacity as MLA, not because I'm involved in what's going on around Six Mile. That approval has gone through cabinet. As I understand it, the developer has put an application in to the Thompson-Nicola regional district. They are going through their zoning and bylaw process, with public hearings and decisions about how the development is to proceed.

J. Dalton: I appreciate those words, given the very infant stage of this. But I think back to the critic's questions about SkyTrain. It may be that one day, of course, the ministry will in fact have to entertain some more direct involvement. I'm thinking, for example -- and this is probably more future policy or speculation -- that if the proponent of Six Mile puts in a request at some point for an environmental assessment, that might be of some interest to the minister. Maybe she'll have to be thinking about stepping out of that issue and handing it over to someone else. I don't know; I'll only specu-

[ Page 9592 ]

I did talk to some of the neighbouring ranchers. In fact, one of them went to UBC with my wife, so they've known each other for more years than my wife probably would like me to say on the record. They mentioned something of interest to me. They said that this area, when they irrigated it ten or 12 years ago, used to produce good hay crops. Now, of course, it's littered, even left to rack and ruin almost. I've walked over the site. We've seen the gullies. But there is some fairly good production area, I would submit -- not that the minister can necessarily comment on that. But it was interesting to talk to some of the neighbours who said they can remember, not that long ago, when there were productive hayfields at Six Mile.

I only point that out because I think there is potentially a very dangerous precedent being set on that benchland above Kamloops Lake, so we'll have to see. I do know people, for example in the Chilcotin, who are anxiously looking at how Six Mile plays out -- as to whether they may be next on the list to invite the cabinet's invoking provincial interest. It's just a word of caution to the minister and her officials that they may have opened up a door that one day they would like to close, and they may find it difficult to do so. We'll have to see.

I think that's probably all. I believe there may be some other Six Mile questions coming from other members later, but I just wanted to make those points and put them on the record.

M. Coell: For the minister's information, what I'd like to do is spend some time looking at Crown lands, the Whistler Land Co. -- how they're involved and the changes that are being made -- with the intent of looking at how we can improve the system, how we can create jobs and how the system can be more efficient. My role as an opposition critic is that when there is a problem identified, from my perspective I want to know that the ministry is working on it and is attempting to solve that problem.

My knowledge of Crown lands is that they have been an integral part of this province's history. As the minister said, almost 94 percent, 95 percent of the province is Crown land. Most of the cities, most of the businesses, everything that you look at, if you go back in the history books, somehow went through Crown lands. That will continue. The government, whether it's this ministry or another, will always be in the process of either tendering Crown lands, selling Crown lands or partnering with individuals -- and first nations as well.

I wonder if, first off, the minister could outline for me the changes that have taken place with regard to this ministry and the sale of Crown land, and whether there is also a change in this budget for the relationship between the Whistler Land Co. and the Crown lands. It seems to me that there is a duplication of services there, and if the ministry is actively looking at trying to make the two dovetail more closely, I think it would be positive.

[4:15]

Our ministry is responsible for determining what Crown land is suitable for development and marketing. Included in this determination is a review of land status, aboriginal and existing treaty rights, environmental management issues and the potential canvassing of the interests of other provincial agencies -- for example, B.C. Housing Management Commission or a local government, in the case of a community which has interests in expanding an industrial site and so on.

Once we determine what projects are eligible, we then pass those on to the B.C. Asset and Land Management Corporation. They develop a plan and market the property.

M. Coell: BCALM would be the easy way of remembering those initials.

One of the problems -- and I've seen it as a municipal politician as well -- is the time frames and staffing to deal with the proposals, and, I guess, to deal with new types of legislation that have been introduced over the years.

At present, you're managing literally tens of thousands of tenures and individual pieces of property. I 'm interested to know the change in staff in your offices between last year and this year. I don't know whether any of them have gone from your office, your ministry, to the new BCALM, I'll call it.

Hon. C. McGregor: There have been 17 staff from headquarters and regions reassigned to BCALM.

M. Coell: Have those people been replaced in the ministry, or is that a net loss of 17 to the ministry and a net gain to the new body?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to begin by being clear about the relationship. These staff members have been seconded to the corporation, and it's a net loss.

M. Coell: The moneys generated to government by this arm of your ministry are tremendous and, I think, have great potential. How is the ministry going to deal with an increased workload -- I gather there's still a large backlog -- with less staff?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's important to note that the 17 staff who were seconded were working on marketing and development. It's keeping them in the same line of work, simply assigning them to a new location with a mandate to be more businesslike, in fact, around the marketing of Crown land -- to be more like a real estate arm than the Crown lands branch has been able to be. The remaining staff continue to deal with the lease and backlog questions. But in addition to the existing staff, we had 40 new staff assigned to us on a temporary basis. That staff is working on a priority basis to clear the backlog. I could endeavour to get for the member. . . . Oh, is this our reduction-of-backlog report? We have a weekly report; this is what I was thinking of. My deputy minister is having people in the regions report progress weekly on dealing with the backlog. This starts out talking about how many outstanding applications there are at the beginning of the week, and how many letters, offers and so on have been sent out. It's really tracking how well we're doing in clearing the backlog.

There is one example here in the southern interior office. Regional staff were involved in a blitz that saw 237 replacement reports and 196 reviews completed during a three-day project. They are really taking the bull by the horns, so to speak, on this question. We're doing very well in clearing that backlog and also in processing new applications as they come in. Of course, the continuing applications that come in are another part of the workload.

[ Page 9593 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: The staff level was approximately 110 FTEs. With 40 new staff, that now brings the FTEs up to 150.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could break that out for me as to what that is in the regions. Are there adequate numbers of people in the regions as compared to headquarters?

Hon. C. McGregor: The 40 new staff that have been assigned are really rotating around the province. They're in the regions, and they're moving from location to location to deal with backlog questions and issues and priorities of regions. Those 40 are all being applied to the backlog.

M. Coell: Where did those 40 people come from -- their backgrounds? Were they seconded from other ministries or from other areas of this ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: Some of those are from our own staff; some are classified as auxiliary employees; some come from other ministries, including the Ministry of Small Business and Tourism and the Ministry of Forests.

M. Coell: My understanding is that the current backlog has grown over the past number of years. What's the current number of applications for tenures in the province at the present time?

Hon. C. McGregor: The total number of applications outstanding is 2,932, as of June 26.

M. Coell: Would those include requests for purchase, or just for lease or tenure?

Hon. C. McGregor: The vast majority of them are leases and tenures, but there are some that include things like foreshore lease purchases, so it's a transfer from lease to purchase. There's also recreational property that is currently leased, wishing to purchase agricultural leases -- converting from lease to purchase -- and commercial and industrial applications. Some of them are for lease, and some of them for sale.

M. Coell: I would be interested in knowing the criteria for looking at Crown lands to move them onto BCALM. What's the criterion that you're looking at? In the budget for land sales, you've gone from an estimate of $25 million in '97 to a hopeful of $72 million this year. That's a tremendous increase, and in some respects that's a very optimistic number. I'd be interested in knowing what criteria you're using for the sale of lands.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, what the member described as the hopeful number for land sales is pretty similar to the hopeful number from last year. Last year, I believe, the hopeful number was $75 million, and so this year's $72 million is fairly similar.

Obviously we have an interest in marketing surplus land where that's available, but as I described earlier when the other hon. member asked a question, we do a determination first to find out what is suitable for development and marketing. So we do a review of the land status, aboriginal and existing treaty rights, environmental management and the potential interest of other agencies. That's a screen that's applied to surplus Crown lands before a decision is made as to whether or not it's an eligible property. Once that decision has been made, they are also reviewed by regional ministry staff. It's not just a matter of a headquarters function; that's checked with the regions. Then that property is listed on a schedule and given to B.C. Asset and Land Management to market.

[4:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, it is more like a real estate arm, in that the title is not transferred. It stays as Crown land, but the B.C. Asset and Land Management Corporation may in fact do some development work to develop a proposal around the potential sale of that land prior to marketing it.

M. Coell: The minister may not know the answer to this question. Would they also have the ability to rezone that land on your behalf prior to sale?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, all zoning is done by local and regional government.

M. Coell: Sorry, I didn't explain. Would they have the ability to enter into the rezoning process on your behalf with regional or local government?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, they could do that as a part of the development function.

M. Coell: That's interesting. It's actually a way to increase the value of the land and thus bring more revenue to the province. Once the land is sold, does that money come back into this ministry and this account of $72 million -- the hopeful $72 million -- or does it go into general revenue for the province?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's paid into the Crown land account, but at the end of a calendar year, it would pay a dividend to general revenue.

M. Coell: That was my fear. My fear is that with this new body and the ministry having a different arm of government sell the property, that money may eventually not come back to this ministry as it has done for probably close to a hundred years. It may end up just going back into general revenue. What would happen is that the Crown assets of the property would just continue to be used for general revenue, and you wouldn't be getting the benefit of those dollars back into this ministry for whatever programs within Crown Lands -- or even for adequate staffing levels. That's a fear that I have, and I wonder if the minister can relieve that fear in some way.

Hon. C. McGregor: General revenue pays for a lot of what this ministry is about, so let's not kid ourselves about

[ Page 9594 ]

M. Coell: I wish I had the minister's optimism. The problem is that I've seen in other ministries -- and I'll use some examples -- ways of getting at assets and spending your assets. In the past that hasn't happened. Crown Lands has always been a revolving door with money going in and out at the same time. If by chance this new change to the ministry and the sale of lands opens the door so that the money goes in and goes out somewhere else, I think it will be a detriment to the ministry. I think it has the potential to further exacerbate some of the problems that the ministry has by drawing down that $50 million fund and maybe eventually doing away with it and having general revenue say: "When you need money, we'll give it to you" -- that kind of attitude. So I think it weakens the position of the ministry. I guess that's future speculation, so the minister may not want to comment on that. I understand. It's a problem I have.

I guess the other area that I want to spend some time on is back on staffing. If the minister would like an adjournment for five minutes, I'll move that we adjourn for five minutes.

The Chair: Is the member asking for a five-minute recess?

M. Coell: A five-minute recess.

The Chair: If it's all right with the committee, we'll recess for five minutes and reconvene after the recess.

The committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

M. Coell: I've got a couple of different numbers here for the final restated estimates for '97-98 for land sales. Is it $25 million? Or has there been a change to that?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, $53 million was the actual sales for last year.

M. Coell: And the estimates have the hopeful number of $72.5 million. That hasn't changed?

Hon. C. McGregor: The actual land sale number, the hoped-for number, is $72.5 million.

M. Coell: As we're a quarter of the way into this year, does the minister have a number for land sales or the dollar figure for properties sold so far this year?

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have the number here, but we'll get it for you.

M. Coell: The reason I ask that is the Delgamuukw decision. There are many farmlands and ranchlands, I would think, that would be affected somehow by that decision, and I think psychologically it affected a lot of people as well. If their land is close to or part of a treaty negotiation, they may not move on a sale; they may be trying to somehow keep a tenure for the next few years. I wonder whether the ministry has any comments on that. Is that happening? I would imagine it would be, because until that decision is either appealed or somehow dealt with, it makes it very difficult for people to actually purchase the property they may be tenuring right now.

[4:45]

M. Coell: That's good to hear. That's very positive.

The land sales costs. . . . Last year we spent $9 million on sales costs. Is that the end-of-the-year restated figure? Again, I've got a couple of different numbers for that.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're fairly certain that the number $9,790,000 is an accurate depiction of the number for last year.

M. Coell: This year the ministry is expecting to spend $21.3 million on the land sales costs. I just wondered why such a large increase.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's simply a projection on the basis of achieving a higher volume of sales.

M. Coell: The projection seems very high to me. Out of $53 million, you've spent $10 million; out of $72 million, you've spent more than twice as much. It seems like a very. . . . It just doesn't fit with the projection I would look at.

The other one that is of some interest is Crown land exchanges. There's a zero in there compared to a $15 million cost there last year. I just wonder where that account has gone. What shift has been made there?

Hon. C. McGregor: Apparently there was an accounting policy change by the office of the comptroller general. What they will do now is add it in at year-end through the public accounts.

M. Coell: I wonder if Crown land exchanges. . . . I'm not quite sure I follow how there could be a dollar figure attached to something unless there's a net gain or a net loss. I just wonder if you're exchanging land or exchanging land and getting something more valuable. Or are we actually losing value?

Hon. C. McGregor: I would like to begin by offering the member a full tour of this issue with my accounting staff. It is, as they described to me, fairly complex. The idea is to net to zero, but the member may not be satisfied with my response. I'm only trying to repeat what's been told to me in my ear, and I think he might appreciate the opportunity to talk through with the staff some of these policy changes and what they mean for our accounting statements. I'd certainly offer that if that would be helpful.

M. Coell: Maybe just one clarification. Your net to zero: is that that your sales or exchanges of land do not exceed the value of lands that you receive back from that exchange?

[ Page 9595 ]

M. Coell: That saved your staff hours of boring conversation with me.

There are a couple of other areas for which I know a couple of members of the Liberal caucus have other questions. To me there is going to be continual -- hopefully it will continue -- pressure on this ministry to sell and develop and produce wealth for the province as it has done in the past. There is a backlog, which the minister has commented on, of about 3,000 applications. The minister has outlined an increase immediately of 40 staff that are in the field. I suspect they're reviewing applications -- as to how they can be speeded up. I'd be interested in hearing what policy changes the ministry is undertaking that will, on a permanent basis, speed the process up so that we won't find ourselves in the same position after those 40 people finish the backlog and go away.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I think there are a couple of initiatives that I can speak to. First, I think the changes we made to the commercial recreation policy is one of the key ways in which we'll deal with a lot of the backlog of applications and future applications, with the no-permitting level, the quick-permitting level and the longer periods of review for long-term lease arrangements that require modification or facility building on the land. Increasing the length of the tenure period is also not only of assistance to the business who wants to begin on a Crown land opportunity but also enables them to get better financing which can more quickly enable them to take a new business opportunity forward.

So there's the commercial recreation policy, and that's having an effect already. There's something we call Tantalis, which is a computerized system that is just about up and running, as I understand it, and will enable staff to be quicker in terms of how they process applications. It'll all be able to be done centrally. It will be a really important tool to be able to keep track of applications and how we're doing those. We're also trying to spend some time -- initially of course we're spending more time on the backlog -- doing more policy work in the pre-planning, or zoning stage, so that we know about areas that would be appropriate for certain uses ahead of time. That will speed up the application process, because we will have done that work on a preliminary basis prior to application.

One of the other initiatives is the fact that when we take applications from applicants, we're giving them a better package of information that they're required to complete. We're taking an initial look at their applications sooner, so if there is any problem with their application, we can get it back to them in a timely way and ask them to supplement the application with the required information. Then we can process it again more quickly. Those are some of the initiatives we've engaged in to be able to speed up the process.

M. Coell: A number of people wrote me during the spring and actually sent not a resume but. . . . They have been in contact with the ministry a number of times. It seemed to me that there had been an attitude within the ministry that didn't exist a dozen years ago, when the ministry was more likely to say: "How can I help you get your farm or ranch going?" It is more like: "You have to fill out all these forms before we'll allow you to do this." Those changes take place in organizations where you get an attitude change that is actually a lot more of the problem than anything else. That may be overwork or reduction in staff, and staff feel they just can't go any further. I've seen that myself at the regional or municipal level in different departments. It was quite significant to me that I kept seeing the same sort of thing, where there would be 15 or so visits by ministry staff, but none of the problems were getting resolved quickly.

I just wonder whether the ministry has looked at time frames for different levels of applications -- so that staff need to know that they need to work to those time frames -- and whether that would help change the process. The minister may want to comment on staffing levels, on whether, if you change a time, the staff just don't have the ability to do it anyway, so it doesn't matter whether you've set up a new time schedule.

Hon. C. McGregor: One of the ways that we've already begun to apply that strategy is with the backlog and putting those projects which have economic significance at a higher priority. We've put those kind of timelines to those applications and said that those are the ones we're going to work on very hard on an initial basis to deal with quickly. It's that kind of an approach, although it might not be quite rigid in how. . . . I think sometimes when people use this analogy, they say: "Okay, you either say you're going to have it done in 30 days, or it's automatically approved."

That might work in some lines of government, but I'm a little cautious around that in this ministry because of some of the environmental impacts. A lot of what we do is assessing something in terms of the context of other operations and overall use of an area, with wilderness values and so on. Sometimes those assessments can take a little longer. Now, they shouldn't always have to take longer.

I know that when the member talks about attitude changes, it's one of the things that I talk about every time I go into a region. I've also heard my deputy speak to this at senior management meetings. The two of us sing from the same song sheet in giving the message to staff that it's the opportunity to say: "How can we help you do your business better?" That's what it should be about. It shouldn't be about saying no or putting up roadblocks; it should be about how to get to yes. We're really trying to coach that amongst staff.

[5:00]

M. Coell: Just in the last line, under Crown land sales, are "Fees, royalties and miscellaneous." I would be interested to hear the breakout of royalties from the minister. Has that changed? It's not a significantly lower number this year, but it is lower. Maybe she could give me an example of royalties and whether they have decreased in number or in dollar figures.

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have the actual numbers of royalties here with us, but we can certainly take that question

[ Page 9596 ]

M. Coell: That's fine, if the minister could get me that. What I was interested in seeing was whether there is a decrease in revenues from that. There probably isn't, looking at the numbers.

I have some other questions with regard to human resources issues and staffing, but I think I'll do that later when we're dealing with the ministry's regional budgets. I know a member has some questions regarding Crown land, so I will take my seat.

R. Thorpe: I just have a couple of questions on a couple of subjects with respect to some Crown land issues. The first pertains to an issue that I know the minister is very familiar with, and that is the concern that B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters Association has with respect to leases on Crown lands and the amounts of money and increases that have taken place over the last several years. The minister made an announcement on May 29 in Kamloops and also talked about that subject. Could the minister please advise what progress has taken place on this issue since May 29?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, there's been a contract given to an individual to engage in this review, and he recently met with regional staff in the Kamloops office, in fact. There were terms of reference developed for that review. We don't have them here with us, but we would certainly be happy to get them for you and pass them along.

R. Thorpe: I would appreciate receiving those terms of reference as quickly as possible. With respect to this issue, and going back to the minister's comments earlier of how to get to yes and best business practices, could the minister advise what direction has been given to this contractor and what timelines have been established for resolution of these outstanding issues?

Hon. C. McGregor: The information I've been given is that that is covered off in the terms of reference. We don't have them here with us, but we will certainly get them for you.

R. Thorpe: This issue has been outstanding for some time -- for several years, as a matter of fact. Do we know in the broadest sense, without having to get the terms of reference, what target date has been set for resolution of this matter?

Hon. C. McGregor: Generally the information we've given to this contractor is that we'd like this dealt with in as timely a way as possible. We certainly expect to have a report from him by no later than the end of September.

R. Thorpe: Is this project expected to terminate at the end of September? Are we expecting some recommendations in that report in September, and is there some time frame after that when decisions are going to have to be made, one way or the other, with respect to the ministry? And what is the outside time limit, if we will -- when these people who have, in their opinion, been adversely affected can expect an answer on this matter? Is it September or sometime after that? If it is after that, when do you think the time would be?

Hon. C. McGregor: I would say that it would be in as timely a way as we can. Obviously this has been an outstanding issue for some time. I've met with a number of representatives in my own area on this question. It will depend, of course, largely on the nature of the recommendations how quickly they can be implemented, but certainly my goal is to move forward on them as soon as possible.

R. Thorpe: In looking at the terms of reference, how many operators, resorts and outfitters believe they are adversely affected by this policy? And how many outfitters and fishing resorts are covered by this contract?

Hon. C. McGregor: We know of problems with 16, but there are 125 camps in total around the province. Seventy of those are in the southern interior, so potentially it could affect a much broader category, depending on the recommendations.

R. Thorpe: I take it from that answer that it's not just focusing in on the 16 that are deemed to have a more severe problem but on the entire number the minister gave -- 16 plus perhaps some 70 others. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're starting our investigation with the 16, but it could easily affect all 125. Again, it depends on the outcome of the recommendations.

R. Thorpe: When the minister is forwarding the terms of reference, I'd appreciate if she could also forward the list of the 16. That finishes my questions on that area.

Let me move to the announcement that was made on May 29 with respect to the commercial back-country policy. What action has taken place since that announcement? How many staff were identified to be hired, and how many have been hired to deal with that specific back-country issue?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member may not have been here earlier when we canvassed the number of new staff that have been assigned to deal with Crown land applications, tenure conversions and so on. Forty new staff have been reassigned to do this work. They come from MELP as well as from some other ministries in government, and they include auxiliaries specifically related to the commercial recreation policy implementation.

There have been seven coordinators appointed around the province, one for each region. They are charged with the management of the commercial recreation applications in their region. As well, they are soliciting support from the additional 40 staff that have been hired.

As I described earlier, in some cases they're taking a group approach to dealing with backlogs in particular regions of the province where those exist, as well as dealing with new applications as they come forward. The new processing methods for these applications are making some of these permits much more timely and out the door much sooner.

R. Thorpe: I don't want to cover ground that's already been covered, but I had specifically asked our critic responsible if this area had been covered, and I was advised no. That's why I'm doing it. It fits in with my critic responsibilities of Small Business and Tourism. How many applications have been identified in backlog, and what is the timeline to have that backlog cleared up? When can we expect the first ones to have been processed?

Hon. C. McGregor: We believe there were an estimated 150 applications in place prior to the announcement. We don't

[ Page 9597 ]

[5:15]

R. Thorpe: So have we, in identifying the seven new regional coordinators and the 40 new staff and a backlog of 150. . . . I was led to believe the backlog was more than that, but I'm not going to argue with your figures, since you've got all the books and staff there. Have you identified a time line when you expect all of the backlog to have been cleared up?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, we are trying to target to have them done as quickly as possible. But as I explained earlier to the hon. member who serves as critic for this portfolio, it's important that we not get rigid about time frames, because in this ministry we have to assess things like environmental impacts, consultation in some cases with first nations, and these are not always matters that we have total control over. So we are doing our best to establish targets to have that backlog cleared as quickly as possible. That's why we've identified staff coordinators and regions. That's why we've tried these. . . . We're asking staff to work together in blitzes and other ways to clear the backlog and to work through some of the application issues. But we can't give a date by which every application will necessarily be totally completed.

R. Thorpe: I do realize that some of them will be more complex than others, and perhaps you have a methodology of sorting them into not so complex and very complex, etc. While you're dealing with that, what process -- and perhaps you've answered this, so just give me a quick answer if you have -- have we taken as new ones come in to ensure that. . . ? Do they go to the back end of the pile, or are we working in parallel: trying to get rid of the backlog and operating new applications in parallel?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're working in parallel.

R. Thorpe: Again, realizing that all of these applications are not the same, and some are much more complex than others. . . . But going back to the minister's statement on best business practices, have you established in broad terms a service level expectation, a time frame from probably the simplest application to the most complex, so that when someone's applying, they know that it's X number of weeks at a minimum and a maximum of whatever. Have you established that?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, it is our intention to do, what were called quick permits, which are the applications that have less complexity and can be issued very quickly. And we're just developing what those time frames might well be, but, as the name indicates, they will be very quick approval processes and out the door very speedily.

R. Thorpe: I know that a large part of this new emphasis on results has come from the organization COTA and, in particular, Mark Kingsbury working together with the minister and her staff. As you are developing these new processes and time lines, are you continuing to seek the inputs of the people in the industry whose investment and jobs are going to be created? Are we making them part of a process in developing our best practices?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, we are working actively with the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture and COTA, in particular. In fact, I myself met with Mark not long ago, and he identified a variety of issues that staff are following up on. So we're doing that work to ensure that we do that level of coordination.

M. Coell: We've been talking about the different areas of the backlog. I wonder if the minister could tell me when her staff first alerted her to the backlog.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd been minister for a couple of months when the matter came to my attention in about the middle of 1997. The backlog had indeed grown as a result of budgetary decisions government had taken that resulted in some staff downsizing in our ministry.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that comment. That takes me to where I want to go with regard to staffing levels, cuts in regions and changes to the ministry.

In 1992-93 the ministry had a budget of $242 million; in '93-94, $241 million; in '94-95, $256 million; in '95-96, $236 million; in '96-97, $234 million; in '97-98, $192 million; and in '98-99, $186 million. Part of the problem that we're dealing with in Crown Lands is probably the effect of those cuts. That's a $56 million or 23 percent cut to this particular ministry's budget from '92-93 to this year. When we get into dealing with the cuts to regions, we'll maybe see what the result of those are.

To leave my portion of Crown lands -- I know one other member has some questions on Crown lands -- this year's reduction is $5.547 million, or almost 3 percent, which is another cut. I believe this particular minister is a strong advocate for the environment. I would like to look at is: what's happening to government commitment to this ministry? I know that you can only play with the cards you're dealt in any job; I want to have a look at how those cards are being dealt in the different regions, but I'll leave the floor for the member who has some other questions on Crown lands.

J. van Dongen: I'm disappointed that I haven't had the opportunity to spend as much time in Environment estimates as I would like, and I don't necessarily know every detail of what's been covered. Certainly issues in the Ministry of Environment impact a lot of the issues that I find myself working on, and I think it's important, given the seriousness and complexity of some of these issues, that we try and maintain good working relationships with the ministry. As I said, I'm disappointed that I haven't had the opportunity to be here more than I have.

[ Page 9598 ]

I'll start with the agricultural leases. First of all, I should say that I appreciate the efforts that were made by the minister on the Jim Fowler case, in the constituency of Bulkley Valley-Stikine. That was a case where I think the circumstances warranted ministerial attention. I appreciate the fact that the minister did make some personal decisions there. I don't know if everything has been finalized, but I hope that it has been. If it hasn't been, I can assure the minister and the staff that I will talk to them again.

I have concerns on agricultural leases, and this particular case was an example. To some degree, it is the same concern that we see about some of the freshwater lodges. Because of the way the formula that the Crown uses to establish lease rates works -- and it's based, I guess, on a percentage of assessed value -- in some of these markets we've seen small numbers of sales establish some very high values. We've seen major increases in the lease rates for these people when trying to operate either as a farm -- very often a part-time farm -- or as a small fishing lodge. These businesses simply can't bear those kinds of rates. I wonder if the minister has the stats on the agricultural leases available. Could she tell me how many leases there are and how many of them would be in arrears? Do we have that kind of information?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are approximately 600 agricultural leases in the northern regions of the province. About 200 of them, due to unusually wet weather and poor harvests, were unable to meet their commitments. The member will know that in March I announced a two-year extension for agricultural leases that were in an area that was designated as a disaster area -- really because of the continuous wet weather. That was designed to deal with those who couldn't meet their commitments. It was applied retroactively for one year to cover farmers who had previously accepted a one-year policy extension, so they wouldn't lose any of their rental or cultivation credits.

J. van Dongen: I wasn't aware of those statistics, but it certainly speaks to the issue I was concerned about. The numbers are certainly higher than I expected. In terms of the geographic area, if I could ask the minister. . . . I think she said the central and northern regions of the province. Are there particular geographic areas where these types of leases are available? Would they be available, for example, in the Kootenays and also in the south?

Hon. C. McGregor: These leases are largely in the Peace, Skeena and Omineca regions.

[5:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: Not at this time.

J. van Dongen: So the intent of the ministry, then, is to simply go another year. Will there be any re-evaluation of situation at that time? Is the ministry thinking that a year from now, if there is a reasonable year this year, that number of 200 in arrears will be down to 100 or 50? What are the ministry's expectations, or is it simply the ministry's intent to let the debt pile up, if you will?

Hon. C. McGregor: The agricultural leases were given a two-year extension, so they have two years in which to continue with their credits in order to earn the full credit to be able to convert to a purchase. I can't speak for myself, nor for what future ministers might do at the end of that two-year time period. In my own case, I was moved by what was described to me as very significant weather events, and I saw photographs of land that was virtually under water for the better part of a year and was simply not available for people to put improvements into. I would simply say that if it were myself, faced with similar circumstance, I would certainly be prepared to consider that. But obviously that is a future policy discussion, and I can't announce today what that might be two years from now.

J. van Dongen: Well, I'm sure the minister expects to be in this position two years from now. She can deal with some of the results of her policies. I think that's actually a good thing -- for ministers to stay in their ministries long enough to deal with some of the impacts.

Has any consideration been given to any form of mediation or appeal that would take an appeal out of the minister's responsibility? I think that puts ministers in a very difficult position. I think the minister knows, on previous amendments to appeal processes that she has made, that I'm a firm believer in good appeal processes that are properly structured. Has there been any consideration given on these agricultural leases, where there are individual problems or disputes, to direct them to some form of mediation -- to someone other than the original decision-maker or the Lands office that these people may have to deal with? Has there been any thought on some alternative appeal or mediation or something like that?

Hon. C. McGregor: We have an appeal policy in place, and it's fairly new. We've asked, in the case of individuals who would like an appeal of a decision taken on an agricultural lease, that they can make an appeal to my ADM, Dr. Jon O'Riordan. Dr. O'Riordan is a very fair-minded individual who takes into full account all of the issues and concerns. We're going to try out that process and see how it works.

J. van Dongen: That is useful to know, and certainly I'm working on a few cases with Dr. O'Riordan. We'll see how reasonable and fair-minded he is.

If I could just revert to the same general topic but again speaking to the freshwater lodges. I understand that there are 250 freshwater fishing lodges and 109 of them are on government-owned land. I have spoken a couple of times in the past to one of their very active spokesmen and operators, and some of the information with respect to her property is very interesting. I talked about the major increase in assessed value. In this particular case, the assessed value went from $47,000 to $325,000 in four years. Now, that's an extremely huge increase in assessed value, and based on the formula for pricing these leases by the government, that will trigger a major increase in the lease fee.

In this case, the lease fee is somewhere between 3.5 percent and 5 percent of the assessed value. So rents went up

[ Page 9599 ]

I don't know too many businesses that can absorb that kind of increase in costs. These aren't large businesses; they're pretty small operations. They don't have huge advertising budgets; they're pretty low-budget operations. I know in this particular case. . . . I'll give you the name. It's Sandra Miller. I suspect that she's known to the minister and to the ministry; I hope she is. She has indicated to me that she is simply going to quit paying, that she can't pay these kinds of rates. I think she's decided to pay some kind of rate that she figures is reasonable. So there's a huge debt building up there.

I don't know if the government has these statistics. Of the 109 fishing lodges that are on government land, would the minister know what percentage are in arrears -- as Sandra Miller is?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are 16 in arrears.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister confirm what the trends are? What has been the trend over the last three years, let's say, in terms of the number in arrears?

Hon. C. McGregor: That number's been stable.

J. van Dongen: If these arrears continue to build up, as it appears they will, at what point will the government decide to take action in terms of trying to collect arrears or trying to. . . ? I imagine the government has a clause in the lease that enables it to cancel the lease. What sorts of remedies does the government have in these situations?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'll just draw the member's attention to Hansard, to a discussion from earlier this afternoon where we talked about a review that's ongoing as a result of the concerns. I certainly assume that as part of the outcome of that review, we'll be able to deal with the matter of arrears.

J. van Dongen: I will check Hansard. I don't know how full an application it has to the questions I have. Maybe I will just pose this question: does the ministry, together with the Ministry of Fisheries, consider the whole concept of the freshwater lodge industry within British Columbia to be a growth area? Is the government -- particularly the ministry itself, who puts out these leases -- looking at trying to expand that area to develop a more active market in that area?

Hon. C. McGregor: Just so the member is aware, the review is especially targeted to fish camp operators -- we did canvass this question with the previous member -- and that review is ongoing. I think there is generally a trend towards more fishing resorts, and there are new opportunities, particularly in northern British Columbia. We're doing a lot of work on angling plans in the north. Again, this is an area of overlap between the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- Lands in particular, because we have the tenure question to deal with. The Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, for instance, is another ministry that is involved. We don't actually have an active strategy to promote that at this time, but I certainly think that it is an area of future growth, particularly in the tourism and ecotourism sectors.

J. van Dongen: Yes, it's true that certainly there are overlapping responsibilities between the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Environment. But when I look at a lot of these issues, it seems to me that certainly the land tenure issues are all being made in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The land tenure issues and the issues of these lease rates are critical issues to industry development and growth.

I don't have all of the material here that I had hoped to have, but maybe I'll ask the minister to respond on the issue of shellfish tenures at this time. Very clearly, the shellfish industry is a major opportunity area for the B.C. economy. When we see some of the difficulties that our coastal communities are facing, here is a related industry right in British Columbia that provides good growth opportunities, good export opportunities, good job opportunities. It seems that the major impediment is the land tenure issues and the decision-making process within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

I'm sure the minister knows there was a study done by Coopers and Lybrand in June of '97. This was phase 1 of a study that was commissioned by Western Economic Diversification, which talked about the huge opportunities in shellfish in British Columbia. The industry is currently at about $11 million a year. This study -- which I thought was a very solid, credible piece of work -- talked about the potential for expansion to $100 million over ten years. It didn't require a huge commitment of sites, of actual acreage.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what the program is within her ministry to try and expedite the issuance of new shellfish tenures. I know that there is debate about new shellfish tenures and additional sites for existing operators. Would the minister start by telling us what the overall program is, and we'll go from there?

The Chair: Minister, noting the time.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, we're actively working on an analysis with the B.C. shellfish industry -- on a strategy to enhance and promote the growth of the shellfish aquaculture industry. But I'm not in a position to reveal details of that strategy at this time. We hope to be making an announcement in that regard shortly.

J. van Dongen: Noting the hour, I guess it falls to me to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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