2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 9

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: I'd like the House to welcome some people who were in the precinct earlier on today for an announcement by the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations about the extension of a park on Quadra Island.

There are a number of my constituents there who were very happy to be at that event and who would like to thank the ministers for making it happen: Ken Roxburgh and Louella Baker from the Quadra Island Conservancy; Susan Westren and Geraldine Kenny, who are working on Save the Heart of Quadra Parks; Russell Hotsenpiller, the CAO of the Strathcona regional district, who played a part, along with Jim Abram, the chair of the Strathcona regional district; and Richard Leicester, who is a long-time activist on the trails committee.

[1335]

Sadly missing was Judy Leicester, Richard's wife, who died 18 months ago quite suddenly. I think everyone there from Quadra would acknowledge that the reason that we got to this stage was thanks to Judy. For 15 years she's been fighting for this park extension. She wasn't there today, obviously, but she was very much there in spirit.

I hope the House would make welcome all of the people who came and also acknowledge the hard work of somebody who loved the parks and loved B.C.

D. Horne: Madame Speaker, on your behalf and on behalf of the Legislature, I'd like to welcome special visitors from the state of Washington who are here today — Andy Stepleton and Mike Wright. Also in the gallery is Andy's wife, Kathie Roberts. Would the House make them truly welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: In Committee A there will be continued debates of the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and, if that completes, then on to the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 25.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — PORT METRO VANCOUVER
CONTAINER TRUCKING SERVICES
CONTINUATION ACT

(continued)

H. Bains: Once again I will continue with my remarks around Bill 25, as I started this morning. I briefly explained in my previous time before the lunch some of the reasons why we should not support this bill and why it will not do what it's intended to do.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Part of the reason I mentioned is that it's only intended towards 250 drivers, 250 owner-operators, when we have over 1,900 overall, so it does not do what it is intended to do. Therefore, we should not proceed with this bill, and that's why we should not support this bill.

In order to continue with this debate, I'd like to draw members of the chamber, and those who may be listening, to some of the background, some summary of what has been happening at the Port Metro Vancouver operations and what brought us to this turmoil that we are in right now. We talked about how this government knew, not months but years leading up to this dispute finally coming to a head; how this government did not take it seriously; how Port Metro Vancouver ignored the plights of the owner-operators, the unions and the warning from the previous Minister of Labour.

Going all the way back to 2010, the indications were there. The signs were there. The warnings were there that there are serious concerns that need to be fixed and need to be fixed immediately and that both levels of government continue to ignore. Even when it was imminent that the destruction of the port would begin soon, again, the governments, rather than sitting down and looking at the situation and working towards bringing all stakeholders together, started pointing fingers at each other. The provincial government said that it's a federal jurisdiction. The federal government said they have nothing to do with it; it's a provincial issue.

In the meantime, that problem continued to fester, and all of a sudden, on March 10, I believe it was, the unionized truckers, went on strike as well. I think the responsibility of this mess lies squarely at the feet of this government, and they chose to ignore the warnings. I just want to go back to give a little history and some chronological events that occurred.

[1340]

This was around the time when the Minister of Transportation announced that the government would introduce back-to-work legislation for approximately 250 Unifor–Vancouver Container Truckers Association truckers that have been on strike at Port Metro Vancouver
[ Page 2356 ]
since March 10, 2014. This was the time when Unifor and their trucking companies that they're certified to were in negotiations. As a result of that announcement, they all walked away, and we are in a crisis situation right now.

The further approximately 1,200 non-union truckers represented by the United Truckers Association have been protesting since February 26. The port has indicated that they will not be renewing licences for non-union truckers that do not return to work. Not all non-union truckers are members of the UTA.

On March 23 the port stated that trucking volumes had risen to 40 percent of the normal, suggesting that not all UTA truckers are respecting the protest or the picket line. I don't know if that's the reality, but that's what was the story.

Unifor disagrees. Director Gavin McGarrigle said: "I have been on the lines, and I can tell you that there is nowhere near the amount that they are claiming." As the minister stood up here and read a letter from the chamber and said that there's only 10 to 20 percent of the activity that is going on at the port, those numbers don't jive.

The port is saying 40 percent of the truckers are back, and the chamber is saying only 10 to 20 percent of the activity takes place. Anyway, those are the numbers, and they all try to tell their story.

Unifor-VCTA members are not employees of the port. Rather, they are employees of the trucking companies — so that people understand what's going on here — that do business with the port. While the port is federally regulated, these certifications are under provincial jurisdiction.

The dispute is the third work stoppage since 1999. There was no legislation brought in to solve the previous disputes. The port charges now…. Well, they used to charge a $240-a-day container storage fee for the first week of the work stoppage. Now they're charging somewhere from $455 to $500 a day.

Again, the responsibility for this damage being caused to these companies is because of this government's lack of action and not taking those issues seriously. Now the businesses are paying for it. The workers, the truckers, are paying with the loss of work, and now we face back-to-work legislation rather than negotiations.

Then there were jurisdictional arguments going back and forth between the provincial and federal government, as I've said earlier. The Premier actually said: "If we could settle it ourselves as a province, we would. We don't have the jurisdiction here." This is what she said on the news at 11:30, March 13. This is the time they should have been sitting down with the truckers and bringing all the stakeholders together to hammer out a collective agreement.

This was around the time when, actually, Unifor and those trucking companies were sitting around the negotiating table trying to hammer out a deal despite the fact that this government was working to pull the rug from underneath those negotiations. They did in the end, and those companies walked away. I've said that earlier.

Unifor had called for the government to appoint Vince Ready as a mediator as early as November 7, 2013. Here is what I think is important to understand, for all those people who are watching this and every member of this House. The minister stood up today and said Mr. Ready is ready to mediate the dispute — now, after instituting back-to-work legislation. They never appointed him as a mediator. They were asking since November 2013: "Appoint Mr. Ready as mediator." The government continued to sleep through the crisis.

[1345]

When the work stoppage occurred, even then they did not bring him in as a mediator. I mean, this is how casually this government took this issue. As a result, all those businesses are hurting, large, big and small. This government is responsible for that, and I think they should not feel good about this — what they're doing.

Since 2013, when they were asking for the mediator…. The federal minister appointed Mr. Ready to review the dispute, but he was not given powers to mediate. Those are the facts. I don't know why the Minister of Jobs and for Labour continues to question that. Those are the facts. They refused to appoint Mr. Ready as mediator, as was asked for by all parties concerned — that there should be a mediator appointed. The government did not do that.

Unifor stated that a sectoral bargaining framework, similar to what exists between the B.C. port and longshoremen, is the only solution to ensure long-term stability. They have called for a sectoral bargaining approach to be included in a review by Vince Ready.

They are proposing all kinds of different proposals to sort through this mess and come to a conclusion of a negotiated settlement, but they need a partner on the other side. Those partners, the provincial and federal governments, were missing. Port Metro Vancouver was missing. That's why we are in the situation that we are in today.

Now the minister talks about the urgency of dealing with this issue, when they continued to sleep through the time when the urgency was there prior to the work stoppage. They did not take that seriously.

The dispute is the third withdrawal of service by truckers to the port in the last 15 years — the third. The failure of a resolution to the 1999 dispute led to a 2005 dispute. Similarly, the failure of a resolution to the 2005 dispute has led to the 2014 dispute that we are dealing with right now.

In 1999 and 2005 the disputes were ended with memorandums of agreement. No back-to-work legislation was brought in. At that time it was decided to negotiate, and the deal was negotiated. It worked for a while. Then, again, this government and the Port Metro Vancouver left their eyes off the enforcement side. Undercutting continues despite the fact that the government knew.

Mr. Coell, the previous Minister of Labour, wrote to the port and said that they were really concerned after they'd seen the audit conducted by the province, that
[ Page 2357 ]
issues were serious and they'd better start to do the enforcement. Nothing happened, just the letter. Nothing happened.

In 2005 the memorandum agreement was actually backed by a federal order-in-council. Back-to-work legislation was not introduced in either of those cases. That's a bit of the background.

Again, if you go back to 1999, the memorandum agreement was signed to end a month-long dispute that saw 450 owner-operators withdraw their services. June 27, no back-to-work legislation — negotiations.

In 2005, under this government, members of the Vancouver Container Truckers Association stopped work and effectively shut down the port. VCTA members were not unionized at that time, eh? On June 30, 2005, federal and provincial governments jointly appointed Vince Ready as facilitator to resolve the dispute. They didn't go for back-to-work legislation. They brought in Mr. Ready to mediate the dispute.

On July 29, 2005, a memorandum agreement was produced by Mr. Ready. VCTA accepted the memorandum of agreement, but the trucking company did not. The MOA included minimum rates known as the Ready rates.

[1350]

On August 4, 2005, the federal government issued an order-in-council directing the port to implement the July MOA by establishing a licence system which required companies to sign on to the MOA in order to access the port. That to me is the leadership. That to me is actually taking the issue and saying: "These are the issues. This is the solution. It will give us a short-term and long-term solution to it." That's where the leadership is that is missing right now during this dispute.

On October 26, 2005, a task force report was issued with a set of recommendations to solve the issues underlying the 1999 and 2005 disputes. In 2006 many but not all members of VCTA are unionized with CAW, now Unifor. In July 2007, on the expiry of the 2005 MOA, the federal government enacted a regulation to make compliance with the minimum MOA rates a requirement for all trucking companies operating in the ports.

Port Metro Vancouver delegates elements of the compliance function of the TLS to the province through the Ministry of Transportation, which establishes the container truck dispute resolution program. That's what Mr. Coell was referring to when they conducted the audit, when they found about 350 owner-operators owed over $645,000 in unpaid wages. I could give credit then to the people involved that that was the way to deal with it, but then they left it up to the companies to self-monitor. Undercutting started to begin again, and we have the same problem as we had in 2005.

In 2010 Transport Canada and Port Metro Vancouver conclude that the 2005 MOA does not apply in terms of its enforceability by Port Metro Vancouver to off-dock work. June 3, 2010, Labour Minister Murray Coell writes to the port, expressing concern that recommendations made by the container truck dispute resolution program are not being dealt with. I mean, this is 2010.

Any reasonably thinking person watching this and looking at how this whole situation unfolded…. Government knew that there was undercutting going on. Government's own audit revealed in 2010 that there are all kinds of enforcement issues that the port should be paying attention to. They did not, and the government thought that was their duty to just write them a letter and then do nothing after that — hope for the best.

On December 20, 2010, VCTA and CAW representatives met with the federal minister, Stockwell Day, to discuss complaints over the port authority operations regulations introduced in 2007 and ineffective rate enforcement by the port. That's what brought us here. There was no intent by this government or Port Metro Vancouver of working together or bringing the federal government in to say: "Look, there is a serious issue brewing here. We need to deal with this."

All of this is in addition to Unifor writing them a letter and truckers going to Port Metro Vancouver and many of the truckers meeting with the ministers on the other side, the members on the other side and with us. Nothing happened, as if this government thought that we don't need to get involved.

Maybe if they had carried on with that same attitude to not get involved, we probably would have had a good collective agreement now, because they were making progress until this minister decided to intervene and went to the side of the employer to do their dirty work of sending them back to work.

That's what Mr. McGarrigle said — that we were doing fine without their intervention. We would have a collective agreement that could have been used as a master agreement to apply all across, but then the minister said: "No, we will send them back to work." Not a way to deal with collective agreements or collective bargaining — not, not.

[1355]

The current dispute. On October 23, 2013, non-union truckers represented by the United Truckers Association staged a protest at the office of Port Metro Vancouver and threatened to walk off the job if demands were not met. This was October 2013. In October 2013 they had a protest at the Port Metro Vancouver offices. They were trying to draw attention to the issues, but again Port Metro Vancouver slept through it, this government allowed Port Metro Vancouver to sleep through it, and the federal government did nothing.

Now they're blaming the truckers for the work stoppage, blaming the same people that were trying to bring to their attention all the issues around this dispute. This government and their counterparts federally and Port Metro Vancouver did nothing. Those are some of the key dates of what brought us here.
[ Page 2358 ]

I think in order to really look at the impact on these trucking companies and these owner-operators, you need to look at Drayage Owner-Operators: Understanding Container Drayage Owner-Operators in Metro Vancouver, a report that was put together by the Asia Pacific Gateway Skills Table.

In here they list how these trucking companies are actually losing money going to work, and this government wants them to do more by sending them back to work. How fair is that? Rather than dealing with some of their key issues…. As the United Truckers Association, UTA, has been saying, at least agree to two, three of their key issues. "We'll go back to work. Bring Mr. Ready in, and then we can sort out the rest of this stuff." But no, this government does not want to negotiate. That's why we are in a mess, and that's why our reputation is being ruined all across the globe with our trading partners.

Mr. Speaker, I will just let you know that this report was prepared July 2013, and it talked about how the system actually works. I will not bore anybody with that, but this is what they talk about. "All workers such as truck drivers requiring regular and frequent access to Port Metro Vancouver property must have port-authorized photo identification, called a port pass. Failure to have a valid port pass may result in being refused access to the port."

Then there's the reservation system. Then they talk about key requirements to access Port Metro Vancouver container terminals. Then there's a truck licensing system — full-service operator licences, independent owner-operator permits. Then they go on to talk about understanding the owner-operator business. Who are drayage owner-operators? It lists it here. The list is very, very detailed. You look at what they need to do as who they are, owner-operators.

Then I go to this area where it says: "Sensitivity of the Model to Changes in Productivity." There's exhibit 9 in here, page 28. It goes like this. It "illustrates the impact of improving truck productivity on owner-operators’ returns. In the base case scenario, the owner-operator makes three revenue trips per day and has to travel 20 kilometres to the terminal to pick up the container as well as another ten kilometres from the delivery terminal to position for the next revenue load. This results in a total of 30 kilometres of unpaid driving"— unpaid driving; they're burning gas, they have $150,000 invested in their truck, and they're working without pay for 30 kilometres — "and limits the number of paid container moves that can be handled in the day. Under this scenario, the net return to the driver is $20.30 an hour."

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

After investing so much in their truck and spending that much time, they're making $20.30 an hour.

[1400]

"In the second scenario, the operator achieves four revenue trips per day and is able to reduce unproductive driving activity from 30 kilometres in the base case to ten kilometres due to double-ended moves. This reduces both the total distance driven and unproductive time. The result under this scenario is to improve the net return to $32.29 per hour."

Here is how you can actually make some gains for the truck drivers: if they could actually have four revenue trips instead of having only three revenue trips. There's a way to improve, and there's a document here showing clearly how you can do that.

This thing goes on with some recommendations, and also, it goes on to list more of how they're impacted on a daily basis. In the appendix, it talks about:

"This appendix demonstrates an application of the cost financial model for a typical drayage operation in Metro Vancouver. The following tables show sample results for a typical drayage operation. This includes a result for the profit estimator, the trip cost analyzer and pro forma financial tool — including five-year pro forma results, a profit-and-loss statement, working capital statement, cash flow statement, balance sheet and overall owner-operator financial evaluation for two scenarios."

I'm looking here at table 2, example of a trip cost analyzer. Average annual truck utilization kilometres, 60,000; average truck speed, 40 kilometres per hour. It goes on to say: acquisition price of tractor, $60,000 — because this is a used tractor that they're using. Then to terminal to pick up container, 20 kilometres; from pickup terminal to delivery terminal, 27 kilometres; from delivery terminal to chassis drop-off, ten kilometres. Total trucking distance, 57 kilometres. Calculated travel time in hours, one hour and 43 minutes.

Truck waiting times: at pickup terminals, 50 minutes; at delivery terminals, one hour; other queuing, 50 minutes. Total waiting time, two hours. Total time in hours, three hours and 43 minutes.

When you look at the revenue, under (a) under this scenario, it's $143.10. Then when they take the cost of fuel, repair and maintenance — fuel is $31.22; repair and maintenance, $6.92; miscellaneous, 85 cents; tires, $1.58 — total variable cost is $40.58.

Capital recovery: changes in ownership, $15.04; licences, $2.27. Total tractor fixed cost, $17.31. So overhead costs are insurance, $7.60; administration, $9.50. Total overhead cost, $17.10. Total fixed and overhead cost is $34.31. Total trip cost, variable plus fixed, is $92.30. Net return to the owner-operator, (a) minus (b) minus (c): $68.11.

I mean, this is the situation these truck drivers are going through, and this government knew all along. These are the reports done by professionals. You would think that the reasonable, thinking government — the reasonable government; the reasonable, thinking ministers — would think through this.

These are your citizens; these are our citizens. These are your neighbours. These are the people who actually are the backbone of our economy. They move products that we need every day to put on the table to eat. They move all the products for our business people to do their
[ Page 2359 ]
business. Without them, nothing moves. But this is the situation they're in financially, and government completely ignored it.

That's why we are in a situation that we are in today. It's the complete ignorance portrayed by this government. Complete disrespect shown by this government toward those truckers has the result that we are in the mess that we are in today.

[1405]

This report continues on. They make this a pro forma profit-and-loss statement here. I hope that the minister will pay attention to this, and I hope the minister will actually pick up a copy and read this. It's been available since…. It was made public July 2013. So they had all of this information at their perusal, but they ignored it.

Here we have another chart showing a drayage in 2013 dollars of $112,500, That's the total for the year. Then the costs: driver operating time, $32,344; driver waiting time, $43,000 — that's the waiting time, $43,000; fuel, $24,600; repair and maintenance, $5,466; miscellaneous, $670; tires, $1,251. Total vehicle cost is $107,504.

Then there are fixed tractor costs: depreciation, $13,000; interest, $2,430; licences, $2,394. Total tractor fixed costs at $17,824. Overhead costs: insurance, $8,000; administration, $10,000. Total overhead costs: $18,000. Total cost: $143,328.

I hope that everyone on that side is paying attention to this. So $143,328 is the cost. What did I say earlier was the total drayage and total revenue? It's $112,500. So what does that leave you with? It's $30,828 in the hole. That's 2013. If the situation isn't improved by 2017, despite the rate increases a bit, they're forecast to lose $31,000. That's how much they will lose, more than today.

The minister here is standing up that they brought this bill in reluctantly. Well, those members have been waiting and waiting, patiently trying to bring this to the attention of someone who will listen, someone in authority who could make some decisions — going back, like I said, to 2010, as acknowledged by a previous Minister of Labour, and continually reminded.

Then the United Truckers Association had to have a protest in front of the Port Metro Vancouver to draw to their attention the seriousness of the issue. Again, Port Metro Vancouver did nothing. This government did nothing. They just continued to sit idly by.

You know what? I must remind you this is a time when people were expecting this government to call this House to session so that we could do some people's business — but no. They thought that they didn't have to come to Victoria, that it's a sick culture, as the Premier would put it.

That was the time to deal with this issue. That was real people's business that we needed to do, but no, they decided to sit through it, and now they're blaming truckers. They're blaming everyone they could find to blame, except themselves — except taking some responsibility for the mess that they have created.

How do you expect anyone in this day and age in Canada and British Columbia to go to work and lose money? But that's what this government is asking those truckers to do.

This was not put together by truckers. This is put together, hopefully, by some reputable agencies and was conducted for Port Metro Vancouver and this government. They called for this report. But they ignored that report, like they ignored every other sign of a problem ahead. That's why we should not support this bill. It does nothing to solve the problem.

[1410]

They talk about a 90-day cooling-off period. If the intention is the same as they displayed in the previous 90 days and previous to that 90 days and last year and the year before, nothing is going to get solved in those 90 days. If they didn't have any intention of solving this through negotiations when the 14-point plan was put together…. Why wasn't that used as a tool of negotiation, rather than saying, "No negotiations," and not even an explanation of what that means? How does that work in this day and age for collective bargaining?

I don't get it. Those truckers don't get it. The public doesn't get it. Where is this government? Here, again, rather than helping, they made the matter worse by interfering in the bargaining process that was going on.

Gavin McGarrigle, who represents hundreds of unionized port truckers, says that once the provincial government promised back-to-work legislation, the truck companies avoided negotiations. How bad can it be? How incompetent does one have to be to do this kind of task, then to stand up here and talk about our reputation abroad, talk about thousands of jobs being lost and at risk, talk about the businesses and how they're losing their businesses, and talk about extra storage fees they're asked to pay?

Well, where were they to deal with these issues when they had the opportunity? They slept through the crisis. Even now they had an opportunity. They missed that opportunity to put all of those parties together and say: "Look, negotiate. Hammer out a deal. That's the only way to do it." They said: "No, we'll do your work. We'll send them back to work." The clear message to the companies was: "You don't need to negotiate. We'll send them back to work."

Again, hardly any thought went through when they put this…. Well, first when they made the announcement, and secondly, when they put this bill together. How is this going to solve the problem at the port when only 250 truckers are involved with this bill, are affected by this bill, and then we have another 1,500 or 1,600 truckers out there still in dispute? That issue is still there, so it does not make any sense.

I'm going to read you…. This is what a trucker does on a daily basis. This is a real story, and I hope the min-
[ Page 2360 ]
isters and everyone on the other side is paying attention.

This driver says:

"I woke up at 5 a.m. to start my day in Richmond at 6:30 a.m. I left Simard warehouse at seven to drop an empty at Euro Asia — $80. I took the empty chassis to Fraser-Surrey docks to pick up a load. I arrived at the terminal around 9:30. I got out of the Fraser-Surrey docks approximately 11:45 a.m., just before their lunchtime. Had I not been that lucky, I would have been gotten out of the port just before 1 p.m., since they start their lunch break at ten to noon and don't come back to the booth till quarter to 1 p.m.

"I arrived with that container in Chilliwack at 1 p.m. — $185. I bobtailed to another customer in Chilliwack. I picked up an empty container to bring back to Euro Asia in Richmond for $180. I called clear at 3:40 and was asked to wait for a 7 p.m. appointment for a load in and out of Deltaport. I had a couple of hours to spare. I arrived at Deltaport's in gate with a loaded can at approximately 8:30, due to a long lineup — $110. Believe it or not, I left Deltaport at 12:50 a.m."

This is a guy who started at five o'clock in the morning. Now he's talking about 12:50 a.m. and $110.

"I got home at 2:30 a.m. Revenues — $660; expenses — $195 diesel, based on 291 kilometres driven at 2.2 kilometres per litre, and at $1.50 per litre; $32 insurance at 43 percent discount for working; $30 daily maintenance and repair per working day; $30 daily miscellaneous expenses and fees. So $378 income earned for the 18-hour day."

[1415]

Now $15 WCB, $30 income tax, so $333 divided by 18: $18.50 per hour. This is a worker who left home at six o'clock and didn't go home till 2:30 a.m. He made $18.50 an hour.

These are the conditions that you are forcing these people to go back to. That's not responsible. That's not responsible government. You need to listen to these people. They are the people who actually bring food to your tables, and they help run businesses, where other jobs are created.

There's another story — same thing, over and over every day. Here is a letter from a young woman:

"Good afternoon" — it's addressed to me — "My name is Kelly Dhaliwal. I'm a student that lives in Surrey, B.C., and I am heartbroken hearing the news of truck drivers that are currently on strike. This hurts because I'm a daughter of a father who is a truck driver and works at the Port of Vancouver.

"My father has been staying home for the past two weeks. He is the only one that supports my family. It's hard enough for him paying bills, getting weekly groceries, etc. There are approximately 1,400 truck drivers that are currently in pain, stressed, as well as hoping to get their job back as soon as possible.

"If no one helps, everyone will struggle. Our community is getting weaker by the day. We need to get stronger. Losing this, we will lose the transportation of goods coming in and out of B.C.

"I hope that this gets resolved as soon as possible with a new environment for everyone, having a positive environment at work. I am and always will support my father and the others who are suffering in this position.

"Thank you.

"Sincerely,

"Kelly Dhaliwal"

It affects peoples lives. These are ordinary folks. They need to pay their bills. The government ignored them — completely ignored them. That's why I will be strongly recommending to everyone not to support this bill.

Here's a bit more to the background. Before I do that, let me go into the United Truckers Association and their issues that they put together. They put together five issues. The government talks about a 14-point formula. There are five issues. They said:

"Deal with a few of them, and we'll go back to work. Bring Mr. Ready in as a mediator with powers to recommend.

"Waiting time — No. 1 issue. To elaborate on this issue, as you are no doubt are aware, most truckers are owner-operators and only receive payment when they pick up or deliver containers. The inefficiency in the current process that leads to long waits for truck drivers is costly to the letter. They are financially penalized for an inefficient system that is not their creation. We would suggest that Port Metro Vancouver consider a change that sees truckers get paid an hourly rate in 15-minute increments once they enter the port property until they finally exit.

"In this regard, perhaps having a recording device at each port entrance may be useful. More specifically, we request that Port Metro Vancouver consider installing such recording devices at the Clark, Heatley and McGill entrances to the port and on the overpass leading to the entrance to Deltaport. For greater clarity, we have attached a map illustrating where the devices should be installed. We hope that you give this proposal a favourable consideration.

"We also recommend for your consideration a dual appointment system — that is, when a truck enters the port with a container to drop off, it should be able to pick up the outing container without delay. This avoids traffic congestion at the port, portside and on the city streets.

"Further, we also think that Port Metro Vancouver should ensure that it has the requisite in place to ensure that container truck drivers can have a turnaround time of no more than one hour from the time they enter the port property."

[1420]

They're saying:

"You could have us for an hour. You have one hour to turn us around. Then, if your system is forcing us to wait longer than that, we should be paid."

Well, what's wrong with that? These people are at work. They are saying: "When we are at work, we should be getting paid." I don't know what part of that this government doesn't understand. It only would be because they have no respect for the working people. Other than that, why wouldn't they? Who else in this world goes to work, is made to wait around and doesn't get paid? Who else?

Interjection.

H. Bains: The minister talks about, over there….

I hope that maybe it could apply to the members of this House. For the 200 days that you are sitting at home, maybe you shouldn't have gotten paid. Maybe we shouldn't have gotten paid. None of us should have gotten paid — 200 days.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, through you, what's going on here? When you're at work and you're made to wait and it's not your fault, you should be getting paid. That's what the truckers are asking.

They have plenty of time to deal with these issues, but
[ Page 2361 ]
they ignored that.

Then they have a map here showing how far and how long they have to wait. There's a lineup that could be 8.8 kilometres long that they have to wait in. Is it their fault? No. They're told to be there at a certain time, and when they're there, they are made to wait four hours and don't get paid. I mean, it's just blatantly wrong in this day and age.

Then there's the enforcement of rates issue. The current system of rate enforcement is deficient. More specifically, it lacks transparency. It is slow, not policed and, frankly, deficient.

The port has also decided not to have the rates proposed by Mr. Ready in the memorandum of agreement apply to containers picked up and dropped off at rail intermodal facilities. The said rates only apply to containers going to and from deep-sea terminals.

"In our view, the same rates proposed by Mr. Ready should apply for each move of any container, empty or loaded, on a round-trip basis. Payment of these rates should include moves to and from rail yards and other off-dock facilities. Owner-operators and company drivers must be paid for all containers moved, according to the same rate schedule.

"Truck companies who do not pay the correct rate should have their licences immediately revoked as a consequence. This, together with some process of making public the infraction of the company, should serve as a deterrent to those companies that may otherwise contemplate violating these rates.

"We would go even further, to suggest that owner-operators and the company drivers who participate or are complicit in the rate infraction should have their licences revoked. The companies found to be in violation should not be able to operate under another entity, as it has happened in the past. Rate enforcement should apply to all truck companies and truckers licensed to operate from the port, both union and non-union."

Again, this is a pretty reasonable approach and a reasonable demand. Why can't we get Port Metro Vancouver, with the help of this government — have those folks together — to deal with this very reasonable demand that they have?

Then they also are talking about after the dispute, the TLS. They talk about, after the dispute in 2005, that the port put into place a moratorium on new entrants to the sector, both for owner-operators and company drivers.

[1425]

"The port has lifted the moratorium and wants to allow for a new type of temporary licences. This will only lead to more instability and undercutting. The port must put the moratorium back in place and stop granting any new licences until there is an industry-wide effective solution in place to address the undercutting issue."

Again, a pretty reasonable demand — again, being ignored.

Then there's the diesel oxidation catalyst. This is another area of concern for the independent truckers. It's called, in short, DOC.

"Standards are discriminatory as are implemented and enforced by trucks working at Port Metro Vancouver and not elsewhere in the industry. UTA has researched and discovered that DOC installation is something that was adopted from the United States, where truckers receive subsidies and rebates from DOC installation.

"Canadian truckers do not receive any subsidy or rebates. According to engineers in the industry, there are some drawbacks to this technology, which include but are not limited to the following. After installing the DOC, it brings down the engine performance, which results in more fuel consumption and shorter engine life. DOC standard is not compatible with older-style engines, which were not designed for DOC technology.

"According to engineers, new engines with a factory DOC system did not meet emissions targets. Engine manufacturer Caterpillar has stopped manufacturing new engines due to DOC requirements. According to Scania truck engineers, DOC system for older trucks should be totally abandoned. In light of the foregoing and particularly the fact that DOC is causing more fuel consumption, engine breakdown and is not subsidized by truckers in Canada, we respectfully submit that the requirement for DOC be removed."

Here's another issue that they brought to their attention but again were ignored. Then there's a memorandum of agreement they talk about:

"An MOA of July 2005 is no longer a functioning document for our industry. It is most definitely out of date with the current industry needs and does little, if anything at all, to restore the much-desired stability the industry required to operate efficiently and fairly."

This is an example of how the United Truckers Association were trying to solve the issue but, again, were completely ignored by this government. Here they put together a bit of an operations cost breakdown per month report by the United Truckers Association:

"Monthly costs. Insurance cost is $800. Fuel cost is $3,150. Wear and tear is $700. Truck parking is $250. Income tax is $700. Fees are $205. Total without truck payments is $5,805. Truck payment on a truck that is a 2005 or newer, which is the requirement, is $1,235. Total cost with the truck payment is $7,040 for the month."

Average container moves, they are saying four; average paid is $105. Gross earned per month is $8,820. Net income without truck payment is $3,015. Net income with truck payment is $1,780. Hourly breakdown wage for driver. Average daily shift hours is about 13 hours, they're saying. Net hourly wage without payment is $11.04.

These are people who are small business people, and they have invested in their trucks. This is what you're telling them to go back to — $11.04 an hour. How can you make a living spending that many hours away from your family and expect to go back to work and say: "Thank you very much, government"? Can't do that.

They said, again, the 14-point plan that they put together…. They took it to their drivers. Each driver knows what they go through every day and how much money they make. No wonder they rejected that 14-point plan, which was not negotiable. They were not given an opportunity to clarify any of those points — none whatsoever.

[1430]

I just want to say that here are some more letters that I talked about earlier on. I will read you some of those letters. This is November 7, 2013. This is the letter that was written by Paul Johal and Gavin McGarrigle. Paul Johal is the president of Unifor local VCTA, and Gavin McGarrigle is Unifor area director of British Columbia. They are saying: "Thank you for meeting with the representative from Unifor today on the important, urgent
[ Page 2362 ]
issues facing container truck drivers in British Columbia Lower Mainland ports."

I will not go through the whole letter, but I can tell you that this is a very, very serious letter, drawing to the companies', to this government's and to the Port Metro Vancouver's attention the seriousness of the issue.

"We strongly believe that a large-scale disruption from among the container truck population is once again imminent, and we believe that the time to act is now."

This was November 7, 2013. They're pleading for help. They are bringing this issue to this government and to Port Metro Vancouver.

"As you know, the last disruption in 2005 was very costly to the province and the federal economy and to the reputation of the port of Vancouver as a reliable and stable environment for trade. The last disruption was only resolved with the assistance of Vince Ready."

Here they are warning this government and Port Metro Vancouver that our reputation of the port of Vancouver as a reliable and stable environment for trade is at stake. What does this government do? Nothing. Ignored it. Ignored it completely. Now, how do you consider yourself a responsible government when you ignore such a warning?

They went on to say:

"We are therefore calling on the provincial government, the federal government, Port Metro Vancouver and all stakeholders to come together on an urgent basis with Vince Ready acting in a special capacity with clear terms of reference to make a recommendation to resolve the issue leading to the current potential threat of disruption."

How clear can one be? How can you be more clear than this? They're bringing to your attention, November 2013, that there's a serious issue here. But the minister sat around on his idle hands. The government sat around and did nothing — nothing. They are talking about those issues that they are identifying today. "In brief, the areas that need to be urgently addressed are sectoral bargaining, enforcement of rates and scope of truck licensing system, waiting times and a moratorium on new licensees."

This is very serious. Everyone except this government and Port Metro Vancouver knew that there were serious problems at the port. Everyone except this government and the Port Metro Vancouver and the federal government knew that our reputation was at stake with our trading partners abroad.

Everyone knew it would affect our businesses who depend on our port to bring their product in and ship our product. Right now the forest industry is worried that they can't ship their finished product to their customers because the crisis that was allowed to fester by this government is stopping their shipment from leaving our port.

Rather than standing up here, saying, "Sorry that we missed the time that we should have been acting, sorry that we should have acted earlier, sorry for not paying attention to this, sorry for letting down all of your truckers and the small businesses," what do they do? What's easier for them to do is bring in back-to-work legislation. Again, they didn't pick up what requires some courage, some compassion, to say: "Let's go back and go around the negotiating table. Let's work out a collective agreement."

[1435]

The whole weekend they were waiting for a call, for somebody to call them to start negotiations — most of the non-union and union truckers. Both sides were trying to meet with the government officials, to get together. "Let's negotiate a deal so that we don't have to be in the mess that we are in today." But again their request, their pleas were ignored by this government. That is not acceptable in this day and age in the democratic society that we live in.

These people are doing what is their right under the constitution. They're withdrawing their services after everyone ignored their pleas — everyone, including this government, the federal government, Port Metro Vancouver — despite repeatedly being reminded that there's a serious issue and despite repeatedly being told that they're losing money by going to work, that this cannot go on. What did the government do? Nothing. Sat around, did nothing.

Here's another letter — December 2010 — going back another three, four years. This letter is to Hon. Stockwell Day, to the federal government, from CAW, under the signature of Gavin McGarrigle, national representative, again bringing to their attention that there are structural failures in port authority operation regulations. They're identifying all of that stuff in this letter. This is an eight-page letter detailing all of those issues involved, why the government should get involved, why government should actually encourage Port Metro Vancouver to have all stakeholders sit down and deal with those issues.

Here they identify again the same stuff — greater transparency and penalties in enforcement, continuation of the moratorium on all new TLS licences, new proposed TLS licence fee to be rescinded, define the term "benchmark agreement," set minimum rates for all drivers, expand scope of regulations and enforcement.

Time and again all different parties were working to bring to their attention that there are some serious issues, and what did this government do? Nothing. And now they stand up here and make all kinds of speeches full of slogans and say: "Well, our reputation is at stake. Well, there are thousands of jobs at stake. Well, our businesses can't get their product in or out of our port."

Well, they should have been talking about this 90 days prior to this dispute starting, not 90 days after the dispute started that they're talking about now. They should have been talking about this when it was brought to their attention in June by their own Minister of Labour, by the union, by the non-union truckers. But no, they felt no need to deal with these issues. Now they're blaming everyone.
[ Page 2363 ]

In the beginning, they started to blame each other. The federal government said it was a provincial issue. The provincial government said no, that it's a federal issue. Uh-oh. Now they're together. Now it's our issue. Let's deal with it. Rather than going to the negotiating table, bring back back-to-work legislation. You know, blame everyone else, and then, if nothing works, put together back-to-work legislation.

That's not responsible government. That does not show the competency that is needed to deal with these complex situations. It's a knee-jerk reaction, a heavy-handed approach to issues that they should have been dealing with years leading up to this dispute.

Here's a letter from Mr. Murray Coell, the minister that sat on those chairs, 2010. This is what he said. In fact, I think I should read the letter to his colleagues there now so that they understand. At least Mr. Coell understood there was an issue. They didn't do anything — that's a separate issue — but he understood. This government, these ministers, didn't even understand there was an issue until the work stoppage. Now they're worried about their reputation. Now they're worried about their businesses, losing their businesses.

[1440]

This is what he said. This letter is to Sarah Morgan-Silvester, chair, board of directors, Port Metro Vancouver. It went on to say:

"Dear Sarah Morgan-Silvester:

"I am writing to express the concern of the province of British Columbia about the role of Port Metro Vancouver in the joint federal-provincial port framework that has been established to maintain stability within the container truck sector serving the Lower Mainland ports.

"As you know, in the summer of 2005 for just over five weeks, approximately 1,200 independent owner-operators who delivered and picked up containers at PMV withdrew their services and blockaded all the Lower Mainland ports. The dispute disrupted port operations and cost the provincial and national economies hundreds of millions of dollars.

"Vince Ready was appointed by the province and the federal government to resolve the dispute and develop a moratorium agreement that fixed rates and other conditions until August 2007.

"When the MOA expired August 2007, the federal government passed a regulation requiring that port licence holders, which are typically trucking companies, pay owner-operators a rate of remuneration set out in the collective agreement. In the absence of a collective agreement, the regulations state that the rates paid must be equivalent to a rate set out in a collective agreement posted on the PMV website, with rates not less than those set out in the Ready MOA.

"The province was supportive of the regulation, as it promotes long-term stability in container trucking operations in the Lower Mainland and unimpeded flow of national trade. In consultation with PMV and Transport Canada, the province in August 2007 agreed to develop and manage a dispute resolution program to support the regulation.

"The program, administered by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, includes the investigation of alleged contravention of the rates paid to owner-operators, including allegations of companies undercutting minimum rates. The province conducts these investigations on the contractual authority provided by the PMV licence agreement and companies and expends about $500,000 annually on the program.

"The province is PMV's appointee and has no authority to directly sanction licensees. The province, through the dispute resolution program, makes recommendations for licensing actions to PMV on the basis of its investigation.

"The province has concerns regarding the lack of timely action by PMV on the recommendations made today by the dispute resolution program's director calling for licensing sanctions."

In June 2010 the previous Minister of Labour was writing this letter of concern — but did nothing. Knew the problem, just like they knew the problem that was brought to them by the trucking companies and everyone else.

He went on to say:

"According to the provincial record, the program has initiated, since December 2007 through to late mid-2010, 152 full payroll audits into the rates companies have been paying non-union owner-operators. Approximately 33 of these audits are currently active. Since December 2007" — listen to this — "approximately $645,765 has been collected on behalf of 351 owner-operators."

Isn't that a wake-up call? This is 2010. It's their own audit crying out for help, asking Port Metro Vancouver: "Shape up. This is how bad it is." Knew it. They decided to close their eyes. They heard about it. They decided to close their ears.

It went on to talk about how bad the situation was: "Until late May of this year, as a result of the program's recommendations, since December 2007 PMV has cancelled three licences and suspended nine companies for a period ranging from three days to three weeks." Whoop-de-do — $645,000, and they zipped these owner-operators a three-day suspension.

[1445]

It pays to commit crime. It pays to rob their own owner-operators — thanks to this government, who allowed this to happen, did not act, knew that was happening. Their own audit had called for it.

This is Canada, British Columbia, 2014. This is how we treat our people? This is how we treat our workers, who create wealth for all of us so that we can run our province?

These are the people who actually run our economy, the backbone of our economy. Everything we have, everything that moves, these trucking companies, these truck drivers, move it for us. Without them, nothing moves. Without them, our forest industry would be crippled. Without them, all those retail offices, all those retail stores will be shut down because their product will not be moved. And this is how we treat them in this day and age. It's shameful. Their own minister, acknowledging the problem, did nothing.

I just want to go and talk about the July 29, 2005, agreement that Mr. Ready put together. He put all these rates in here, and those rates were not enforced. This government slept through it, even though it was brought to their attention.

I just want to talk about the working people. If they're listening right now…. Working people here or all across the world always have to fight for everything they have. They continue to fight for what they have now, despite
[ Page 2364 ]
the fact that there are forces, there are governments that are trying to take away the very basic rights that they have — the basic right to earn a decent living, the basic right to improve their working conditions, the basic right to collective bargaining, enshrined in our constitution. They have to fight for it every day. That's what they're doing today.

That's why I stand on their side. That's why I stand on the small business side, which is being hurt because of inaction by this government. That's why I stand on the side of all those businesses whose business is being affected because of inaction by this government — inaction since 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Nothing got done, despite being repeatedly reminded that there are some serious issues.

Interjections.

H. Bains: I know that truth hurts. I know that's why there's a reaction out there. I know. And another thing is I know that they're paying attention. I know they're paying attention now. I know, and I draw their attention.

That's good that they're paying attention. That's a good thing. But I wish that they'd been paying attention in the months and years leading up to that dispute. I wish that they'd been paying attention at that time. I wish that they'd been worried about the reputation all across the world that they're worried about today.

I want to say to those working people: there's a long history for working people to fight for what they have. Today they're still doing it. The first time in Canadian history, 1741: "Canada's first recorded strike takes place at the royal shipyards in Quebec City, where workers protest their working conditions. When they refuse to work, their action is denounced as mutiny."

Their leaders were sent to jail. And we are still talking about sending these people — giving a heavy fine, in this day and age, if they don't go back to work, as if they had no right to withdraw their services. Mr. Speaker, 1741 — how many years ago? — 270 years ago that happened, and it's still happening today under the watch of this government. Still happening.

[1450]

Then again, 1799. The strike of canoemen at Cumberland House, who downed paddles and demanded higher wages from the Hudson's Bay Company in a test of authority between the company and its "servants." It lasted a month before the workers were discharged, many of whom went to work for a rival company. That happened in 1799. When they refused to work, they were discharged, and that is exactly what's happening right now.

Those workers who said, "We are withdrawing our services because we cannot afford to go to work and continue to lose money," were told their services were discharged. Under the watch of this government, right now that is happening. Right now that is happening. That happened in 1799. In 1799 that happened, and it's still happening under the watch of this government.

I was hoping that in this day and age we have learned something, that we have moved forward, that we have started to respect the working people's rights. Not so under the watch of this government — not so.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: Obviously, they don't want to be compared to the dark days. Because they are living in dark days, they don't admit to the dark days when it comes to the working people of this province.

Let's take a look. The Minister of Transportation wanted to talk about…. Well, let's talk about the last ten years. In 2003 Bill 28 and Bill 29 were brought in. Remember that? Guess what happened. The Supreme Court had to tell this government that they were wrong, that they were against the law. They were violating our constitution. The Supreme Court of Canada had to tell them that. Well done. How far have you moved from 1799? Not much.

This is despite the fact that, I might add, the leader of the day before the election said: "We will not touch your collective agreements." After the election, what do they do? They did exactly the same thing. And guess who told them that they were wrong. The Supreme Court had to come in and say: "You are wrong. You are in violation of the constitution." That's what happened, time and again. Time and again — it goes on ten years. Ten times they sent people back to work through bills like this one, back-to-work legislation — ten times. What a proud history.

What a proud history, when one of their own had to admit under oath: "Our intention wasn't to negotiate. Our intention was to put enough pressure on teachers so that they would go on strike and we would benefit politically." Good job. Good job, in this day and age.

I wonder what the intentions are behind here. Despite the fact….

Interjections.

H. Bains: Oh, the Minister of Jobs wants to talk about the economy. Let's talk about the economy. You want to compare 1990-2000 and the last ten years? Let's compare that. I'm prepared to compare that. So 2.8 percent of GDP growth, on average, in 1990s and 2.3 percent under their watch. They talk about a have-not province. Let's talk about a have-not province.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.
[ Page 2365 ]

H. Bains: One time, 1990s. A one-time $125 million payment came as a transfer — one time. In the last ten years, how many times? Do you want to guess? Four times. A have-not province under your watch — four times. Let's talk about how much transfer payments actually were — $2 billion. Well done. Want to talk more about the economy?

Let's talk more about the economy. How many people left this province in the 1990s compared to the last ten years? Want to talk about that? You want to talk about actually your job plan? Let's talk about your job plan. How many private sector jobs have been lost? How many? You want to guess? It's 13,000. The lowest job growth rate in Canada — the lowest. Well done.

[1455]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, calm down, please.

H. Bains: Obviously, it's a fact-free government. They continue to do that right now — a fact-free government.

Remember "Debt-free B.C."? Oh wow, let's talk about debt-free B.C. Do you want to talk about debt-free B.C.? Those two years — how much debt have we incurred in the province of British Columbia? You want to guess over there? It's $23 billion — two years.

Obviously, facts don't matter to them. The policies don't matter to them. The politics is all they care about — 24 hours, seven days, politics. That's all they do — campaign all the time. No wonder we have a mess at our port created by this government, because they were sleeping at the switch for the last two years.

Too bad, but I'm reminded that I've got only ten more minutes to go to set the record straight here.

I think I just want to say to the working people who are out there right now on picket lines — and I know they're watching — that I know who's on their side. I know and they know where the justice is. I know and they know that negotiation is the only way for long-term peace at the ports.

Negotiation is the only way to show some respect to all those workers who have been asking, who have been protesting, to draw the attention of this government. This government continues to ignore those concerns. That's not how you run governments. That's not responsible government.

I laid out their case. They have made a case for themselves to Port Metro Vancouver. They have made a case to many of the ministers they have met from that side. They are saying: "Please respect us. Please respect our rights. We've been working. We were trying to draw your attention to these issues. You chose to ignore it." They chose to ignore it.

Hon. S. Bond: Two offers already.

H. Bains: The Minister of Jobs continues to talk about two offers. I have talked about that. I talked about that earlier. Obviously, they weren't paying attention again, like always.

The negotiation isn't a one-sided approach — take it or leave it. That's not how negotiations work. They have asked….

Interjections.

H. Bains: I know the member…. I don't know where he is from — Point Grey or something? I mean, if he had ever had a real job, if he had ever….

Interjections.

H. Bains: Whatever. I could check that.

The problem is the members sitting over there. If they had actually had a real job and been with those real workers and knew what it takes to pick up their lunch pail and go to work every day, they would not make comments like this. They would show more respect for those working people. They don't.

[1500]

My position here is that those truckers deserve what they're asking for. They're fighting for their rights — the rights that are enshrined in the Canadian constitution. They have been asking this government…. They will work, they will negotiate, but this government continues to ignore.

Now that we are in crisis, the minister continues to say: "Well, you know, they should go back to work first." But they were at work. They were at work, and they were asking this government, Port Metro Vancouver and the federal government to come to the table and deal with these issues. Where were you, Minister? Where were you? Nowhere to be seen. Nowhere to be seen.

I have listed here some background to the history of collective bargaining and how workers were treated back then. In 1799, when they decided to withdraw their services, guess what they did at that time. They were discharged. What do they do now when they decide to withdraw their services at Port Metro Vancouver? They are being discharged.

They have learned nothing; nothing they have learned. My message to those workers is this. Nothing is ever given to the working people without fighting, and they are fighting to preserve what they have so that they could improve their working conditions. They have every right to ask to improve their working conditions. They have every right to earn a decent living in this day and age, despite the fact that this government is hell-bent on trying to destroy collective bargaining in this province.

If you leave them alone, they would easily have a col-
[ Page 2366 ]
lective agreement negotiated. They were that close, until this government decided to pull the rug out from under them by telling the companies that we will send them back to work.

That's not how you negotiate a collective agreement — by threats, by ultimatums. You don't do that. Even when they came to the table, they didn't come to the table with the intention of negotiating. They came to the table…. Here's a piece of paper, and here are the 14 points. Take it or leave it. That's not negotiation. Everyone knows this except this government. Everyone knows that.

The Minister of Jobs continues to sit there and ignore the facts. By ignoring the facts, the problem isn't going to go away. The fact was that back in 2007 they asked for Vince Ready to be brought in so that they could deal with those issues. They ignored that. Now they are talking about, with the bill, back-to-work legislation. Now they say that we will bring in Mr. Ready. Now, after how many days lost at the port? How many businesses have lost their business?

Finally they woke up. Finally they woke up — again, didn't do what is the right thing to do, which is to bring all the stakeholders together and get to real negotiations. They again didn't do that. In fact, they destroyed any chance they had to have a negotiated settlement by announcing they would send them back to work. That is not good-faith bargaining.

What we need is good-faith bargaining. What we need is a government that has some responsibility to all British Columbians — not just to their friends, as we see in the case here. The Premier decided to be on the side of Port Metro Vancouver. Finally she decided that it is part of our jurisdiction, after she made that decision. And guess what. We have so many days lost already. Our reputation all around the world is at stake, and 1,000 more jobs out there are at risk.

They still have an opportunity to get all those stakeholders to the table and do the negotiation, and they can do that within 24 hours. They can do that if the intention is there. But if the intention isn't there, nothing is going to solve this problem.

[1505]

The next 90 days, the following 90 days after that or nine years after this, we will be in the same situation, because that's the history of this government. Since 1999 they learned nothing out of that dispute. They learned nothing from the 2005 dispute. They still haven't learned.

Parties have solutions. They know what the answers are. They are waiting for the other side to come to the table. This government is getting in the way. They are asking: "Get out of the way so that we can iron out a good collective agreement to deal with the issues that we face today, to deal with the issues going forward." They know the answers. They work at it every day. They know what it takes to solve the situation. They know.

They know what it takes, except this government is sleeping at the switch again. They knew it. They ignored it. They're watching what is going on out there. They close their eyes. They hear all those concerns. They close their ears. Now they're blaming everybody else.

It will take leadership, which is lacking from that side.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

H. Bains: Oh, the ten minutes are over, Mr. Speaker. I have a lot to say, not enough time — a lot more to say.

Hon. T. Stone: Well, what a tough act to follow. Where to begin?

It is a pleasure to rise today, although I do so with a heavy heart. I want to address a couple of the allegations or comments that were made by the member for Surrey-Newton, and then I'll walk through more of my general thoughts about this piece of legislation.

First off, the member for Surrey-Newton makes the assertion that there has been no action on the part of the B.C. government over the last ten years with respect to resolving issues at the port. This simply is not true. Now, the member for Surrey-Newton can play fast and loose with the facts as he sees fit, but I want to set the record straight for this House.

First and foremost, it is important for all members to again remind themselves, and it's important for the public in British Columbia to understand, that when it comes to jurisdiction at the port, there is actually very little that is within British Columbia's jurisdiction. That being said, British Columbia remains very, very close to and very supportive of this sector.

Let me talk for a moment about audits. Since 2006 the B.C. government has provided the container truck dispute resolution program. We spend about $300,000 per year conducting independent audits through a contracted service provider.

Now, the audits follow up on and identify non-compliance with the federal regulations, and they're reported to Port Metro Vancouver. B.C. also sits on a tripartite committee which constantly monitors port container terminal activities and supports the port in developing initiatives, which, as a result, address the issues. Whenever the trucking sector asks to meet with the B.C. government, we meet with them.

B.C. has also supported one-third funding of the initial installation of GPS units in licensed trucks, which allows the port to begin collecting proper information to confirm turn times and provide better information to the port to respond. As of today, about 50 percent of the trucking fleet has this GPS technology on board their units. We are working very hard with the federal government and the port to continue to expand this GPS technology, with an additional 750 trucks to be completed through the balance of this year.

This information has also led to a charge at terminals,
[ Page 2367 ]
in terms of who must now pay, of $30 for reservations missed by more than two hours. Two hours is the industry benchmark.

Now, in addition to these items, there have been a wide range of infrastructure investments that the B.C. government has participated in over the last ten years which have played a significant role in easing congestion and wait times in the trucking industry.

[1510]

There's the $1.3 billion South Fraser Perimeter Road investment. That was largely about getting trucks off of municipal roads and speeding up the turnaround times for trucks coming from Deltaport to other locations across the Lower Mainland. You talk to folks in the trucking industry, and they will tell you that was probably one of the single most important investments that this province has made to address congestion and wait times.

There are a series of investments that have been made with respect to the Roberts Bank rail corridor. There was a significant investment made to install a new overpass on the south shore trade area of the Burrard Inlet. Again, that was about separating rail from truck traffic to enhance the turnaround times for the trucks in particular. There's an additional overpass that's being built, as we speak, out in Roberts Bank that will have the same impact.

Of course, there's the 14-point plan on which we worked very, very hard — the province did, with the federal government and the Port Metro Vancouver — to address the core concerns that truckers have expressed. We agree that the truck licence system needs to be reviewed with an eye to it being restructured. We also are committed to expanding the provincial audit program to include more of the sector to make sure that undercutting of rates does not occur.

Also in the 14-point plan we've made a very clear commitment to ensuring that mediation is available for those parties who want to get back to bargaining, to make sure that truckers have a strong mechanism for their needs to be heard and met.

Last but not least, in this 14-point action plan the province of British Columbia has committed to working with Port Metro Vancouver to develop a way to include off-dock or third-leg moves in the regulated rates to make sure that truckers are indeed paid fairly.

Again, it is simply inaccurate. It's not true for the member for Surrey-Newton to have suggested that this government has sat idly by and has not done anything, to quote the member.

If I may, what's really disappointing, I think, is what we've heard thus far from the opposition — certainly the member for Surrey-Newton. The NDP, the opposition, does not support getting the port back open quickly. They don't support doing what's in the best interests of the B.C. economy. They don't support the tens of thousands of jobs around British Columbia that are now potentially in jeopardy because of this disruption at the port. What the opposition is in support of is playing politics here, pure and simple. Let's call it what it is.

Let's talk for a moment about the lack of action. The member for Surrey-Newton waxed eloquent for a good two hours about the lack of action. I'd like to also talk about the lack of action and the lack of action on the part of the NDP opposition. What's really interesting is the opposition has been silent on the port. They've been silent on the port for a very long time.

In fact, we went back and looked. There were no questions here in question period shortly after the memorandum of understanding was signed on March 8. There were no questions from the opposition after the joint action plan was announced on March 13 — nothing. There were no questions in question period or estimates.

In fact, we've gone back five years — not a single question from the opposition on anything remotely related to the port in the last five years. And we're still going back. I suspect by the time we're said and done here, we may go back a decade.

On top of that, we've done a sweep of our correspondence in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. The NDP opposition has not sent a single piece of correspondence. Not a single letter, not a single e-mail has been sent from the opposition to the Ministry of Transportation since 2005. That's nine years.

Yet here we are today, and we hear how important this port issue is to the opposition. I've got to say, if one ever doubted the NDP opposition's complete and utter blind spot for the economy, I think we have seen it here on this port issue.

I will add one further point that, again, the opposition did not support. That was the Ports Property Tax Act.

[1515]

If there was one way that they could have gotten behind the port and port expansion and the creation of jobs and the creation of investment in this province, it's through the Ports Property Tax Act. But again, the opposition voted against that. So it's a bit hypocritical, I believe, for the opposition to be sitting here today, waxing eloquent about how important the port is, when they haven't asked a single question about the port for at least the last five to nine years. They're doing it today because it's politically expedient. That's the only reason.

Today is indeed day 27 of the disruption at Canada's largest and most important port, Canada's Asia-Pacific gateway. Let's just reiterate for a moment here what's at stake. There are over 100,000 direct and indirect jobs related to the port, over 60,000 of which are here in British Columbia. The port contributes $9.7 billion to the gross domestic product. It contributes $6.1 billion in wages. There's $126 million of cargo which moves through Port Metro Vancouver each and every day. There's also the potential for increased job impacts in every corner of British Columbia for as long as this disruption continues.
[ Page 2368 ]

Indeed, as we have been saying on this side of the House, British Columbia's reputation internationally with our trading partners is at stake. We know from history that these disruptions can really bite. They can take a big bite out of your economy. The similar 2005 job action at the port resulted in a loss of an estimated $800 million to the B.C. economy.

Clearly, a continuation of this disruption is not acceptable. That is why late last week the federal government, Port Metro Vancouver and the B.C. government announced strong and coordinated action to get the port open again and back to normal operations as quickly as possible.

Although the B.C. government's options, from a jurisdictional perspective, are limited, yesterday we took decisive action within our jurisdiction. The Minister Responsible for Labour introduced cooling-off legislation, including a 90-day cooling-off period, during which time Vince Ready, as mediator, will immediately engage all parties to implement the 14-point joint action plan.

I'd also like to acknowledge the federal government and Port Metro Vancouver for also taking decisive action within their jurisdictions, including the rescission of licences. These coordinated actions of the federal government, Port Metro Vancouver and the B.C. government are necessary to protect jobs. They are necessary to protect B.C.'s families. They are necessary to protect the B.C. economy. And they are necessary to protect our reputation with our international trading partners.

Now, with respect to the cooling-off legislation, as was said earlier today by the Minister of Labour, this is a last resort. Our preferred option is always a negotiated settlement. This legislation comes after much effort by all of the parties for the past month.

Again, to reiterate a few of the steps that have led to where we are today — we certainly didn't get a clear and accurate portrayal of the facts from the member for Surrey-Newton a moment ago — a memorandum of understanding was actually crafted by all of the parties, with the involvement of mediator Vince Ready, back on March 8. It was signed off by the leadership of Unifor. It was signed off by the leadership of the UTA. It was signed off by the B.C. and federal governments as well as Port Metro Vancouver. It was subsequently rejected by the truckers.

On March 13 the federal government, the B.C. government and Port Metro Vancouver hammered out, through a tremendous amount of effort by all parties, a 14-point joint action plan. This plan, again, was based on interim recommendations from Vince Ready. It was subsequently rejected by the truckers.

We were left with this legislation option. As drafted, we believe it is the least intrusive option available to us, and we believe it's a balanced approach. It provides for a cooling-off period. It's not a legislated settlement. The approach we're taking is about bringing the sides together during this cooling-off period to actually resolve the dispute with the help of a mediator, Vince Ready.

Again, we view this legislation as a last resort. While we have moved forward with it, we do so reluctantly and because it is necessary for B.C.'s economy. Beyond all other considerations, our first obligation is to act in the best interests of B.C.'s economy and, indeed, jobs for British Columbians.

[1520]

Let me be very clear on another point. We do understand the truckers' concerns. We do understand they are not unlike many other British Columbians in that they're trying to make a decent living. They're trying to put food on the table for their families. We acknowledge and fully understand that these are valid concerns that the truckers have raised. They're concerns related to rates, licensing, congestion and wait times.

On the last point, congestion and wait times, again let me acknowledge that we have heard loud and clear from truckers that there is more work that needs to be done. To date, as I mentioned a moment ago, the port of Metro Vancouver, with the support of the federal and provincial governments, has made strategic investments in technology and infrastructure to move trucks more quickly and efficiently through the port.

We want to continue to work with the truckers and all of the other parties in this dispute to address their concerns and get the port open as quickly as possible. To that end, we urge the truckers to go back to work. Once they do this, Vince Ready is available and waiting to immediately sit down with them to address their concerns and mediate a resolution to the dispute.

Next I would like to move to the sole imperative that has driven our decision to move forward with this legislation, and that is the economic imperative. This disruption has the potential to cripple our economy and many industries in every corner of the province. Let's start with B.C.'s forest industry, where 58,000 British Columbians are directly or indirectly employed in forestry today in communities across British Columbia. Forty-three percent of forestry export volumes goes to China and Asian countries, markets which have steadily grown over the past eight years.

Continued access of B.C.'s forestry products to these markets is directly dependent on the ability of B.C. to reliably export these products, in part through the port of Metro Vancouver. While the opposition stands in front of this legislation and says, "We cannot support it," let the thousands of men and women, forest workers, across B.C. who depend on the port of Metro Vancouver being reliable and stable and open understand where the opposition is on this.

A few examples in terms of what's actually happening on the ground. Maybe this will help the opposition wrap its head around how significant a challenge this is potentially to B.C.'s economy.
[ Page 2369 ]

Aspen Planers in Merritt is forced to take scheduled downtime because they can't get lumber to market. They have $11 million of lumber sitting in their yard with nowhere for it to go. Their president, Surinder Ghog, said: "We're jammed in Vancouver and in Merritt, as well, so what we're doing is scheduling our production to match what we can sell, which is about 40 percent of our production. This has impacted our revenues on a short-term basis by 60 percent of our production."

C&C Wood Products in Quesnel. Ron Dunn has this to say: "The port of Metro Vancouver strike is a serious impairment to our business health. We're not able to ship and collect accounts receivable, and we're now out of space to store our lumber."

Conifex in Fort St. James and McKenzie — their two operations. Ryan Lepp of Conifex said this: "Typically, Conifex exports 40 to 50 percent of its production to Asia, but we can't ship our products offshore. Holding inventory at mills costs money, and shipping from alternative locations costs money."

James Gorman, the CEO of the Council of Forest Industries, says: "This is grinding us down to a trickle of exports coming out of the province. We're sort of strangled here." Chairman Ian May of the Western Canadian Shippers Coalition says: "We're going to be shutting down pulp mills before too long." We have an obligation to ensure we're doing all we can with the federal government and the port of Metro Vancouver to open the port and protect these thousands of forestry jobs.

Likewise in mining. B.C.'s mining industry employs 32,000 British Columbians at 37 producing mines and four smelters and refineries across the province. In 2012 exports to China totalled $1.9 billion, 21 percent of total exports. Continued access of B.C. ore to these markets is directly dependent on the ability of B.C. to be able to reliably export these products through the port of Metro Vancouver.

Let's talk about import-export for a moment. Unlike many North American ports, which can have outbound containers returned empty, the port of Metro Vancouver saw 85 percent of all outbound containers filled with exports. The vast majority, 58 percent, of all inbound cargo comes from China, followed by South Korea at 11 percent and then other Asian countries. China is the primary export market, 46 percent, followed by Japan at 16 percent, then other Asian countries. Each container that passes through the port generates $450 in wages, $550 in GDP and $1,200 in economic output.

[1525]

Let's look at the manufacturing sector and some other businesses as well. Viceroy Homes in Richmond says that they have been forced to pay $1,500 extra per container to get their manufactured homes moving during this dispute. CEO Doug Auer says each home they ship requires at least two containers, so the costs are really adding up. He said: "We have our items that are being shipped to Japan either in our parking lot or having to go to Seattle and Tacoma, and soon they're going to have to go out of Portland. The sooner this ends, the better."

Coast 3000 Terminals in North Vancouver has laid off 62 people until this dispute ends. Creighton International in Vancouver — president and CEO Kerry Ewerts has said:

"After 40 years of building our B.C.-based head office and main manufacturing plant on the reputation of keeping our word and dependably delivering innovative waterproofing products, we are painfully having to share the news of the problems in B.C. and shirking the confidence of our customers. The added cost of having to truck the material to Montreal and arrange container shipping from there has added over $3,000 per container to the normal freight costs. When we are lucky enough to get a booking through Seattle, it has an added cost of $2,000 per container."

Another company, Antique Market out of Vancouver. Jim White, the manager, says: "Our antique-importing company has already incurred $5,370 in storage fees levied by the port."

James Lepp of Kikkor Golf said: "I'm scared to keep a running total of it, to be honest." He said, referencing the over 5,000 pairs of golf shoes trapped at the port, racking up a storage bill now accruing at $480 per day: "The shipment represents $400,000 worth of potential sales in what is a highly seasonal business."

Now let's talk for a moment about small businesses. Again, 98 percent of all businesses in British Columbia are small businesses, and they're suffering because of this dispute. The port is critical to the livelihood of B.C. small business. They count on the port being open to import and export.

Shipping. Global Container Terminals reported to me earlier today that they have diverted and will continue to divert ships as needed. As of yesterday 328 containers bound for the port of Metro Vancouver were actually diverted to Seattle and Tacoma, and there are a further 1,300 that will be diverted if this dispute doesn't end.

Of course, in addition to the impact on jobs, the potential for layoffs across the province, there are also other ways that families are impacted by this dispute. Julie Orr and her family moved from Dubai to British Columbia a few weeks ago. All of their possessions are stuck in a container, and they're being charged $240 a day for storage. Orr says the moving company won't pay the cost, and once the strike is over, they won't deliver the items until the fees are paid.

Any way you look at this, this is impacting our economy. This is impacting the thousands of jobs that directly and indirectly relate to the port. This is impacting potentially thousands of jobs in every corner of the province.

Beyond all other considerations, our first obligation is to act in the best interests of B.C.'s economy and those jobs for British Columbians. That is our sole imperative for taking this action today.

We view this legislation as a last resort, and while we have moved forward with it, again, as I said a moment ago, we do so reluctantly, but we do so because our econ-
[ Page 2370 ]
omy cannot withstand this disruption continuing for a day longer.

Finally, we want to work with truckers. I want to reiterate that again. We absolutely want to work with the truckers. We want to work with all the parties to address these concerns, with the goal of getting the port open as quickly as possible.

To that end, we urge the truckers to go back to work. Once they do, Vince Ready is available. He's waiting. He's available to immediately sit down with them to address the truckers' concerns and mediate a resolution to this dispute for the good of truckers and for the good of all British Columbians.

S. Fraser: I'm pleased to take my place in this debate on second reading of Bill 25, Port Metro Vancouver Container Trucking Services Continuation Act. I will be speaking against this bill, Bill 25.

[1530]

This is an unsavoury piece of legislation. It's simply not supportable. The minister referred, I think disparagingly, to our critic, who I think managed to speak for two hours eloquently on this topic and very carefully laid out the timeline and the scenario.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: I see the government members and minister are still confused about that, so I'm going to try to educate him a little bit more on that. The bill itself represents a complete failure of leadership of this government.

I would note, just in response to some of the statements the minister made, that a letter that came from Unifor, one of the unions involved here, is calling…. This is a summary of a letter that went out. It went to the minister, went to the feds, went to Port Metro on November 7, 2013, well before the strike.

In the summary of the letter is that Unifor-VCTA — VCTA is the Vancouver Container Truckers Association, for those who don't go by acronyms, and I don't always — is calling for the provincial government, the federal government, Metro Vancouver and all stakeholders to come together on an urgent basis with Vince Ready, acting in a special capacity with clear terms of reference to make recommendations to resolve the issues leading to the current potential threat of disruption.

This has been on everyone's plate for a long time, and this should not have happened. We would have never got to this place if the government had been doing their job and listening to the strong warnings from the union representation.

They go on to say: "We believe that a sectoral bargaining approach should be seriously investigated as part of that review by Vince Ready and that recommendations should be made to achieve that goal. In the meantime, we are operating under the current system. Some current changes need to be made." They go through quite a list of those changes, and they're all supportable, I would suggest.

They go on to say: "We are focused on renewing collective agreements for our members and need a stable minimum rate environment across the board to ensure that this happens. We are currently engaged in collective bargaining with all of our certified container truck companies, covering hundreds of members."

These are small businesses, despite what the minister says, and operating under the TLS system. "We believe that a major work stoppage is imminent and are calling on all parties to come to the table to make the necessary changes to ensure stability in this important sector. We thank you for your time and hope to see some positive changes made in this sector in the near future."

What we see is a very heavy-handed approach in Bill 25. I would suggest it's worse because it's a complete disregard of the entire collective bargaining process, bargaining in good faith. It should not be a surprise to the people — the people of British Columbia anyway.

I wonder how long Bill 25 has been on the books, since we've seen no substantive response to the dire warnings brought to this government and the federal government and Port Metro. This answer, the last resort, according to the minister — I wonder if it's the first resort. I wonder how long this ham-fisted approach was being contemplated instead of actually doing something to prevent a strike and the obvious financial implications of that, which the minister did so eloquently lay out. That's on his watch that this happened.

The history of how we got here today is a history of government failure and reminiscent of how this government has handled other critical negotiations and bargaining and relations with labour. I don't need to go back too far. We've had a recent ruling from Justice Griffin basically stating that instead of bargaining in good faith with teachers, the government was preoccupied with another strategy — is how Justice Griffin put it — and that strategy was to incite a strike.

The credibility of this government when doing anything when it comes to bargaining in good faith is all brought into question when we see court decisions like this and we look back ten, 12 years to stripping of rights of HEU workers — thousands of workers in this province having legitimately negotiated contracts torn up and affecting thousands and thousands of workers in this province, mostly women workers in this case.

[1535]

In the recent case of the teachers, of the rights being stripped that are guaranteed under the constitution, the collateral damage there — of that strategy of inciting a strike to try to vilify the teachers and win public support and foist an unconstitutional contract on the teachers — was the families, the children and those in the public education system.
[ Page 2371 ]

In this case, the first collateral damage was the container truckers, of course. They are small businesses, hundreds and hundreds of workers, that make this province tick. They're collateral damage in this bill. But certainly how we got here…. The collateral damage — as the minister, again, so eloquently stated — is many small businesses in this province and the economy of the province.

We should have never gotten to this place. We should have had a government that actually heeded the warnings that came repeatedly and very early in this process. We didn't see any substantive reaction from the government till now with Bill 25, where again they're forcing the issue in a way that's completely disrespectful to the bargaining process and disrespectful, I would suggest, to the people of British Columbia who have weathered some financial outcomes from this strike. And it has been almost been a month.

The plan, instead of bargaining in good faith, again has not been there for this government. I'd just like to refer to how we did get here.

This legislation forces approximately 250 Unifor–Vancouver Container Truckers Association members back to work for a 90-day cooling-off period. Unifor-VCTA members voted unanimously in favour of a strike on March 1, 2014.

There's been no collective agreement in place since June of 2012. This has been coming down for a long time, but members have continued to work under the terms of the expired agreement. They began a legal strike as a part of their bargaining process on March 10, 2014, after rejecting a tentative agreement. It wasn't a narrow rejection; it was 98 percent.

The issues at the heart of the current dispute had been brought to the government's attention repeatedly before this strike vote was held in March — this month — and stem largely from the failure of the port to uphold the agreement reached to end the 2005 dispute, negotiated by Vince Ready. The government has had ample time to deal with the issues at hand but has simply failed to do so.

Coming in as a last resort…. This is a first resort. I have no doubt that this bill has been, in one form or other, before the government, before the minister, long ago, that it was part of a larger plan that's consistent with the disrespect that this government has shown to workers consistently. Whether it's container truckers, whether it's teachers or whether it's HEU workers, it's a consistent pattern.

On at least three separate occasions the province, the provincial and federal governments failed to deal with the issues at hand. The minister didn't seem to refer to these, so I will.

June 3, 2010, then Labour Minister Murray Coell…. I can use his name in this place. We don't use names in the Legislature, but Minister Coell is no longer here. He has retired. He wrote to the port expressing concern that recommendations made by the container truck dispute resolution program had not been dealt with in a timely fashion.

The minister of the day got it. He wrote a letter about this to Port Metro. So there was certainly an acknowledgment in 2010 at the cabinet level that there were problems brewing.

December 20, 2010, VCTA and CAW representatives met with the federal minister at that point, Stockwell Day — also retired, from the federal government — to discuss complaints over the port authority's operations regulations, introduced in 2007, and ineffective rate enforcement by the port.

[1540]

That was, again, 2010, the first warning we see here, which I've cited — June 3, 2010 — then December 20, 2010. Then we'll move on to November 7, 2013. I have referred to that letter already. Again, representatives of Unifor-VCTA wrote to the port outlining concerns, calling on the province and the federal governments along with the port to come together and appoint Vince Ready to resolve issues before a large-scale disruption.

Well, we've already seen the disruption. The disruption is a result of this government's inaction. The fault of this situation and the economic outcomes, the negative outcomes, that have fallen on the provincial economy are a direct result of this government failing to do their job, waiting till they could again say, "It's a crisis situation. We have to take this drastic step," to order a stop to a legal strike position, as opposed to dealing with the issue when they were given ample warning. That's just bad management.

In a letter on November 7, 2013, Unifor called on Vince Ready's appointment as a mediator — at that point as a mediator to solve the dispute, not after the fact, not after the strike — to solve the dispute, and they have echoed that call ever since. Ready was appointed to conduct an investigative review of the issues on March 6 of this year by the federal Minister of Transportation, Lisa Raitt, but was not empowered as a mediator as requested.

So there were numerous options open to this government to address the valid dispute that the container truck operators and small business operators have been raising, and we saw nothing until Bill 25.

This legislation, I should comment, only applies to those truckers under collective agreements with the specified employers. Over 1,200 more non-union truckers are currently protesting and are unaffected by this legislation, so the legislation isn't even an umbrella legislation. It's not going to…. It's certainly no panacea, as draconian as it is.

The port has stated that they will begin to revoke the licences of those non-union truckers — that's over 1,200 non-union — if they do not return to work. This has been a very heavy-handed process.

The issue at the heart of the current dispute has been brought to the government's attention repeatedly, as I
[ Page 2372 ]
have stated, before the strike vote was held in March of this year and stem largely from the failure of the port — it's not the container truckers' failure; it's largely the failure of the port — to uphold the agreement reached to end the 2005 dispute negotiated by Vince Ready.

His name seems to come up a lot in this discussion. He should have been brought into the picture early on, as requested. We wouldn't be here in this House debating this draconian bill if that had happened.

The government had ample time to deal with the issues at hand, Minister, but has failed to do so. Most recently Unifor wrote to the port in November to seek a solution, including the appointment of Vince Ready, as I said. The province did not act. The government has been aware of the problems for many years, as of course I've just stated. These disagreements go back to 2005 and beyond. We know they cannot plead ignorance.

The minister and the government cannot plead ignorance on this, because as I mentioned, former Minister Murray Coell wrote, rightly so, to the port, doing his job as minister in June 2010 to raise concerns that recommendations made by the container truck dispute resolution program were not being dealt with.

[1545]

There's a big gap between Minister Coell's attempts to address this — acknowledging the problems — and trying to find some solution prior to the situation we see now where we're having a heavy-handed approach. No follow-through from this government since then.

Unifor area director Gavin McGarrigle called the bill a draconian piece of legislation, and I've cited that word several times. I agree. He said: "I think it's an indictment of the federal government and the provincial government's inability to sit down and negotiate a solution." Well, we've heard that before, and I've mentioned numerous cases where we've seen this government simply refuse to even go to the bargaining table in good faith, choosing very heavy-handed and underhanded approaches instead of dealing with what should be legitimately negotiated contracts.

Mr. McGarrigle goes on to say: "We've been saying from day one that negotiation is the right way to go." Again, this government — doing nothing. "We think the 14-point plan" — which the minister cited as a panacea — "as it sits today is not the basis for a return-to-work plan."

I would also note the 14-point plan was not negotiated. It was done in a vacuum by this government. The ultimatum was laid down: "You go back to work before we start talking about any details in this plan." That doesn't fit in well with constitutional rights guaranteed under the Charter for contract negotiations.

The current dispute is the third withdrawal of services by truckers to the port in the last 15 years. We've seen situations before with Port Metro and labour disputes, certainly — three in the last 15 years. The failure of the resolution of the 1999 dispute led to the 2005 dispute. We should be learning from history. Any government and any minister that fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

However, they've set a new precedent here in Bill 25, because it's not a repeat. Let me identify that. Similarly, the failure of the resolution to the 2005 dispute had led to the 2014 dispute. In 1999 and 2005 the disputes were ended by memorandum of understanding. So it's a different approach that this government is taking now, that this minister is taking now.

In 2005 the memorandum of understanding was backed by a federal order-in-council. Back-to-work legislation was not introduced in either case as it is being today in this House.

Why did the minister, why did this government choose to do nothing when asked to help before we got to this labour dispute? Why did they choose instead to favour this ham-fisted approach represented in Bill 25? I guess that would be a question period question, but since we are not in question period anymore….

I note that on March 14, 2014, after briefly arguing about jurisdiction…. This was painful to watch. The minister responsible provincially and federally in the 14-point plan that they proposed that was not accepted by the container truckers…. Of course, it was not accepted. The government indicated that the points are non-negotiable until after the truckers return to work.

So this is a different kind of bargaining — very one-sided, I would say. "Here's the plan. We've figured it out for you. Take it, go back to work, and then maybe we'll talk about it."

[1550]

Now, that's not bargaining in good faith. You don't have to be a shop steward in a union to recognize that. That's bad faith. That's consistent with bad-faith bargaining with this government and the teachers in British Columbia. It's certainly consistent in the tearing up of legitimate contracts, actually breaking the constitution.

Working hard at plotting to take away bargaining rights that are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of this country should be grounds for dismissal as government. It doesn't matter which government is in power. There's got to be one prime directive of government: to protect those rights that are guaranteed in the constitution, not strip them away.

Government ministers can smirk all they want about this. This is serious stuff. This is constitutional stuff. These are rights, as opposed to coming in after the fact and slamming those rights and taking them away. They should have been doing their job when asked for help in the first place.

On March 19, 2014, a joint statement issued by both the provincial minister and the federal minister indicated that the province would introduce back-to-work legislation for unionized truckers as soon as yesterday. That was March 24, for those watching this recorded. Today
[ Page 2373 ]
is March 25. The port will begin to cancel the licences of non-union truckers represented at the UTA if they do not return to work. This is not an amicable decision. This is very heavy-handed.

We are in this debate, second reading of Bill 25. We on this side of the House I think have a strong role to play to remind government to respect the workers of this province; to respect bargaining processes in this province; to not ignore the advice and the warnings which were brought forward repeatedly, certainly by the unions involved, by the container truckers asking for help, proposing solutions, asking for Vince Ready to be brought in early on as mediator.

These were very practical, pragmatic suggestions and warnings that if the government failed to act, failed to do their job, failed to heed these warnings, failed to reasonably consider the solutions that were being proposed, it could be a big problem for not just the truckers and not just the Port Metro but for the economic outcomes that could fall out of that.

We've seen nothing till Bill 25. This is unacceptable. We need a government that will take leadership on these issues, that will understand that solving these problems before they become dire problems is a better way to go for the economy of British Columbia.

It also represents a form of management that we're not seeing with this government. They might want to reconsider, because their failures here do hurt the economy. I don't need to cite the costs of labour disruptions at the port, as the minister has. I won't repeat those. I do agree with the minister in that regard. There are outcomes to failure and inaction in management of this government in handling this issue. There's no question about that.

That wasn't the fault of the container truckers. That was not the fault of the union. These issues, as I have pointed out, have been right at the fore for this government to see for years now — not months, years now — going back to a former minister's, Murray Coell's, statements in 2010. The minister at that point in time recognized the failure of Port Metro to live up to their end of the bargains from the 2005 dispute.

[1555]

Again, there's a great history here that should have been at least a clue for the government and the minister. He should have maybe reread the letter that was written by his predecessor in 2010. That might have allowed the minister to have a more fulsome understanding of the issue and to understand the importance of a minister playing a key role in being part of the solution, and not in the draconian solution that we're seeing here today in second reading of Bill 25.

The minister, as he spoke before, referred to the 14-point plan as some sort of solution, a panacea to this problem, as though that should have solved everything. It might have wanted to negotiate that, as opposed to foisting it.

Let's hear what Unifor area director Gavin McGarrigle has said about that 14-point plan. One example is that the wage increase that they've put in this 14-point plan doesn't apply to 54 percent of the population. This is people who are paid by the hour. They're known as company drivers. There's no increase at all for them, so right off the bat you've put in place a solution that doesn't cover half of the population involved.

We know that the 14-point plan was flawed from the beginning. It certainly didn't address the concerns being raised legitimately by Unifor — by the director, Gavin McGarrigle. Again, I would remind those viewing here that this 14-point plan was not a negotiated plan. The idea was to force it down Unifor's throat and tell them that they'd have to go back to work if we're going to discuss it any further.

Secondly, Mr. McGarrigle says, another area is on waiting times. This is referring to the 14-point plan that the minister referred to. They have proposed a $25 flat fee after waiting for two hours. These are quotes from the director. "I don't know too many workers out there who like to sit and not get paid." I don't know too many either, hon. Speaker. What they're saying — after the truckers have put in tens of thousands of dollars to buy their trucks, to fuel them up, to insure them — is that after waiting for two hours you get a $25 flat fee. That's less than minimum wage. If you go to three hours, it's certainly less than minimum wage.

"What's really galling," Mr. McGarrigle continues to say, "about it is the port is claiming that most of the moves are done within an hour. Of course we dispute that, but one of the proposals we have on the table is: 'Hey, listen. After an hour, then let's start charging some kind of waiting time that goes up in increments from there. We think that's a reasonable situation.'"

Well, that should have been part of the discussions that happened with the minister before getting to the point where the minister is forcing them back to work and not addressing the issues beforehand.

We have a bill before the House that we should defeat, which we may. I've noticed that we don't seem to win the vote. I think it's fixed somehow. We never seem to win the votes, but I'm sure we'll give this one a good try, and maybe this time it will work.

We need to make sure that we hold the government to account here and make sure that they do their job without taking away rights of workers who have legitimate concerns — in this case, the container truckers' legitimate concerns. They're proposing legitimate solutions to this government, to this minister, to this Premier and being ignored and laying down the warning that failure to act would lead to a potential strike situation and lead us to Bill 25, which should have never happened.

[1600]

D. Barnett: It was very interesting listening to my col-
[ Page 2374 ]
league across the way, from the Alberni–Pacific Rim area, talk about the past. But we're talking about today. We're talking about important issues in the province of British Columbia today and the need to move forward, as we always have to, to provide jobs and economic well-being for the people of this province.

I support this necessary piece of legislation, and as I have already said, action must be taken to keep our economy moving forward while maintaining and strengthening our economic trading relationship with the fast-growing Asian economies.

Yes, we have to respect workers, which we do. We respect families. I will make note that our government is bringing in this piece of legislation as a last resort. The workers and truckers most definitely have valid concerns that need to be addressed and resolved by both parties. However, this work action is having a negative impact on our reputation as a stable export hub in North America to Asian markets. We need to get back to the table and negotiate.

In enacting this legislation to ensure that a reasonable, fair and long-term resolution can be found, we will be putting in place a 90-day cooling-off period to ensure parties can come back to the bargaining table and allow port operations to resume to normal capacity, getting B.C. and Canadian goods moving again. Once operations are normal again, Vince Ready will act as a mediator to work with all parties to come up with a 14-point plan to ensure a long-term agreement can be found, keeping British Columbia as Canada's Asian export leader for many years to come.

British Columbia is dependent on trade. Over 40 percent of B.C.'s exports go to Asia, representing billions to our economy and our future economic prosperity. Expanding trade with Asia grows our economy and will help to pay for schools, roads, hospitals, public services and any service that could be provided by our government. Therefore, this action must be taken to end this strike.

It is not just hurting the Lower Mainland; it is hurting the entire province and having a negative impact in my riding of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. The backbone of the economy in the Cariboo-Chilcotin is, of course, dependent on the development of natural resource products, mainly forestry, agriculture, mining and small independent business operators. These sectors all share one thing in common: they need to get goods to market in a timely manner.

Exporting products from the Cariboo-Chilcotin to the United States has been the norm for decades. However, in a globalized world with new opportunities opening in fast-growing Asian markets, businesses in my region are realizing the potential of international trade. An example in 100 Mile House: an OSB plant with new markets, new products going to China and Japan is expanding opportunities for not just my region but for the province.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

If we don't get these products to market on time, our partners in Asia and Japan will lose faith and trust in us. We cannot let that happen. Our government has taken time to build relationships with our Asian trading partners, and because of our efforts, businesses in my region are taking advantage of the international trade services offered to expand the market for their goods, such as timber and another product, beef products.

[1605]

I have a small business with 40 to 60 employees that produces a specialty meat product. They are waiting for a piece of equipment that is sitting out on the water, waiting to get to the port. They need this piece of specialized equipment from Germany to continue to operate and provide these 40 to 60 jobs in a small community and to sell their most valuable product.

I cannot understand how my colleagues across the room cannot understand what this disruption is causing for business, families, the economy as a whole. We need to get this settled, and the way to get it settled is through negotiation, which this bill will create.

There is a strong demand internationally for quality B.C. products, which are some of the best in the world, and we cannot lose our customers. Therefore, it should not be a surprise that I will be voting in favour of this legislation and standing up for the businesses in my riding, in this province and in Canada.

I will also hope that in the next few days a resolution will come very quickly to this job action in Port Metro Vancouver. If this job action goes any longer and we do not take this strong stance, our economic output will be reduced, families will be laid off in every sector of the economy across this country and our quality of life will be reduced.

We cannot let this happen. Now is the time to do what is right and be bold and move this bill forward.

S. Chandra Herbert: You know, when the member opposite talks about bold, I say bold is negotiating. I say bold is talking to your workers, talking to the employers, talking to the families, talking to the communities and involving them in this discussion. I say bold is listening to people when they ask for help — as the truckers have done again and again and been ignored. I say bold is listening to them, working with them for solutions.

Bold is not waiting till the last minute and bringing forward legislation — when you could be negotiating right now but instead have decided to bring in inflammatory legislation which has got people's backs up, which shows that they're not being respected by their government, that they're not being listened to by their government, and the government has decided to play for the port's benefit — the Port of Metro Vancouver's staff decisions.
[ Page 2375 ]

It's not for the benefit of those workers who have to do the work, not for the benefit of the staff in those small businesses waiting for their products and not for the benefit of those small businesses that are not making money because of the way the port has been managed.

That's not boldness; that's weakness. That's deciding to put a small, short-term uncreative solution first rather than reaching out for trust, reaching out with respect and working together to solve these issues.

The port is incredibly important to us in this province. It's one of the main reasons Vancouver even exists. It's one of the reasons why so many communities were created across British Columbia — because of access to the oceans, access to international trade, access to the incredible sea life that we have, which we also share with the port enterprises, with the container ships, and of course, the exports and imports that we also rely on.

When you look at Metro Vancouver, of course, the port is one of the most important economic drivers in our region. Many of my constituents work at the port or have family members who work at the port or have jobs that are created, in part, out of the port.

Certainly, whether it's people who work directly on the ships, who work in the monitoring functions, who work as longshore workers, who drive the trucks, who do the marketing internationally, who try to bring that business here — these are all people who rely on a healthy, successful port.

But that port relies on respect. We understand, as longshore workers and the different companies have had to come to agreements, you only get success when you respect each other's work.

[1610]

You only get success when you negotiate fairly, when you don't assume you've got the power of government to punish, when you don't assume that you have the power to just push things through without even negotiating, as this government attempted to do, as the port attempted to do. You have to respect each other.

I think we can achieve great things when we respect each other. Certainly, we've seen that in many different cases across this province, including in the port. The port has many times worked, respectively — respectably, as well — with longshore workers, with truckers and others. Sometimes it's been tense. Sometimes the port has decided to use their muscle in a way to divide and conquer. Sometimes they've also been challenged by other factors. But we have achieved successes.

I think it's incredible that here we are in 2014 and the last major uproar was 2005. I remember that one very well. I remember seeing the snaking lines of trucks driving down to the port. At the time, and the argument remains the same as we hear today, how could you expect, whether it's a truck driver or a small business running the truck, to continue if they can't make a living? How can you expect somebody to do that and keep the port running? You can't.

We get truck drivers right now saying: "Well, you could try to force us back to work, but we're not making any money, so why would we go?" Yet you then have the port and others arguing with those same truck drivers: "Well, we're going to kick you out, and we're not going to let you work here again."

Well, that's not how you develop respect with your employers, respect with your employees. Of course, during this strike there have been a number of really tense situations which never should have occurred. Why do I say they never should have occurred? Because we started to get somewhere in 2005 — the agreement developed with the truckers, with the employers, with the container companies, with the port, with the province, with the federal government.

They developed a memorandum of agreement which developed real plans on how to deal with things like companies coming in to try to undercut rates and trying to drive down rates in such a way that it became so that you couldn't maintain your trucks, that you couldn't successfully operate your business and that you couldn't do your job on time and still be able to get home with enough money at the end of the day to feed your family.

There were agreements at that time. Those continued through to 2007, and then there came some challenges.

I should say at this point that I come from a family of some truck drivers. Now, they weren't truckers in the container sense of the truck-driving business, but gravel truck operators, long-distance haulers — something that uncles of mine worked at for many years. So I have a lot of respect for the trucker, because it's not an easy job.

Certainly, it can be really be challenging on your health, sitting and driving for such a long time, but also loading, ensuring you drive safely, ensuring that the goods get to where they need to go in a safe and timely manner. It's not easy when roads are congested, when you're finding — in this case, as we're hearing — that you can't make enough money to properly feed your family or take care of the business operation of running the truck.

So I have some personal connection to this. I also have some personal connections, of course, to the businesses, the small businesses, that are caught in the middle of this — the businesses waiting for their products, waiting to be able to sell them and now getting hammered by the port through incredibly expensive storage fees.

It's no business of the small business to be hammered this way. They're waiting for their product. They want this situation to be resolved. I think they also respect that the small businesses that deliver the goods to their facilities need respect as well, and they would want that for them. They would think that that's something that you would put as a first step, rather than a last step, through legislation like this.

You know, I think that when we talk about small business, folks want some sense of certainty. They want some
[ Page 2376 ]
sense that they can actually get their products. They want to know that the government is watching out for them, not waiting at the last minute to act, as we've seen here. They want them to know that….

When another small business and Unifor and other unions have written to the government, saying, "Wait a second. A major disruption could occur because our members are not able to succeed and they're not able to put food on their families' tables. They're not able to save enough money to take care that their kids can get an education," those small business owners want those concerns listened to, just as the small business owners who run their own trucks and the unions do as well. I would hope that the government would too.

[1615]

Unfortunately, in this circumstance it looks like it's more about politics and more about being tough, on the part of government, than it is about negotiation. I understand it's easier to be tough and to say you're in charge, rather than to say that sometimes leadership comes from community and comes from working with people and negotiating. That's the tough part, really — the negotiating.

But of course, as this government has proven far too often, they like to use the legislative cudgel rather than the talking stick, so to speak, rather than talking to each other and negotiating. Of course, that's earned them many black marks with the International Labour Organization.

Also, many times they've been told, through the supreme courts, that they've violated British Columbians' Charter rights, the rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as of course we saw with the Hospital Employees Union — many of their members, the workers who worked in our hospitals, having their rights torn up by legislative action — and as we saw with teachers, as well, being shown that the government again violated their Charter rights.

It's a concern that this government has decided that that is the path, the righteous path, as opposed to the talking path and the negotiating path. It's not only a cost to the people and, of course, their respect for their government when seeing a government so dismiss them, but it's also a cost to the citizens of British Columbia through lawyers' fees, through the courts themselves and through the ongoing battles that you see.

I would much prefer in this case…. I think we could take some lessons from the 2005 instance when the non-union truckers went out. We could say again, just like the union asked for in 2007, just like the non-union truckers were arguing for in 2005: "You need to negotiate. You need to bring Vince Ready in." He could have been working right now, but he's not, and you know why? It's because this government decided to inflame the situation.

I think what should have happened is we should…. Here we are, March 25. We received strike notice March 1. February 24 the union, the truckers association, issued a 48-hour deadline saying they were going to pull their work because they weren't getting respected. They weren't getting their issues resolved. They were not making an income. They said: "Hold on a second. You have to respect our needs here. We understand your needs; you need your product. But we need to respect our needs, being able to feed our families, being able to maintain our trucks, being able to do that kind of thing."

Instead of listening to the strike notice and the issued 48-hour deadline, instead of listening to the letter from the truckers in November 2013 asking for Vince Ready to be appointed urgently because there was going to be a big disruption — people were boiling mad that nobody was listening to their needs, as they weren't able to make a living themselves — the government waffled. They prevaricated. They just went back and forth, back and forth: "Maybe we'll do something. Maybe we won't." Meanwhile, the situation came to a head.

If you've not been listened to for so long, you get to a tense situation, and that's where negotiation should have occurred from the start. That's why in November the government should have said: "Okay, we hear you. This is a problem. Let's get Vince Ready in. Let's get the parties together. You haven't had a collective agreement since 2012. Here we are in the fall of 2013. Let's work together to do that." But that didn't happen. That did not occur.

For that, I think we all should be deeply regretful and upset. I say "upset" because, as members on that side will say, as members on this side will say, you don't want somebody to be in a situation where they're being charged and having their stuff stuck at the port. You don't want a situation where people are sitting at a picket line, not making a penny, going further into debt.

You don't want a situation where people are being told, "You're going to lose your livelihood and all the money you put into your truck unless you show up to work," and you know that showing up to work quite possibly will cost you more money because you're stuck waiting in long lineups.

You're stuck waiting in situations where others can come and undercut you for half the cost and then go back and subsidize their business in other ways without respecting the situation that you're in and the contractual obligations you have with the employers through the port. Nobody should want that. That's why I'm so upset that we're here today to deal with a bill like this.

[1620]

People have said this is an urgent need. We're here at March 25. Nearly a month ago we knew this was a problem. Months and months ago we knew this was a problem. Yet we're here today bringing in a bill like this, which doesn't respect the very workers and doesn't respect the very labour process that should have been put in place.

Bring Vince Ready in, as requested. You could have done it yesterday; you could have done it a week ago;
[ Page 2377 ]
you could have done it two weeks ago. Actually bring him in to mediate the situation. That's the key demand that they've been making, and that's the demand I think we can all support.

You want negotiation. You don't get anywhere if you get into this inflamed situation of trying to use legislative fiat to ram through things. It does not work well, and we've seen that it has not done well by this government as well. It has not been the best solution.

The best solution was that we could have had negotiations from…. Let's say if the government refused to listen till November. Let's say if they refused to do anything in December — maybe Christmas, New Year's; all that was coming up. Maybe January. Oh, it's just getting back into things. Maybe it's February. Oh, late February we see that they really mean business. They really mean there is a big problem here. They really mean that they want to get a solution. They're serious that this issue is intolerable. It cannot continue.

Well, what could you have done then? Well, let's say February 24. Let's say March 1, when the strike notice was issued. You bring in the negotiator, bring him in as a mediator, and you work until the clock stops. You work overnight. You work through the weekends. We could have been doing that for the last number of weeks.

Instead, you have a rather embarrassing situation where the government side starts arguing, "No, this is the federal government's responsibility. We can't do anything about it," even though that's, of course, forgetting that they'd been very involved in the port situation earlier, trying to monitor the situation, going through from 2005 to 2010, effectively — well, to 2007, effectively, I should say. So for two to five years, depending how you look at it, saying, "Wait a second. These people are breaking the rules, issuing fines, holding things up" so that they could make sure that the workers are paid fairly and respectfully. That could have worked, and that was what went on through to 2010.

Then in 2010, as we know, the minister at the time, the Minister of Labour, argued that the port was not being respectful of the agreement that they'd had. They argued that undercutting was going on, they weren't able to effectively follow the rules and that there was an issue there. This continued for more years, and then we get up here to March 1, when the strike notice is issued, and then we get up to March 25, where we are today, and we're debating a bill like this.

So 25 days later businesses have been struggling, the workers have been struggling and the small businesses that drive the trucks have been struggling. And we're here 25 days later talking about a bill that should…. The actions in the bill that they talk about we could have been negotiating earlier. We wouldn't have had to need to do this bill. We could have solved this issue earlier. I'm told that they were close, and then the government started ramping up its rhetoric and started dividing rather than uniting. That's the problem.

I don't know if it's the situation because of the way this House is designed or if it's just the psyche of the party over there or if it's just the gut influence, gut reaction, to divide rather than to unite. British Columbia needs more unity rather than more division. In a situation like this, when people have been calling out for mediation…. That brings unity. That brings togetherness. That brings long-term solutions.

We can get into a he said, she said all the time, or we can say: "We all know that you get better agreements when you negotiate, that you get better solutions when you negotiate." You get better knowledge when you talk to the people who are working the trucks, who are working at the ports, who are getting the goods delivered to them. That broad set of people — they all have one objective: they want the job to continue. They want to be able to do their work and make a living. That's one thing that unites everybody in this situation.

So you bring them together, and you say: "How do we make sure that happens? How do we make sure that the goods get to the companies? How do you make sure that your work is respected and that you are able to be paid a fair wage for your labour so that you are able to make enough money as a small business to maintain your operation — and do better than that, to be able to provide for your family?"

Those are the kinds of things that I think unite us all. Unfortunately, we get in a situation where one side, the government's side, seems to argue: "Those bad truckers. They just can't be reasoned with. They're not listening. We can't talk to them."

[1625]

Well, no, they did try to negotiate, and I think what you could have done is continued negotiating. It's not easy. Not everybody likes it. It's hard. It's hard on both sides — I'd say this on the truckers' side as well as the port's side — to come to some sort of agreement. It's not easy. But you only get there if you try. That's what bold leadership is, and that's what's respecting the port.

I think British Columbians want us to have a hugely successful port, because we see the impact of the revenues that it brings in and the jobs it creates in our communities all the time. So it makes me very upset when it's not working, when it's divided between the port itself and all those workers who end up working to support the port itself. That's not what we should be in.

In this House it's kind of like: "We're going to send you to detention because you asked for mediation. You asked to have some sort of working solution, and you wanted to keep negotiating, but too bad. We want to be tough. We want to appear tough, and we're going to send you to detention."

Detention, of course, in this situation is outrageous, because they've been clear that they wanted a negotiated solution. They've been clear that they wanted mediation
[ Page 2378 ]
with Mr. Vince Ready. They've suggested solutions that could be considered.

This is not an intransigent set of workers who just refuse to listen to reason. Really, do you think that the average person would decide: "No, I'd rather not work, not make a living, and have the costs of my truck go up, make it difficult for local businesses and be in a fight with my employer"? Most people would not want to do that. Most people would not make that choice. But in this situation, it seems that choice has been forced, because they've tried the different routes.

When you ask for help and you do it consistently and you ask for mediation, understanding that in mediation you're not going to get everything you want, and you get nothing back, what do you do? You ask again for mediation, and you get nothing back. What do you do? To me, that speaks to a culture of disrespect and arrogance, and when you get arrogant and you get disrespected, that divides the two of you. One disrespected, the other arrogant. Then the arrogant person says, "No, the disrespected person is arrogant," and vice versa, and you divide further.

What could we have done? What could the minister have done? What could the federal minister do? What could the port do? Again, it's not rocket science. Put a little bit of water in your wine, sit down together and talk, and continue to talk.

You know, what always amazes me is how we're in a situation sometimes where it seems we get to the crisis point and then the conversations begin again. Well, in this situation, the crisis point was met for quite some time, and only now are we talking about how we get people back to talking. If the structures for disputes, the structures for conflict, were actually working….

In most small businesses and unions and communities, in families and neighbourhoods, you don't always agree with each other. Sometimes somebody wants something the other person wants and vice versa. It goes on and on. But when you have a good system set up, a respectful system of conflict resolution built into your structure, it rarely would get to a situation like this. You might have some heated words. You might be grumpy with each other. But you have a solution, and you have a system to get to a negotiated agreement. That seems to me one of the fundamental things that's lacking here.

No collective agreement since 2012, and 50 percent of the workers not covered by the supposed attempt to get to negotiated agreement. Especially when one of the big concerns is undercutting of each other, I can understand why there are challenges. It's not easy on anybody's part. I guess what I wish we'd seen….

I don't know. The minister may be able to explain why it didn't happen, but from my heart, I don't see why this should have happened. I haven't seen a good argument from the minister to say why this should have happened, why we needed to get so far down this road. I don't think there is one.

[1630]

I think egos sometimes are a little big. I think sometimes people don't like listening to each other. But that's where leadership — respected and trusted leadership — with a government should be happening, should have happened.

If you have built trust with each other, you're much more likely to get to a solution than if you've been disrespecting each other for a long time. I think, from what I can tell here, the truckers feel disrespected. They don't feel valued. They feel like they can be used and tossed out.

Unfortunately, the inflammatory actions of the port seem to have been making that worse, arguing: "We're just going to kick you out of business. We're going to tear up your licence." Well, that doesn't lead to respect. That doesn't lead to good, honourable solutions. That leads to anger.

We've seen this event played out. I think, again, we must remember in our hearts who is being impacted here. It's small business people, both on the truckers side and in the community side. It's all those people that rely on those ancillary jobs that come from the port.

When we get into situations like this, we know that the system has failed. We know that the system has failed the people of British Columbia, to bring us to this stage.

This House should be about debating legislation to make life better for people, about finding ways to bring change in people's homes and people's communities rather than trying to settle disputes or trying to intervene in negotiations because there's been no respect in the negotiations, because there have been breaches, because people have felt that they can't make a living, because people feel that their survival as business people is threatened and because unions feel that the survival of their own members, in terms of the work they do, is threatened.

That's not where you get to. That's not where we should be. We shouldn't have to be in this House debating this. It speaks to me of a failure of leadership. For that I am deeply regretful, because I think, and I would hope, that the members don't approach this with glee, that they don't enjoy saying: "We're bringing back-to-work legislation because these people just can't be trusted, and forget them."

We need to learn lessons from this kind of thing. It never should have gotten to the situation where you have people protesting, refusing to do the work because they can't make a living; where you have people putting up picket lines and having to be out there not making a living; where you have small business people waiting for containers, which the port is charging them an outrageous amount to have sit there when they can't get them to their own communities.

You can't do that. That doesn't work. That leads to a poor reputation in terms of our trading partners, because they say: "What? You can't even negotiate with the truck-
[ Page 2379 ]
ers that deliver our goods? You can't even have a respectful dialogue? It's come to this?"

I look to the longshore workers, for many years a very militant union, one that really fought for the health and safety of their workers. They were challenging. Certainly, we've seen the challenge, as the port also had developed quite a bad reputation for not listening to workers, not listening to the longshore folks and making it difficult for them to achieve their own health and safety.

They had challenges there, but you know what they did? They worked hard. They sat down, and they negotiated. Certainly there are challenges, but you don't hear about those kinds of wildcat walkouts that you used to hear about, because they negotiated. They realized that both of their interests would be served by working together, that you can't have one without the other, that people are not disposable, that business is not disposable, that exports and imports are not disposable. They're all vital for British Columbia.

That is, I guess, where I think we need a culture change in this House from this government, and that's a culture of respect as opposed to a culture of confrontation. A culture of listening, building up trust, being honourable in your word and deed, not being disrespectful and divisive — that's what I would hope we could achieve from this dispute.

Of course, that's a big hope. I'm sure many have made similar statements on both sides of this floor many times over many years.

[1635]

I just think that when we get into situations like this, there clearly has been a breakdown. I don't know if the government plans on doing a review after this to look at their own actions — and the federal government. It's challenging, because you have many different jurisdictions, but we need more than a one-off, short-term solution here.

We need the appropriate structure in place so that you have constructive dialogue, so that you have respectful communications, so that you have enforcement of the terms of the agreement, so that you have that level of respect between parties, so you can truly thrive, so if you need some help from the other side, they'll give it to you because they know that if they asked for some help, you'd give it to them.

That's the kind of British Columbia I think we should be working on building. That's the kind of British Columbia that I think that…. Whether they be unionized workers, non-unionized workers, small business folks, big business folks, community groups, that's the kind of province that I think we try to build in our own neighbourhoods. I don't see why we're not trying to build it here.

Certainly, I may disagree with my neighbour's political point of view, but if we have a disagreement, we discuss it and work it out together. That's how you try and build community, rather than saying: "You're going to detention, because I've got more power than you" and "Too bad — nah, nah, nah — maybe I'll deal with you later." That's not how you build respect. Certainly, I know that my colleagues in this room who've been teachers know that as well.

Anyway, I will be opposing this legislation because I think it just, in fact, validates bad behaviour. It validates the bad behaviour of the parties in refusing to get to negotiated settlements, in refusing to respect each other when help was requested. I don't think this is the right path. It disappoints me that it's come to this. It angers me that it's come to this. On behalf of constituents who are on both sides of this dispute, thank you, hon. Speaker.

S. Hamilton: My comments will be brief, comparatively brief, but concise, nonetheless. I do agree with much of what's been said on the other side of the aisle. I think, essentially, we're trying to get to the same place, but we have fundamental differences on how to get there. Ultimately, we both agree that our ports need to reopen, our truckers need to get back to work, and that's what we are trying to achieve. It's not much more complicated than that.

Our truckers also need a level of comfort, as does our business community require a level of comfort, knowing that there's a certain amount of security to those people whose jobs are hanging in the balance and may be negatively impacted without the decisive action that this House is taking over the next couple of days.

I do support the legislation, but first I want to say that this is a very difficult issue for me and many of my constituents who are employed in this industry, both directly with the ports and through many, many other contracted jobs such as truckers. They have legitimate concerns, and despite much of what's been said, that's why this government has been working with the ports and with the federal government and with Metro Vancouver, the truckers themselves, to try to find a resolution to this dispute.

Now, these truckers are hard-working men and women, and they just want to go back to their hard work that they do, but shutting down the port isn't the answer. I want to acknowledge the drivers who've gone back to work to help keep goods moving. It wasn't an easy decision that they made, but it was a necessary decision nonetheless.

It's a very complicated dispute and involves many parties, and it has an impact way beyond those who are directly involved. A prolonged strike has the potential to do damage to jobs, families and businesses across British Columbia and Canada. Our economy and our ability to pay for our services in British Columbia rely and depend upon international export markets, and they depend on Port Metro Vancouver.

Let's talk for a moment about the port's importance in dollars and cents. It creates almost 99,000 jobs, including more than 60,000 in British Columbia alone. It contributes $9.7 billion to gross domestic product and $20.3
[ Page 2380 ]
billion in economic output. Jobs created by the port generate $6.1 billion in wages.

Now, a similar action in 2005 caused $800 million in damage to the provincial economy. It's Canada's largest port, and last year it handled a record 135 million tonnes of cargo.

[1640]

It's vitally important, also, to note that this legislation does not end the negotiation process. In fact, by implementing a cooling-off period, this legislation restores the negotiation process. This is the most important point to underline. Once work at the port resumes, Mr. Vince Ready will be there waiting to greet the truckers and all the members who are wrapped up in this dispute to help find an end to it and to make sure their concerns are addressed, to work with truckers, the province, the federal government and Port Metro Vancouver and make sure that their jobs are dependable, because their families depend on their jobs.

We're committed to working with the port and the federal government to implement Mr. Ready's 14-point action plan. The truckers have concerns, and they'll be heard. They'll be addressed, and we need to get them back to work first. That's the most important issue. We can't afford to wait any longer and potentially do great damage to the provincial and the national economies.

I'm standing with our government. We have a mandate to protect and grow jobs and the economy, and our government has a responsibility to do our part, just as the federal government has a responsibility to do their part. The federal government, through the port, is acting on licences and sending a clear signal to all 1,900 truckers to return to work. We're tabling this legislation for only the 250 unionized members of Unifor who are legally on strike. That's all who are affected.

Mr. Ready has a clear mandate and framework to move forward. I personally have faith in the negotiation process, and I honestly believe that he will have the capacity and the mandate to end this dispute in a timely and fair manner.

There are long-term ramifications to this port staying closed down. My concern is the lack of confidence going forward. Diverting goods to other ports that have a more stable labour market — that's been mentioned on the other side of the aisle, and it should be a concern. Businesses forced to shutter their doors and never reopen. These are going to have long-term ramifications and negative effects on the economy of this province and our country. It's important that we deal with this issue as hastily as possible.

Members opposite complain, rightfully so, that the cost of storage fees being charged to businesses waiting for containers at the ports is unreasonable. Well, those are the storage fees, but the solution is not to protract this labour dispute. The solution is to get the truckers back on the road and move those containers to the people who are waiting for them. It's very simple. If we protract it, obviously it's subsequently going to wind up costing businesses even more.

Left alone, without this government taking action, a negotiated settlement could take several more weeks to achieve. Members opposite would be content to allow businesses already looking at the cliff to tumble over the edge, to allow otherwise healthy, vibrant businesses to wither on the vine, to allow the negative impact of billions of dollars more on our economy — all of this as we delicately tiptoe through the recovery of an already fragile economic climate? I'm sorry, but that is NDP economics at its finest.

I'd like to close by citing a number of letters that the member for Surrey-Newton regaled us with a little earlier this afternoon, one specifically from a constituent named Kelly Dhaliwal, expressing concern regarding her father, who's a truck driver that's been impacted by this work stoppage. Ms. Dhaliwal expressed concern about her father's situation and by extension the impact it's having on her family.

I have a message for Ms. Dhaliwal, and I'd be pleased if the member for Surrey-Newton would deliver it for me. This government shares her concern for her family as well as all of the other families throughout this province that are being negatively impacted by this prolonged dispute. That's why we're taking decisive and effective action to put people back to work and mitigate the damage that has already been done, with a view to setting the stage for continued negotiation that will result in a fair agreement for our truckers and our industry.

N. Macdonald: We're back here again, and over the past nine years we've done this repeatedly, where we're dealing with labour issues that the government has mishandled. They come in here and use the heavy-handed tools that they have, using the majority.

The previous speaker and other speakers have basically been talking about decisive, effective action, the need to be urgent — all of these things — when of course the exact opposite is true. There has been anything but decisive action here. It's been anything but urgent. These are problems that have existed for a long time that the government did not properly deal with.

[1645]

The port of Vancouver is incredibly important to trade, not only for British Columbia but for the whole country. And if it's important, then it's very important for a government to manage the file competently. That has not been the case with this government.

Government is going to force through this legislation over the next two days. Government controls that timetable completely. They have always controlled the timetable. They talk about urgency, that this is so important, that it has to be done. We could have been called back last week to deal with it. We could have dealt with it on
[ Page 2381 ]
Friday. The government decided not to. We could have dealt with it on Saturday. The government decided not to. We could have dealt with it on Sunday. The government decided not to. All of the timing is controlled by government.

In fact, we never needed to get to this place at all. The fundamentals of this dispute are well known. The fundamental problems for unionized and non-unionized truckers at Port Metro Vancouver have been known for a long, long time, and the government has failed to find a solution that works. Ultimately, this sits on the government's plate, and they have an obligation to deal with it. It is a government failure, pure and simple.

When you look at the issues, it is clear that there is a power imbalance, because government consistently undermines workers' ability to negotiate. This is an untenable position for the individuals involved in the work stoppage. Do you think truckers, who often own their own truck…? Even though they're a member of a union, they are small business people. Do you think they want to be there not working? Do you think that that works for them in any way?

It is a sign of clear desperation with the situation they're in, where since 1999, again and again, they have found that they do not have the money to make that important job viable. That is a problem that does not go away with what we see here.

The only way to solve it is to make sure that we have a transportation system where all parts of that transportation system are viable. You have to find a solution. The only way to find a solution is to have a negotiation that is based on true negotiation.

This legislation undermines that from ever possibly happening. Instead of going in and actually negotiating properly, which is what the port should be doing, they sit back. They put forward what they want. They don't care what happens to the truckers. That's not their problem, and they are not forced to deal with the issues that are important to the trucking industry.

Coming in and always siding, and making sure that there is no balance of power, you make it so that this is bound to happen. The government takes the employer's side every single time on these issues. The predictable result is that a trucking industry, which is incredibly important for the whole economy, is weakened because it cannot sustain itself. You cannot expect people to do work where they lose money. That is never going to happen.

We can pass this legislation, and the government is going to force it through, but you do not solve any of the fundamental problems that have been there for a long time. You send a message to Port Metro Vancouver that they don't have to bother doing the hard work that they should be doing, that they should have done in 2005 and they probably should have done in 1999: to make sure that you have a trucking industry that is viable. That's something that Port Metro Vancouver controls.

That is the problem, the inevitable result we get when you have a government that has no respect for true negotiations or a collective bargaining system. There is no respect for that. Any member that is under the illusion that they are part of a government that has any respect for true negotiations and collective bargaining…. There is nothing about what has gone on here over the past 12 years that would support that, and certainly, that's not what this is about. This is about a government helping Port Metro Vancouver impose a situation on truckers that is bound to make their life situation impossible.

[1650]

You are not going to impose a solution. All that this government is doing, all that this legislation does, is likely make the situation more complex and more difficult to solve.

It's been since 2005 that we've known these issues. Sit down, make it so that it works for all parts of the transportation system. Make it work for the port. Make it work for truckers. That is an obligation of this provincial government, and because we are in this place, it's clear that they have failed.

It is a failure. Rather than turn around and talk about being decisive or effective or acting urgently…. All of these things are completely untrue. That is not what has happened here. That is not what's going on.

If we continue with every single negotiation, every single dispute, to make sure that the power is always situated with the employer, then you inevitably get to a type of society that you see developing here in British Columbia. Of all the jurisdictions in Canada, it is here in British Columbia where inequality is the greatest, and predictably so. That is where government policies have pushed us, and this is one more tiny step along that pattern.

Inevitably, you will see those that run Port Metro Vancouver, those in positions of high power, getting more and more in their bonus systems, and you see regular people that used to be thinking of themselves as middle class, pushed into poverty — always undercut, always having their situation made worse. That's predictable. That is exactly what the government is predictably doing.

What do we have in British Columbia? A society that is less equal. It is less equal — statistically proven. That is what is going on here.

Is there more child poverty? Well, you can play with…. I've heard ministers stand up and talk about statistics and try to make some argument that it's just a statistical anomaly, but the fact is children are in families that are poor at a level here in British Columbia that is higher than any other jurisdiction. There has been no attempt by this government to rectify that — no attempt at all.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: The Minister of Health says there has
[ Page 2382 ]
been. Well, congratulations. On one more file, the minister has failed.

Okay, so the minister wants to ignore statistics for a while, but poverty is there. Poverty for children is there, and it's real. So put out a press release, Minister. You've got 200 people in communications. Put out a press release, and tell those families it's not true. Tell them it's not true. But people know it is true. They know it's true.

The families that are dependent upon the trucking industry right now, which does what we all acknowledge is important work, are part of that pattern of a government that pushes people out of the middle class into poverty — deliberately so and predictably so. I'm against that.

Now, there are many that say: "Oh, this is a political play by the B.C. Liberals. They're going to show the NDP are on the side of unions." Oh wow, what a revelation. I am a proud union member. I have always been. I identify with people that have less power in society. I do. I think that they need protections that the government is best suited to enable. I think that's our role here, to make sure we have a more fair and equal society. I think that's a good thing.

I've lived in Africa, where society is unequal. I don't think it works for anyone. It doesn't work for the very rich. It certainly doesn't work for the vast majority that are very poor.

What we have done well in Canada over the years is we have worked, using the democratic system, to provide some balance, and we have respected certain tools that are available to working people to get themselves into the middle class. That's fair. That's something I believe in. That's something that's worth fighting for. It's certainly not something that a government again and again should undermine.

[1655]

This situation here on the ports is a prime example. Let them sit down, okay? Is it hard on Port Metro Vancouver that there's a work stoppage? Yeah. That's tough. Is it hard on those that are doing the work stoppage? Yeah. That's tough. So sit down.

There's nothing to stop the negotiations from going on now. There was nothing to stop the negotiations from going on yesterday or the day before or the day before. The intransigence comes from this government that signals to the employer: "You don't have to do anything. We'll do your job for you. We're going to undercut the ability of the workers to put any pressure on you." Fundamentally, it is flawed logic.

You want to this move along? Get them sitting together negotiating. It could happen now. The government chooses to back a position where it doesn't happen. Instead, we go through this as if it solves some fundamental problem, as if you're going to have a trucking industry that is going to actually operate continuously and lose money. It's not going to happen.

Now, other members have talked about the ripple effect of a port stoppage, and that's true. There is no doubt that we need this port operating. But we also need a trucking industry that is going to be on solid ground, with people that can have good middle-class jobs.

These are not easy jobs that they're doing. Of all the members here, there are probably a handful that live further from Port of Vancouver than I do. But I see those truckers all the time, thousands and thousands each day, going the Trans-Canada. They're on that road — incredibly difficult.

If you make it so that the trucking industry is always a race to the bottom, as this is set up to be, then you are bound to have complications with that transportation system. To have a safe transportation system, you need a business that's viable. If you're cutting corners all the time, you impact safety. There is no question. How do you keep experienced drivers if you're asking them to do work where they can sit for hours with their rig and get a pittance for it — in fact, lose money? It's not going to happen.

Across this province those that drive on the highways need a trucking system that's viable so that they are able to attract good, experienced drivers in what is probably the most difficult place to drive in this country — through Rogers Pass, through the Kicking Horse. These are difficult places to drive if you're not experienced. If you want experienced drivers, it has to be a viable transportation system. If you want people to be trained to use the equipment that they're responsible for, again you need a viable transportation system that can invest in that training.

All of these things are issues that a government needs to get its head around and deal with properly, and that, again, sits with government. What we need, then, is some balance here. We need to give the process a chance to work as it's supposed to work, which means it's slightly painful for both sides. That pain pushes the groups together to negotiate a deal that is acceptable to both sides. If you don't do that, then predictably, you're going to have trouble.

Truck drivers have told this government repeatedly that they cannot accept the work conditions that they have. They cannot accept the inadequate financial remuneration that they're being offered. It simply doesn't work for them. Nothing about a 60-day cooling off. Nothing about anything that is here in this bill is going to change that reality.

You need to negotiate fairly and honestly and find something that works for those owner-operators, not: "Come in here, and do this." So if the key issue is not addressed, then an important part of our transportation infrastructure is weak. You don't get away from being impacted, as I said — not only here in the Lower Mainland, where a vast majority of the population lives, but in distant parts of British Columbia as well. We need that transportation system to work, and this is an essential part of it.
[ Page 2383 ]

[1700]

The economics have to work not only for Port of Vancouver; they have to work for the truck drivers as well. You have this ongoing stress, then, of the underpayment of truckers, and then, like I say, there are ramifications.

As I've said, of course, philosophically I identify with workers. I have been a union leader, and I've also been in management as a principal. I was in management as a principal as well as a mayor. So I have seen both sides, and I realize that you need, more than anything, balance. You do not want any one side with unfettered power. Of course it's not going to work.

I understand, having been in management, that Port Metro Vancouver has a responsibility to look after the interests of running that port. I get that completely. I also understand that people who are running their businesses as truckers have a responsibility to look after their business, after themselves, after their families.

Now those are not the same interests, but they're not mutually exclusive either. It has to work together. How do you get it to work together? You have respectful negotiations. There is nothing about what we're doing here that is going to make that respectful negotiation anymore likely to take place, and so we're going to be right back here. Or perhaps you get a situation where people are simply ignoring the legislation that we put forward.

That's not inconceivable either. That's what people are talking about. The level of frustration, I think, is clear for anyone who has been to the line and has talked to people — huge frustration. So that needs to be…. Surely the government would be mindful of that.

What about strikes? What about the pattern we have here of constantly ordering people back to work? The fact is that a strike is one way that a worker has to try to balance the equation. It's a tool that's very rarely used, frankly, because it hurts all involved. But it's a tool, and what other tool do workers have other than to withdraw their labour?

That is something that we have always recognized as being a legitimate way of entering negotiations. When they break down, the worker has the right to withdraw their labour. That's something that I think is a legitimate, useful tool that has helped create a more just society.

What we've seen over the past 12 years is that when this government tries to break down the work that unions do and take away the tools that working people have, you see the shift from a middle class that used to be there, and strong, to a situation where more and more are pushed into poverty. I would say deliberately so.

Philosophically, I said that I stand with those that tend to be in less powerful positions — with workers, with communities that are distant from power. That's philosophically where I am, and I would say the government clearly aligns with the elites all the time in its policies — maybe not as individuals, but you're the enabler for the elite to push their agenda all the time. That's the reality that we're dealing with.

Government can play a constructive role, but when government comes in on one side of a dispute, then problems simply don't get solved, and as we've seen, they're left to fester. So this government and the federal government — the fact that they're consistently anti-union in this case, as in many other cases, comes back to bite you. It puts us in a poor situation.

I come from and represent an isolated rural community, often feeling disempowered, distant from decision-making. Most of my experience has been as a union member. That's my background. I understand that very often people that are on the fringes of power need some tools, and they certainly don't need those tools undermined by government.

[1705]

To me, unions and a functioning democratic system are two of the most important tools the people have to maintain a balanced society. This legislation and the way it's going to be pushed through undermine both of those.

I mean, let's be clear. What the government will do is limit debate and push this through. It will be done because they have a majority of those two or four or five. It doesn't matter. There's no negotiation here either. It's always the government's way or no way.

Those are the two things that have worked well in the past to really create a society here in Canada that's more balanced, more fair than other parts of the world. You take those tools away, and you head in a direction that most Canadians would not be pleased with.

In 2005 I ran for the first time for the NDP, and I actually saw myself in a B.C. Liberal attack ad. It was a mild one, really, compared to what we've seen recently, but it was a negative ad about the NDP being all union. I was a union leader, as I said, and I was there with Gary Coons, Charlie Wyse and David Chudnovsky, as well as others, as teachers union presidents.

I guess it was supposed to be a negative thing. I guess I didn't know that because I had in my brochure, at the top of my elect-me brochure: "Hey, I was a teacher president." I guess that's one way of seeing that philosophically, we're in a different place.

I knew at that time, as I worked with collective agreements, that the way to move forward is to bargain in good faith. I was part of different bargaining processes, and I understood that my responsibility was to bargain in good faith. My expectation was that those I was bargaining with would also bargain in good faith. If they didn't, we had certain tools that we could use, but we wouldn't use them, because it made more sense for us to bargain in good faith.

If my employer had been told, "Go ahead and bargain with them, but you don't have to agree to anything, because we the government will order them back to work if they want to try to force the issue," then how are you having any sort of balanced discussion?
[ Page 2384 ]

Now, far be it from me to say that that would happen in teaching. Government would never do that in teaching — right? They would never bargain in bad faith. But, of course, we know that's not the case, just as with this, the government consistently undermines the collective bargaining system, with results that I think are predictable. We have had ten years, 12 years of quite predictable labour disputes here in British Columbia around teaching, all stemming from the government's insistence on interfering with an established process and making sure that that process is undermined.

Now the government is talking about a ten-year deal, which of course is something that would likely be impossible anyway. Hardly any thought went into that promise, and certainly it would never come about if there's not some sense that there's going to be negotiations in good faith.

The solution, then, sits with understanding the issue and respectfully bargaining, and that's not rocket science. All this does is interfere with that process. As I said, I'm not surprised. Philosophically, that's where this government is. We've seen the pattern. It started as soon as the B.C. Liberals took over. We saw it with the teachers most recently, where instead of negotiating in good faith, despite all the words, the government secretly had an agenda to force a strike.

I don't know what the secret agenda is here. I'm sure we'll find out when, at some point, cabinet documents come out or something. We'll find out what the agenda is. But you would think that part of what the government would be trying to do is manage the file competently, and you don't see it.

[1710]

The Liberals started their time in office promising not to rip up contracts. I'll just remind people that are watching that that was the promise that Gordon Campbell made in person to HEU, to their faces — face to face, as the Minister of Transportation likes to say. But in this case, the Premier actually was face to face with HEU members, promising that contracts would be honoured. No sooner did the Liberals get in than those contracts were ripped up.

Now, not only was it unethical, what the government did; it was also unconstitutional. We have dealt over the past seven, eight years with HEU — the largest number of women fired by a government in B.C. history. That was a signal for where, philosophically, the government is.

We see, philosophically, with this dispute they're in the same place: lack of respect for working people, making sure that a middle class that used to be secure in this province is again under attack. We see it certainly with the teachers, breaking the contract in an unconstitutional way, then coming back with another contract introduced in an unconstitutional way, and then moving to, of course, try to provoke a strike and push children and families into all the hardships of a strike. Complete contempt for those who look after our children, those who educate our children.

We see that same contempt here to those that are a key link to our transportation system. Whether it's with breaking contracts or introducing legislation like this, the pattern is clear, and it's a pattern that takes us down a path that this province doesn't want to go. I think if you asked most people, they would say: "Hey look, I understand that the goods I get in Golden are brought here by a truck driver that has to make money. I get that. I get that the Port of Vancouver has to make money. I get that the store owner who is selling me the goods has to make money." We all understand that.

Now we have a system where, for the most part, that sorts itself. If the store doesn't make money, it goes out of business. So they make sure that they sell it at a rate that's reasonable, and if I choose to live in Golden and that's the rate, well, then, that works.

But here we have a situation where truck drivers, who we need to do this work…. Right? That's the whole purpose of what the government's argument is: we need them to go and do this, right? We need them. We need them today to go and do this.

They have to make money. The only way they make money is if they can negotiate a fair deal. That is the only way it will work. All this legislation does is to deny them that opportunity.

As I say, I've been here for nine years now. I have seen the pattern. I have seen where, repeatedly, opposition has warned government that they're heading in the wrong direction, and then the government is back fixing the problem that they created predictably. We have seen a government that is pushing people into poverty. They do it step by step, with measures like this. It's the wrong direction. I believe it's completely unfair to the vast majority of British Columbians.

We need for this government, then, to do the difficult thing, which is to actually manage competently: go to this file, take this dispute on, get the parties together and negotiate, instead of using this blunt, ineffective tool that we have here.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I assure you I will vote against it, as I have voted against all of the measures that have been like this and as I will vote against again and again in the future.

G. Kyllo: I rise today to speak in favour of Bill 25, addressing the Port Metro Vancouver dispute affecting services at British Columbia's main trade link with Asia.

As the member opposite indicated, he's seen a pattern over the last nine years. That pattern that I've seen is that British Columbians continue to vote for a Liberal government in this province. We're focused on growing the economy and creating jobs in B.C.

[1715]

Now is the time for our government to act, as this is a
[ Page 2385 ]
necessary piece of legislation needed to keep our economy moving forward. British Columbia's economic growth and well-being are dependent on the export of our products to economies in Asia and beyond.

Quite honestly, B.C. and Canadian businesses are already seeing negative impacts from this dispute. Just look at the numbers. Trucks at Port Metro Vancouver handle $126 million worth of cargo each and every day. That's $885 million lost for every week to B.C. and our economy. We're losing $270,000 per hour. These numbers are staggering, and that is why our government needs to take this action to get our ports moving at full capacity once again.

B.C. is blessed geographically with our proximity to Asian ports. Because of this blessing, B.C. has become the leader in Canada and North America in shipping exports to Asia. We also have a competitive advantage in trade with Asia due to the fact that our abundant natural resources, such as timber, metallurgical coal, oil, copper and other minerals found throughout our province, are in high demand in Asian markets.

We are a stable jurisdiction with a growing economy, and I'll emphasize the word "stable." Labour stoppage does not provide stability to our province and, unfortunately, sends the wrong message to our trading partners and indeed businesses from across this province that rely on Port Metro Vancouver to help get their goods to market.

For these reasons, our government has made it a priority to resolve this dispute so that we can continue to strengthen our trade with Asia and resume the stability which is so crucial to our provincial economy. To make it clear, I am rising to speak in favour of this legislation because there are economic impacts across the province and in my riding of the Shuswap.

There's a need to get forestry, agriculture and manufactured goods to market. In particular, forestry mills are not seeing their products move, and supply orders are being cancelled. Mills in my riding are being impacted with bulging inventories, as they are unable to move shipments through the ports. This is simply not sustainable. Production curtailments and layoffs are imminent if port delays are permitted to continue.

Manufacturing companies are also being challenged with shortages of critical components, drastically compromising their ability to meet delivery commitments to their customers. Businesses across this province have invested an enormous amount of time and energy in developing a base of loyal customers and growing their respective market share.These relationships are being strained due to the inability of meeting contractual delivery obligations due to port delays — due to no fault of their own.

Continued port delays result in businesses losing both customers and market share. This means potential plant shutdowns, it means temporary layoffs for hard-working people in my region, and it means that families are being impacted within my constituency.

Let me be clear: a prolonged strike will cause irreparable harm to our economy and to British Columbia's reputation as a stable, worldwide trading partner. Moreover, jobs will be lost across our province.

This all being said, we are fully aware of the concerns of workers and their families. As they do have valid concerns that need to be addressed, fair negotiations will continue. By implementing a cooling-off period, all parties involved can resume their process of fair negotiations, with Vince Ready working as a mediator between management and workers' representatives.

We see this as a measured and reasonable response to both remedying the current port delays and encouraging all parties to work together towards a long-term settlement.

Now more than ever, we need to act and to assist B.C.- and Canadian-based businesses that are reliant on foreign trade to sell their products. We have a mandate to grow our economy and promote job creation for all British Columbians. Investments in British Columbia, the Asia-Pacific strategy, efficient regulations on international trade and a low-cost environment make B.C. the export leader in our country and, therefore, a key link with the economic growth of our country.

We cannot lose this advantage. We cannot wait any longer. Port Metro Vancouver is by far our strongest link to economic growth going forward, in our province and in my region. We need to have our export links open and working at capacity. Therefore, Port Metro Vancouver needs to be fully operational as soon as possible.

Now, the members opposite, I think, unfairly characterize this as something that it's not. This is not a legislated settlement. What we're talking about is a cooling-off period, trying to get goods back on the roads in order to ensure jobs in British Columbia and to keep the economy moving, at all times being fully respectful of the workers and the truckers.

[1720]

L. Krog: It's always good to go back to the basics, I think, in these debates. Let's take a moment just to actually look at Bill 25, which is the subject we're talking about here this afternoon.

It's the Port Metro Vancouver Container Trucking Services Continuation Act. That's a lovely title. Basically, it's trying to tell you that somehow, if we pass this bill, then container trucking is going to continue serving Port Metro Vancouver.

The problem is that it's only going to deal with part of the problem, and it's going to deal with part of the problem in a fairly heavy-handed way, I would argue — not inconsistent with what this government has done on previous occasions when it comes to its dealings with unions in the province. At some point in my remarks I may address a few comments about that.
[ Page 2386 ]

The cooling-off period proposed by this legislation is 90 days, although section 3 provides that the minister can extend it for two further 30-day periods for a total of not more than 60. So in theory, we could be looking at 150 days of this twilight zone, where one hopes that somehow there is going to be some negotiated solution to a problem that this government has been aware of for years.

What the legislation basically says is that, despite the labour code, "…after the coming into force of this Act and until the end of the cooling-off period, (a) an employer must not lock out or declare a lockout of any of its employees and must terminate any lockout, (b) Unifor and the employees represented by Unifor must not strike or declare a strike and must terminate any strike," etc. And "(e) an officer or a representative of Unifor must not in any manner impede or prevent, or attempt to impede or prevent, any person to whom paragraph (b) or (c) applies from complying with either or both of these paragraphs," etc.

Now, it also goes on to provide…. This is what I call the faint hope or the wishful fairy thinking clause. It says: "Within 72 hours after the coming into force of this Act, the parties must continue or commence to bargain collectively in good faith and must make every reasonable effort to conclude collective agreements or renew or revise their last collective agreements."

I want to repeat that: "…commence to bargain collectively in good faith and must make every reasonable effort…." Now, how in heaven's name are you ever going to do that? What's that old cliché? Nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

Do we honestly think, debating in this chamber, that you're going to be able to influence what people think — or how you're going to influence the intimate behaviour that will occur around a bargaining table, if anyone actually gets to it? Do we honestly believe that by the passage of this act we're going to make people bargain in good faith?

With great respect to the other parties involved in this, it's been pretty clear for a long time that we can probably rely on Unifor…. I realize the government bench is expecting me to defend, of course, the union involved in this, but I think it’s fairly clear we can rely on them to bargain in good faith.

I mean, after all, it was back in November that Paul Johal, president of Unifor Local VCTA, and Gavin McGarrigle, Unifor area director for British Columbia, wrote to the vice-president of planning and operations at Port Metro Vancouver. And what did they have to say? Third paragraph in: "We strongly believe that a large-scale disruption from among the container truck population is once again imminent, and we believe that the time to act is now." Now, hon. Speaker.

[1725]

As you know, the last disruption, in 2005, was very costly to the provincial and federal economies and to the reputation of the ports of Vancouver as a reliable and stable environment for trade. The last disruption was only resolved with the assistance of Vince Ready. We are, therefore, calling on the provincial government, the federal government, PMV — that stands for Port Metro Vancouver, in case anyone missed it — and all stakeholders to come together on an urgent basis with Vince Ready acting in a special capacity with clear terms of reference to make recommendations to resolve the issues leading to the current potential threat of disruption.

If we want to talk about good faith mentioned in section 5…. Boy, if there was good faith in this process, surely it was the good faith of our friends at Unifor interested in securing a secure and stable economy for the people of British Columbia, who pointed out clearly what the government members seem to have only discovered in the last 27 days, and that is that it's costly to the provincial and federal economies and to the reputation of the ports of Vancouver. Yes, it's costly. My goodness, what a shocker. It's costly to the economies when you have disruptions at your major port.

I'm not entirely convinced that simply passing this legislation is going to magically solve this problem. Now, we're assured that Mr. Ready is available, but we know that Mr. Ready's role recently has been quite limited in scope. He hasn't been used or had to undertake the kind of work that he historically does.

At this moment I think it's only appropriate to say that Vince Ready has achieved a reputation in the field of union negotiations and labour negotiations that is probably unparalleled. If we were handing out knighthoods in the province, Vince Ready would have had one many, many years ago in recognition of his incredible public service and his almost magical ability to secure agreement between disparate parties who, on the face of it, could never reach a negotiated settlement.

I come back to my point about bargaining in good faith and making reasonable efforts. Surely the letter of November 7, 2013, that I've referred to was a clear demonstration of good faith and, I would suggest, much more than even reasonable efforts, significant efforts on the part of a union that understands what the problems on the waterfront in Vancouver are all about and wanted to avoid the very mess that exists now.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I'm just an outsider to the affairs of Port Metro. All I understand from what I've learned in the last 27 days…. After all, this is very urgent to the government. They've let this thing dribble on for 27 days, and now suddenly it's a crisis. Well, it certainly became a crisis in their mind anyway recently. All I understand is that you have this complex system whereby goods arrive in the port of Vancouver, get handled by some folks and then get distributed by the trucking industry, some of which is
[ Page 2387 ]
unionized, some of which isn't, with a whole series of employers.

I know there's a whole series of employers because if I go to the definition of "employer" in the act, it means "any of the employers, and their successors and assigns, that were carrying on business under the following names on the date indicated: (a) Aheer Transportation Ltd., on December 18, 2000; (b) Forward Transport Ltd., on March 1, 1995; (c) Green Light Courier Ltd., on March 10, 2006; (d) Landway Transport, on March 6, 2007; (e) Port Transport Inc., on May 4, 2006; (f) Prudential Transportation Ltd., on December 7, 2005; (g) Sunlover Holding Co. Ltd., on December 7, 2005."

Well, there's a funny line: Sunlover Holding. Boy, if we could see a little sunshine in this fiasco, wouldn't that be wonderful? Then, to play around with some of the other company names, we could give the green light to the economy of British Columbia to move forward. Of course, we know that the second company mentioned is Forward Transport.

[1730]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

We've got all the language we need right there in the employer definition of this act. We want to move into the sunshine. We want to get the green light on, because it's forward for British Columbia — except we have a government whose history of labour relations is, may I say, somewhat less than stellar.

You know, it really takes a great deal of effort on the part of a rather small place — and British Columbia is, in terms of population, relative to the world — to be sanctioned so frequently by the courts of the land and the United Nations International Labour Organization. I mean, it really takes a significant talent, when you've been in office for as long as this government has, to have achieved a record that would make it the envy of some backwards American state perhaps, where labour laws are so dismal that even Americans don't like to talk about them. But that is the history of this government.

In this particular case, what is even more dismal and disappointing is that there is such significant agreement amongst the parties to the dispute and the members of this Legislature. We get it. We cut down trees, and we turn them into lumber, and we sell that around the world. We mine ore out of the ground. Sometimes we do a little processing; sometimes we don't. We transport it around the world. We bring goods from all over the planet into British Columbia that we consume.

I mean, I have no idea, but I'm just looking at my yellow highlighter here. It's made in Germany. That obviously got transported here, and I suspect it probably came by cargo ship and landed in Metro Vancouver and somehow made its way to the B.C. Legislature. The pencil? Well, it's a Dixon Ticonderoga. I'm not sure where they're made anymore. It's pretty hard to find pencils. I'm going to guess that the pen might well have been made in China and got transported here through the Port Metro Vancouver.

We all get it. What happens in Port Metro Vancouver is really important. I mean, the things that we use on a daily basis in this place come through that port. The government agrees; the opposition agrees; Unifor agrees. I assume Port Metro Vancouver agrees. All those poor fellows out there and gals, who are trying to make a living running trucks and operating rigs, working for union or non-union employers, as the case may be — they all understand. They understand their importance. Yet we've got a port, itself, that is taking — well, I hate to use the term "disgusting," so let me just say this — incredible advantage of a circumstance to increase their revenue in a way that is just thoroughly unreasonable and almost unconscionable.

Now, it is creating incredible pressure on people who have containers or goods stored in Vancouver. But the bill itself actually levees some pretty unconscionable numbers itself. If we go to the "Offences" section, where it talks about anyone who contravenes section 3…. That's not the good-faith section, I might add. You see, after all, I come back to my point. When you're trying to legislate somebody's thoughts, it's pretty hard to provide for a penalty.

Section 6, the offences section, says:

"An employer, or an officer or a representative of an employer, who contravenes section 3 (1) (a) or (f), as the case may be, commits an offence and is liable to the following: (a) in the case of an employer, a fine amount of not less than $10 000 for each day on which the offence occurs; (b) in the case of an officer or a representative of an employer, a fine amount of not less than $2 500 for each day on which the offence occurs.

[1735]

"(2) An employee, Unifor or an officer or a representative of Unifor who contravenes section 3 (1) (b), (c) or (e), as the case may be, commits an offence and is liable to the following: (a) in the case of an employee, a fine amount of not more than $400 for each day on which the offence occurs;" — so we're going to take 400 bucks out of the pocket of a working stiff — "(b) in the case of Unifor, a fine amount of not less than $10 000 for each day on which the offence occurs; (c) in the case of an officer or a representative of Unifor, a fine amount of not less than $2 500 for each day on which the offence occurs."

I don't see any offence section in there that is going to punish people who won't continue or commence to bargain collectively in good faith and make every reasonable effort to conclude collective agreements or renew or revise their last collective agreements.

You can't force people to be nice. You can't force people to bargain collectively and in good faith when it appears several parties to this complex arrangement by which goods are received and delivered out of Port Metro, all of the parties, don't have any particular interest or way of expressing themselves or getting down and sitting down and working out a solution.

We know what the solution is. We know what the
[ Page 2388 ]
real solution is, and the solution is not heavy legislation. The solution is contained in what Unifor pointed out to the government and to Port Metro. It's not like this letter wasn't known. They called on the provincial government, the federal government, PMV and all stakeholders to come together, on an urgent basis, with Vince Ready.

This is not some short-term problem. This represents a longstanding issue in the port. It has gone on for a very long time. Indeed, back on August 22, 1999, there was a memorandum of agreement signed to end a month-long dispute that saw 450 owner-operators withdraw service.

On June 27, 2005, members of Vancouver Container Truckers Association stopped work and effectively shut down the port. At that time, the Vancouver Container Truckers Association members were not unionized. On June 30, 2005, the federal and provincial governments jointly appoint Vince Ready to resolve the dispute. There was a memorandum of agreement secured by July 29. The Vancouver Container Truckers Association accepted the memorandum of understanding, but the trucking companies didn't.

On August 4, 2005, the federal government issues an order-in-council. On October 26, 2005, there was a task force report. In 2006 many but not all members of the VCTA unionized with CAW, now Unifor. In 2007 that expires. They fiddle on for a little while longer.

In 2010 Transport Canada and then PMV conclude that the 2005 MOA does not apply to off-dock work. On June 3, 2010, then-Labour Minister Murray Coell writes the port expressing concern that recommendations made by the container truck dispute resolution program are not being dealt with.

On December 20, 2010, Vancouver Container Truckers Association members and CAW representatives meet with federal minister Stockwell Day to discuss complaints over the port operations regulations introduced in 2007 and ineffective rate enforced by the port. Then we come down to October last year, and we carry on, we carry on, we carry on.

My point is this. There is a significant history, and if we all agree and acknowledge — and I think we do — that the continuous and successful operation of Port Metro Vancouver is crucial to British Columbia's economy, where was the provincial government before?

It reminds me of the Premier, who wanted to take credit for the federal shipbuilding contract. She suddenly discovered that that was going to be important and maybe she should actually do something about it. Of course, by then the bus had already left the terminal in that case as well.

[1740]

When you get elected as government, it's your responsibility not simply to manage the crises that pop up, which inevitably do. It's your job, when alerted to ongoing issues and problems that are going to blow up, it's your obligation, to try and solve the problem ahead of time. It's not to come into the Legislature 27 days down the road after this disruption started and say, "Oh, we have to pass some legislation which" — rather optimistically — "says you have to bargain collectively in good faith," as if we could read minds, as if this was 1984 or Brave New World or something.

That's not your job. Your job was a long time ago, and certainly, one would argue, absolutely no later than November 7, 2013, when Unifor sent off its letter. It was your obligation and responsibility then to try and ensure and work with the federal government that in fact we wouldn't end up with this bill before us today, which provides for significant fines and penalties against employers and employees, against companies and their representatives and directors.

The job was to try and solve the problem ahead of time, to have ensured there was a process in place and, if necessary — and it was pretty obvious, because, again, Unifor wisely made the right suggestion — bring in someone with the incredible ability of a Vince Ready and solve the problem. Get the parties together. Make sure there's a federal minister on the other end of the line who's prepared to indicate in no uncertain terms that they won't tolerate a disruption in Canada's major port.

That would have been something that the province should have been doing. After all, as much as this is of national importance…. No question about it. The containers that arrive in Vancouver get transported potentially onto the prairies of this country, into the north. Nevertheless, it is British Columbians who are working in the port. It is British Columbians who are affected by this legislation, the ones who are covered by it most directly. It is the hundreds of truckers and other workers who directly rely on the successful functioning of the port for their livelihoods who are directly impacted by it.

What this legislation does…. I'll admit, in fairness to the government, I don't think even they really believe it's going to solve the problem. What this legislation simply does is say: "The mess we have…. The strike carries on. The strike ends for up to a period of 150 days, and everybody is supposed to get back to the table and bargain in good faith."

Now, what do we know about bargaining in good faith? Well, we know pretty clearly that if there's another option, you can't force people to bargain in good faith.

Gavin McGarrigle made, I think, a very timely comment when he indicated: "We had something that our bargaining committee unanimously recommended that we thought would get us a deal. We followed up the next day with the employers at the same time that we got the notice of the back-to-work legislation" — which, of course, is the Port Metro Container Trucking Services Continuation Act — "and literally, the employers were getting calls from the shippers and customers saying, 'Now that we've heard about this, the government is going to do the dirty work for you, so don't sign any contracts.'"
[ Page 2389 ]

It's an out. The effect of this legislation was to give the green light — to come back to those lovely company names that are mentioned in the definition section — to employers that they didn't essentially have to worry about that because the government was going to do the dirty work for them.

[1745]

It put an end to the bargaining process instead of forcing the parties to do the right thing and the best thing, which is to solve this problem face to face around a bargaining table and bring about a solution that would actually have some validity and would hopefully form the basis of, if not a long-term solution, at least a longer-term solution.

All this legislation is going to do is delay, I suspect sadly, the inevitable. It will see behaviours on the part of some individuals involved in this dispute which will not enhance long-term labour peace nor peace at Port Metro. It will see the development and enhancement of existing animosities between various parties that again will not spell out or create any possibility of long-term labour peace.

It will do nothing to solve the complex problems of a port where you have union and non-union truckers, you have significant employers and smaller employers and you've got significant undercutting in the industry which is creating economic havoc — again, all revolving around something which everyone in this chamber acknowledges: Port Metro Vancouver, the crucial gateway to British Columbia's economy. It's the place through which hundreds of millions of dollars — indeed, billions of dollars — of goods pass year in, year out.

What's happening? I think it was the Minister of Transportation who pointed out that some goods are starting to move south to the Port of Seattle. We may not see the people who are shipping their containers south to Seattle ever use Port Metro Vancouver again. Why? Because when you want and need your goods and you're running a business and you've got to supply customers, you need to be assured of the supply. In order to have that, one of the crucial links in the chain, if you will, is to ensure that you have a functioning port where goods arrive and are delivered in a timely manner.

Now, we know that at Port Metro Vancouver having goods delivered in a timely manner was becoming a real problem, that so many truckers were facing financial ruin as a result of the inability of that port to operate in a way that would allow them to go in, pick up what they had to pick up, get out of there and get it delivered.

I hesitate to think how much of a greater carbon footprint has been created because of that system that in the last few years wasn't operating efficiently, let alone the economic deprivation caused to various truckers and the problems caused to the various businesses who needed to receive their goods in a timely way.

We've heard some of the stories, and there won't be a member in this chamber who's not sympathetic to the disruption and the pain and the economic loss and the stress that has flowed from this dispute. It is felt by thousands of British Columbians who either rely on the receipt of those goods or who made their living delivering those goods or who indirectly receive the benefit of those goods. But this bill is not going to solve it.

If I thought this bill would actually solve it, if I thought it was fair, I'd support it. But all this is going to do is delay the inevitable. Until the government takes the responsibility seriously, works in conjunction with the federal government, ensures that a person of Mr. Ready's quality is allowed to do their job and get the parties together, and allows the union to exercise its democratic rights to strike, which is absolutely fundamental in a democratic society…. Until the government is prepared to allow for that, we are not going to see any improvement.

We will be back here again, potentially, playing around with a solution that only will deal with part of the problem instead of recognizing that if we wish to encourage economic development in this province, then we're going to have to get this issue settled in a serious and successful way. I see no interest in this government, based on the past behaviour and the opportunities it's had, to address that issue in the way that it deserves to be addressed.

[1750]

You can legislate as long as you want, but the fact is that until you have something that works, we aren't going to see the solution that's needed. I will be voting against the Port Metro Vancouver Container Trucking Services Continuation Act. It doesn't deserve the support of the members of this Legislature, and it is a testament to this government's continuing failure to actually deliver the government that British Columbians deserve.

Standing Order 81

BILL 25 TO PROCEED THROUGH
TWO OR MORE STAGES IN ONE DAY

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 81. With respect to that, I am, on behalf of the government, requesting a ruling from the Chair, pursuant to Standing Order 81, that Bill 25 be permitted to advance through all stages in a single sitting day.

The application of Standing Order 81 following introduction of a bill is not uncommon. It is, however, by convention, to be used sparingly in this chamber. As is frequently the case, Madame Speaker, you and the House may seek guidance regarding the interpretation and application of our standing orders from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. Standing Order 81 is considered at page 212 of the fourth edition of that publication, and the author observes as follows: "There are numerous precedents in the United Kingdom House where bills, after first reading, have passed through all
[ Page 2390 ]
remaining stages in one day." The author makes further reference to Erskine May, the 21st edition, pages 530 and 531.

Here in British Columbia, given the specific wording of our Standing Order 81, it seems clear that a key component of the test that must be met is that the occasion or circumstances giving rise to the application must be urgent or extraordinary. In addressing that test and the urgency of the situation, I should like to emphasize the following. You've heard some of this during the course of the debate.

The fact is that over 38,000 jobs are directly impacted by the operation of Port Metro Vancouver. The economic impact — $3.5 billion in gross domestic product, $8.5 billion in economic output, $2.3 billion in wages. And I say that with a measure of pride and hope that the people who are involved in that economic activity are, I think, proud of that contribution.

Ongoing activity related to the port of Metro Vancouver contributes almost $1.3 billion annually in tax revenue to all levels of government, $336 million in British Columbia. I suppose, though, as we have heard from some in this debate, the events and the impact that they are having are as relevant as some of those statistics.

The port has advised that ships are being redirected elsewhere, cargo is being off-loaded into alternate ports like Seattle, and we are of course hearing from clients of the port — food companies in the Okanagan whose produce and products are going bad, additional significant storage costs, the inability to access vital goods in forestry. Companies involved in the pulp and paper sector are in the process of shutting down.

We have heard from the Council of Forest Industries in Vancouver about their activities being strangled, about the inability to access markets and hard-earned market shares in other parts of the world, markets like China.

We have heard from newly arrived families, immigrant families, whose possessions are stuck in a container at the port for which they are being charged additional storage fees and denied the ability to access those goods that are an important part of settling into their new home. And there are, of course, the reputational components of the disruption that is occurring at the port.

[1755]

Madame Speaker, in asking you to exercise your discretionary powers pursuant to Standing Order 81, I'm asking that you take into account the rulings of your predecessors in the chair as well as the submissions that gave rise to those rulings.

I have been around long enough to be present for some of them. On April 2, 2000, then speaker Bill Hartley granted an application for then Bill 7, dealing with labour disruptions in the public school system, to move through all three stages in one sitting day.

In reaching that decision, he was guided in part by the submissions of then Government House Leader Dale Lovick, who asked the Speaker to consider the following:

"…if we had our preferences, obviously, free and fair and complete collective bargaining would be desirable. There comes a point at which, however, if the collective bargaining process is not working, we as government, as elected representatives — I think it's clear — have an obligation to carry out our legislative responsibilities. What's before us now is a pretty clear indication that the parties are unable to resolve their differences — i.e., the collective bargaining process is not working….

"…we're disappointed that we must do this, but we feel we must. We would prefer that collective bargaining would work — that the process would continue to unfold to everyone's satisfaction. Given, however, the demonstrable evidence that the process isn't working, then we believe we must introduce this legislation."

That's from then Government House Leader Dale Lovick.

I'm also aware that the granting of these applications is by no means automatic. On April 26, 1996, Speaker Barnes expressed his concern that a bill — once again dealing with labour disruption in the public education system — went far beyond the stringent circumstances contemplated by Standing Order 81.

Bill 25, which is before the House now, which imposes a cooling-off period and does not seek to impose a collective agreement on the parties, is in my view, minimally interventionist, respectful of the role of ongoing collective bargaining and falls within the parameters established by Speaker Barnes, Speaker Hartley and others who have ruled on similar applications.

Two final points, Madame Speaker, that I believe are worthy of comment. The government waited 24 hours before bringing this application to the House and to you for two reasons.

First, I think we should always be cautious about truncating normal procedures in this House. The government remained hopeful that the negotiation might yet prove successful. Sadly, that has not proven to be the case.

Secondly, before seeking the application of Standing Order 81, it seemed appropriate to provide the opposition with an opportunity to consider its position on this matter and communicate that position. We certainly have a better idea today of what the opposition position is, but we are in no better position to know how long the opposition intends to take in advancing that position in this chamber. That is not a criticism; that is merely a statement of fact.

For reasons that have been articulated previously, the government believes that the present situation cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely and, therefore, seeks application of the Standing Order 81 urgency provisions.

Madame Speaker, I know that you will want time to consider these submissions and those that the hon. Opposition House Leader undoubtedly wishes to present you with. I am hopeful that you will be in a position to render a ruling by the time the House resumes sitting tomorrow.

In the unlikely event that circumstances change and an alternative pathway to resolution can be found that negates the need for your ruling, I can assure you I will be
[ Page 2391 ]
only too pleased to advise you and this House.

B. Ralston: I thank the Government House Leader for his submission. The test here is "urgent or extraordinary." I would submit that that test, which is referred to in one of the decisions by Speaker Barnes as "very stringent guidelines," has not been met.

In introducing this bill, the minister spoke of the very limited provincial jurisdiction here. In fact, ports are federal jurisdiction. Port lands are federal jurisdiction. This bill is directed to a very narrow part of the dispute.

Indeed, the Premier earlier on in the dispute had expressed the view that there was no provincial jurisdiction — that it was entirely federal jurisdiction. Certainly, it is very, very limited and circumscribed.

[1800]

The suggestion that is made in some of the speeches by government members…. We appreciate the economic context in which we find ourselves. We appreciate the value of the port. But this is an issue that has been festering and investigated, reported on, recommended literally for years. The urgency has not been felt at all, apparently, until this moment in the sense that the Government House Leader has brought this application at this time.

This will, by undertaking this measure…. It's directed at only those people in the Unifor certification, about 200 or so people, and the companies with whom the collective agreement has been negotiated, although I understand the agreement itself expired some time ago.

The bulk of the people in the trucking business on the waterfront are not in a union. They're in the United Truckers Association, and other independent operators. That aspect is not touched by this bill.

So it will not solve the dispute. It will not resolve the issue of urgency, and there are other means that the House Leader has at his disposal — in particular, subsection 81.1(2): where there is no agreement between the opposition and the Government House Leader, he has the option to proceed in another manner.

Given the nature of this bill, given the fact that it will not resolve the dispute, given the fact that it has not been treated as urgent up until it's been characterized in that way now, I would submit that the urgent or extraordinary character necessary to enable the use of this section, section 81, has not been met and that the application should be declined.

Madame Speaker: I will thank both members for their submissions. I will take their comments under advisement, and I will report back first thing in the morning.

Debate Continued

J. Tegart: I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents of Fraser-Nicola to speak in favour of Bill 25, the Port Metro Vancouver Container Trucking Services Continuation Act.

The success of our economy is dependent on our ability to get our goods to market. In the case of Port Metro Vancouver, it is not only the conduit to markets overseas for British Columbia. It is, in fact, Canada's Asian gateway to the Pacific.

Saskatchewan's economy is highly dependent on providing a reliable source of potash to customers around the globe. Farmers on the Prairies have to get their grain to the market or face severe disruptions in their cash flow, which keeps their operations viable.

Workers across British Columbia in mining, in forestry, in agriculture and in many other sectors of the economy are being affected by this dispute. Today is day 27 of this disruption, and all of us in this House have constituents who are now feeling the impact.

Let me be clear. When I talk to people in my riding, they are very aware that the truckers in this dispute have valid issues that need to be addressed — issues like licensing, wait time, and congestion. We have to keep a balanced perspective when looking at this dispute.

We rely on the trucking industry and truck drivers as a vital link in our economy. No one in this House wants to deny truckers a fair way to make a living. But we also have to keep an eye on the larger picture.

[1805]

In my own riding of Fraser-Nicola, as a direct result of this disruption, I've been informed of 20 layoffs by a family-owned lumber mill in Merritt, a place where jobs like these are the backbone of the local economy. Job losses like this create a cascade effect in smaller communities throughout my riding, which are reliant on the smooth flow of goods through the port of Vancouver.

Mills across the province, including places like Chasm, near Clinton, are being impacted because wood products are piling up in their yards and companies have nowhere to warehouse their inventory. Some of my companies are even resorting to looking at renting vacant land for storage. All of this is creating a severe drag on the economy, and we cannot afford a protracted disruption.

I can assure you that the small business owners in my riding appreciate the services provided by truckers. But clearly, a continuation of this dispute without proper resolution will cost us precious jobs.

As the hon. Minister of Jobs indicated yesterday, the province's jurisdiction is limited but important. This act will impose a 90-day cooling-off period for approximately 250 truckers who are members of the union Unifor.

In no way does this legislation end the negotiation process. Drivers have valid concerns, and those are concerns that need to be addressed. Much of the work has been done to address these concerns, including a 14-point action plan and the federal government's decision to retain the services of a mediator once work resumes at the port.

I'm supporting this legislation because I support the
[ Page 2392 ]
process to get people back to work and to prevent long-lasting damage to the economy. I also support this legislation because there's a plan in place to support the truckers. We are still dealing with a fragile global economy, and for the 58,000 British Columbians who are directly employed by the forest industry in this province, it is absolutely necessary that we all work together to resolve our differences.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this important bill.

C. Trevena: I rise to speak against Bill 25, the Port Metro Vancouver Container Trucking Services Continuation Act.

I've got to say I speak just after the Government House Leader has presented an argument to try and push this bill through in one day. There's a huge urgency to get it through in one day. The House Leader, the Finance Minister, said: "We've really got to get it through. It's urgent. There's no holding back. We've got to see this through."

I've got to say: how hypocritical can this government be? We have a union here that wants to negotiate. They had written a letter back at the end of last year, in November of 2013, saying: "Unifor-VCTA is calling for the provincial government, the federal government, Port Metro Vancouver and all stakeholders to come together on an urgent basis with Vince Ready acting in a special capacity, with clear terms of reference to make recommendations to resolve the issues leading to the current" — at that time — "potential threat of disruption." Yet we now have a bill in front of us that is trying to legislate an end to the strike.

I follow the member for Fraser-Nicola and, previous to that, the member for Nanaimo. The member for Nanaimo was talking about the democratic right that we're discussing here. That's one of the things that we are discussing. That's part of the focus of my remarks, the democratic rights of unions and the democratic right to strike.

[1810]

We have, on one hand, a bill that is trying to legislate people to work, legislate people to — as this government keeps saying — a cooling-off period. It's legislating a small group of unionized truckers at Port Metro Vancouver, who are part of a larger group of truckers who have withdrawn their labour.

We have a Government House Leader who is using what he describes as a little-used section to try and speed up this process to ensure that they can get these truckers back to work. But what we realize is that this is for a few truckers. The larger proportion are non-union, so we would legislate to get a couple of hundred people back to work, whereas there's no jurisdiction over the 1,200 non-union workers.

I'd say that what we have in front of us is a greater example of the blatant hypocrisy of this government. They say they don't like to truncate debate, which is what they would do with this move. Well, they've been truncating debate for the last 12 years, as they have been joining in this neoconservative approach of legislating any union back to work at the mere drop of a hat.

I oppose this bill on a number of reasons, but one of them is, very clearly, because it is simply wrong to be legislating people back to work. Workers have rights, and they organize through trade unions. Their right to withdraw their labour is one of the few pieces of leverage — using the language that maybe this government can understand. It's one of the few leverages they have. It's a key power to be able to withdraw their labour. It is something this government doesn't like. It's something that governments to the right don't like.

We've got to accept and we should accept and we should embrace that in a democratic society a union has that right. We're in this weird situation where we have a union that desperately wants to have negotiations and a government that doesn't want to have negotiations, a government that's legislating because it has a very limited jurisdiction here, a government that's legislating a small group of union workers back to work, when they will still be faced with a blockage of the port.

We on this side of the House are not stupid. We understand the importance of the port to the economy of B.C. and the economy of this country. We know that you need that free movement of goods to ensure that we have a healthy economy. We also have to respect workers' rights, whether they are union or non-union, to withdraw their labour if they are not being treated fairly. These union members and the other individuals who are not within this jurisdiction are not being treated fairly.

I've got to say…. I talk about the neoconservative approach of "let's legislate people back to work rather than having fair negotiations." In the last 30 years there have been 19 pieces of back-to-work legislation, federally, and 71 provincial governments have enacted back-to-work legislation. I think that on this side of the House we can enumerate them. You know, we've had teachers. We've had health care workers. We've had paramedics. We've had this government time and time again trying to legislate people back to work rather than going the sensible route, the route people would like to see, the route that the workers would like to see, which is negotiation.

Unifor has said they would like to sit down with Vince Ready at the table as a negotiator. This government said: "No, no, no. We're going to have a cooling-off period. We will have Vince Ready here as a wise person but not as the negotiator." The strength of a worker is in his or her ability to withdraw their labour. We know it hurts businesses, and that is really the one tool they have, and it is often the only way that workers have to show their anger at what is happening to them. The decision to strike is never, ever taken lightly.
[ Page 2393 ]

The fact we have 1,200 non-union people on strike and we have several hundred Unifor workers on strike…. It was not a decision taken lightly by either side. The representatives of workers are not going to say that they're going to withdraw their labour just because it's a nice, sunny day and they all want to sit outside on the picket line. They do it because they have a real reason.

They have gotten to the stage where they cannot negotiate any further and are not being listened to. They strike. Ordering them back to work and ordering them into a cooling-off period and threatening them with fines if they don't accept this is not the way to be doing business.

It behooves this government to behave better. It really does. If this government wants to have a healthy economy with a healthy, free movement of goods, they should be respecting the people who are involved in moving those goods back and forth. Those truckers are going to be the ones moving the goods back and forth at the port, and if you don't respect them now, you're going to have problems later.

[1815]

What we have in front of us is a history of problems going back to 1999. As I say, we also have a government that is threatening people. We have a piece of legislation here that is saying: "Okay. Go back to work, and if you don't do it, we're going to be fining you. We're going to be fining individuals up to $400" — $400 for people who are on strike, $400 for people who are already striking because they're not getting enough money because the system doesn't work for them — "and fining the union and employers."

This government keeps saying it wants to get to yes. How do you get to yes when you start on a level of hypocrisy and hostility — hypocrisy in forcing this through in a hurried manner and hostility in forcing it through in the first place and legislating workers back. This is not the way that you should be dealing with people or respecting people.

I mean, clearly, the system is broken when you have 250 unionized workers — that is the Unifor–Vancouver Container Truckers Association; the acronym that people have been saying is the VCTA — and 1,200 non-unionized workers on strike at the port. What has gone so wrong that you have this situation, and how will this legislation fix that?

On this side of the House we don't believe that this piece of legislation will fix that. The legislation is about the unionized workers. It's about those 250 workers, because the government has no jurisdiction over the non-union workers. It has no jurisdiction over the 1,200 workers. It's got very little jurisdiction in this case anyway.

It's taken a long while to get here, I believe, because we spent several weeks when the union was saying, "Look, we've got to negotiate. We want this settled. Please bring in a mediator. Let's try and settle this," with the provincial government saying: "I'm not sure where we're going on this. Who's got the responsibility?"

This legislation is about those unionized workers. That's where the authority is for this government.

How did we get to this state? How did we get to this state where we have a government that is legislating people back to work — a small group, a small proportion of the many hundreds of truckers who work at the port, who do try to keep the goods flowing, who do try to keep the economy going? How do we get to this stage?

I mean, for goodness sake, as I said, we all know the value of the port. We have the government sanctimoniously spouting out figures about how much business is going to be lost, how much business is going to be diverted, the impact the stoppage is going to have on the economy. We know that it's going to have an impact. We know it's going to have an impact on individuals, on small businesses, on large businesses.

My friend from Nanaimo started to work out where his pens came from — from Germany. And his pencils — from China. Things come through the port; we realize that. But this is not the way. Having this piece of legislation, Bill 25, is not the way that we're going to solve the problem that goes back to 1999. It's a failure to have dealt fully with a dispute 15 years ago that has led us to this stage, added to the intransigence of a government that so willingly will legislate people back to work.

In 1999 there was a dispute. It was partly solved. There was another strike in 2005. In both instances there was a memorandum. My colleague from Cowichan was telling me earlier that a memorandum of agreement was signed in 2005, which was produced by Vince Ready — the mediator, the facilitator, that the union would really like to come in now to help things. The union at that stage accepted it. Trucking companies didn't. The memorandum of agreement included minimum rates known as Ready rates.

Back then, in 2005 — as I say, where some of this problem stems from, because it was never solved — the federal government issued an order-in-council directing the port to implement the memorandum of agreement, which established a licence system and required companies to sign on to it in order to access the port. We've got to remember that this was the federal government doing this.

[1820]

The jurisdiction we have provincially is very slight. The jurisdiction we have, I think, is solely to be able to deal with these unionized workers right now.

The issue for the truckers was and now still is how much they're being paid for the load, because they are paid by the container, and what their turnaround time is. The more containers they can pick up, the better their pay, so they want a shorter turnaround time. It's not rocket science. It is something that could be worked out quite easily, you'd think, wouldn't you?

I mean, you can look at the logistics. You can work
[ Page 2394 ]
it out. We know how to get goods moving, whether it's from China to here or from here to Korea, wherever we're going. We can get things working. We should be able to work out how to get trucks moving in and out of the port quite easily if we have the jurisdiction.

It's not as though the government couldn't see this thing coming. I mean, they've been warned time and time again. They could look back to 1999. They could see the problems that arose from 2005 and the unresolved strike back in 2005. They could have seen what has happened since.

In June 2010, not long ago — four years ago; in the greater scheme of things, not that long ago — the then Labour Minister, Murray Coell, wrote to the port concerned that the recommendations made in the container truck dispute resolution program were not being used. I quote from former minister Coell's letter, which was copied to the then Minister of Transportation, now the Minister for Labour — so she's been following this right the way through — as well as to the then president of the Treasury Board, Stockwell Day, as well as deputy ministers in both federal and provincial governments.

Then Minister Coell — Mr. Coell now — said:

"The province has concerns regarding the lack of timely action by PMV" — Port Metro Vancouver — "on the recommendations made to date by the dispute resolution programs director calling for licensing sanctions."

I continue:

"The dispute resolution program director is currently finalizing a number of new recommendations on recently completed audits. I ask your support in having future recommendations reviewed and decided upon in a timely manner, such as within a 30-day period. While I appreciate that Port Metro Vancouver must duly consider these matters, if actions are not taken on offenders swiftly, I believe the effectiveness of the program will be undermined."

He continues:

"We would like to move with Port Metro Vancouver to begin resolving these issues and build the credibility of the current framework. By doing this, I believe we will strengthen the reputation of the Pacific Gateway and address the concerns that are still being raised by shippers about labour instability."

The flags were out there. The minister wrote to the then Minister of Transportation, and what happened? Well, really nothing. That's where we are now.

That was 2010, four years ago. Later that year, as I mentioned, Stockwell Day was involved. The then CAW, now Unifor, representative wrote about "urgent issues facing container truck drivers at B.C.'s Lower Mainland ports" to Mr. Day.

They said, at that stage: "Unfortunately, as we meet today, all of the collective agreements that we hold have now expired almost six months ago. Negotiations for new collective agreements have been stalled, and they're almost nonexistent as a result of structural failures now evident in the port authority's operation regulations, a continued half-hearted and ineffective approach to rate enforcement by Port Metro Vancouver, and further destabilizing policy directives issued by Port Metro Vancouver in recent months." It goes on with some solutions.

So again, back in 2010, the problem was highlighted, and solutions were offered and clearly ignored. Here we are today with a piece of legislation trying to legislate people back to work — which, as I say, is quite unacceptable.

How did we get to today? This has been coming down for a few months, and today suddenly it's such an urgent piece of legislation that we've got to get it through in one day because it is so urgent. We have seen this coming for some time.

Back in October the non-union truckers, represented by the United Truckers Association, staged protests in Vancouver and threatened to walk off the job.

[1825]

In November…. I quoted part of a letter from representatives of Unifor, the VCTA, writing to the port outlining concerns and calling on the provincial and federal governments along with the port to come together and appoint Vince Ready to resolve issues before a large-scale disruption — to resolve issues before we get to where we are today, where we are given by the government this urgent piece of legislation that has to get through readily, right now, because the economy has come to a complete standstill unless we legislate these 240 people back to work. This has been coming for some time.

In February this year the non-union truckers began to protest. In March the Unifor truckers voted unanimously in favour of strike, issuing a 72-hour strike notice. In March there was a meeting held between the port, the non-union workers, union workers and Vince Ready, with Vince Ready appointed by federal minister Lisa Raitt to investigate this dispute. He wasn't called in as a mediator.

At that point I would like to adjourn debate but continue my remarks tomorrow afternoon.

C. Trevena moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.
[ Page 2395 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.

The committee met at 1:39 p.m.

On Vote 17: ministry operations, $210,718,000 (continued).

S. Robinson: I'm really pleased to see the very first Auditor General for Local Government is here. I have a series of questions. I would like to learn a little bit more about the activities coming from the Auditor General for Local Government's office. I look forward to the minister's answers.

[1340]

In the Premier's campaign, when she was running for leader, she made note that she would bring forward an office of the Auditor General for Local Government. She noted that if she were Premier and leader, they would fund the office. The office would provide advice on financial decisions and provide a measure of accountability.

I'd like to know if this is what we can expect from those first few reports that are due shortly.

Hon. C. Oakes: First, if I possibly may, I would really like the opportunity to introduce our Auditor General for Local Government, Basia Ruta, and we also today have Mark Tatchell, who is the Deputy Auditor General for Local Government.

It's nice that you're able to join us today.

The Auditor General for Local Government exists to undertake performance audits of operations of local governments and develop recommendations and practices that arise from audits for the use by local governments. Really, this was the strength when it was moving forward — to ensure that the mandate is to provide help, to provide objective information and to really provide those best-practice tools for local governments.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister's response. I'm not quite sure…. I want to make sure I understand. When the Premier was running for leader, she said specifically: "The office will provide advice on financial decisions." I just want to make sure and find out if that's part of what the Auditor General for Local Government will be providing: advice on financial decisions.

Hon. C. Oakes: The Auditor General for Local Government does provide the best-practice tools around efficiencies.

If I possibly may, there were 18 local government performance audits in 2013 on three different audit topics. The strength of those…. For example, one was learnings from local government around capital procurement projects and asset management programs. That's a good example of how, as one of three main topics, it provides support to local governments on best practices on things around financial information.

Audit topic No. 2 is local government performance in managing policing agreements and police budget oversight performance audits. But we should clearly outline that it provides advice and information — again, respecting the independence of local governments. It is in their decision wheelhouse. It's not dictated by the local government auditor general.

[1345]

S. Robinson: It's good to hear that municipalities will still have their autonomy protected and that advice on financial decisions will not be of the kind that says: "You made a bad decision. You needed to make a better decision." That's how I'm understanding it.

Will there be the kind of feedback that says: "This was a bad financial decision, and you ought to redecide it or find a different way of making these sorts of financial decisions"? Is that going to be part of the audit?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, the Auditor General for Local Government respects the autonomy of local governments. With that, recommendations are made from the audit. I think what should be clear is that the accountability on the strategic policy decisions that local governments made are back to the citizen.

That relationship of autonomy in local governments, having that important democratic ability to set their strategic policy in place with the citizenship, will be respected. But really what the audits provide is that opportunity, again, to look at best practices, so that information, those reports, will be released.

I guess the other comment that we should make is the best practices that we find…. I'm hopeful, and I know that these reports will come out, which will be sharing of communities that really have a best practice.

The one interesting thing that was really curious to me, and it was very interesting coming from local government, was how many municipalities and local governments volunteered to be a part of this process because they were proud or there were accomplishments that were made within their communities that they felt was really a best practice that could be shared with other local governments.
[ Page 2396 ]

I think, as we see these reports come out, that this very important ability to share best practices and to share from lessons that…. Again, some of the things that may come out may be on how we should relook or rethink some of the things that local governments are doing, but again, respecting the autonomy of local governments and just providing that very important tool to share information.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the response from the minister. I'm sure the minister can appreciate some of the angst that local governments experienced when the Premier was running for leader and all she could mention was that the office would provide advice on financial decisions and provide a measure of accountability, implying somehow that local governments weren't being accountable and were making poor decisions.

I look forward to seeing these reports, which leads me right into — it's a perfect segue — the timing of the reports. I do understand that we are supposed to see reports by the end of this month, and I want to know if this is still the timetable.

[1350]

Hon. C. Oakes: The first thing I would like to say is that the reports that come out are absolutely…. There, again, is autonomy with the Auditor General for Local Government. Our timeline is, again, respecting the Auditor General for Local Government, but if I may just provide and read into the record the timeline.

On audit topic No. 1, "Achieving value for money in operational procurement," the audit reports for each local government will be published by August 31 of 2014. This may change if…. Well, actually, it will be August 31 of 2014. Initial local governments scoped for the audit were the city of Vernon, corporation of Delta, city of Revelstoke, Comox Valley regional district, Fraser–Fort George regional district and the district of West Vancouver.

Audit topic No. 2, "Local government performance in managing policing agreements and police budget oversight," individual audit reports for these will be published on March 31 of 2015. No audit reports will be published, we should note, between September 2014 and December 2014 to respect the local government election process.

Initial local governments scoped for audit topic No. 2 include the city of Port Alberni, the city of Surrey, the city of Merritt, the city of Williams Lake, the city of New Westminster and the city of Victoria.

The third audit topic, "Learnings from local government capital procurement projects and asset management programs." One individual audit report is expected for release mid-April of this year, so that is in the next few weeks. The remaining five individual audit reports will be published by August 31 of 2014.

Initial local governments scoped for this audit include the city of Cranbrook, the city of Rossland, the district of Sechelt, the district of North Vancouver, the city of Campbell River and the city of Dawson Creek.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister reading into the record the timing of all of these different reports. I don't remember which document I read, but I was really under the impression, as were some of my other colleagues in local government, that we would see the first of these reports in March of this year. It's news to me that, as it's an election year, we're not going to see anything. Although there is…. I think she said between September and November we're not going to see any reports.

Interjection.

S. Robinson: September and December.

A couple of questions, then, because I was certainly under the impression we would see the first of the reports be released this month, the end of this month. I have one question in particular as a result of that. The Auditor General for Local Government functionally reports to a separate audit council — that's my understanding as I read all the documentation — and not to the minister or the Legislative Assembly, although it is answerable to the Legislative Assembly. I'm trying to make some distinction about what that means, when it's answerable to the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, perhaps just to go back to some of the timeline. What has been released this month was the service plan, and that is currently up on the website. I encourage everybody to take the opportunity to go through it. I think it's 64 pages, a very good document of what the Auditor General for Local Government has done to date. The published individual local reports, like I said, will be starting August 31 of 2014. We will be seeing a rollout of individual reports this year.

[1355]

I think it's incredibly important to talk about the independence of the Auditor General for Local Government. It has the sole discretion to select the audit subject in the annual service plan, which is prepared and published independently. Performance audits and recommendations are issued by the Auditor General for Local Government without ministerial or other approvals.

It has the professional independence and standards as a qualified auditor. It's appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, not by the minister or government. It has a completely based neutral advisory audit council on matters respecting the Auditor General for Local Government performance. In relation to these annual service plan commitments and engagements with local governments, it has a separate vote appropriations to the funds of the office. It has limited ability by government to suspend or remove the Auditor General for Local
[ Page 2397 ]
Government and the personal liability protection in the Auditor General for Local Government Act.

S. Robinson: Perhaps the minister can explain a sentence that I am drawing this information from in a news release that went out May 29, 2013, that said: "The first three planned performance audit topics which will be reported on by March 31, 2014, relate to cost containment. The fourth and fifth topics relate to the management of key risks to local governments and are expected to be reported by August 31, 2014."

It's that news release from May 29, 2013, that I'm getting that information from. I just want to make sure that I understand what it means by "the first three planned performance audit topics…will be reported on by March 31, 2014."

Hon. C. Oakes: When the local government Auditor General was announced, it was very clear that the timelines were subject to change. A press release did go out in January advising of the changes in the timelines. Again, when we talk about the scope that is being covered…. Again, the three audit topics: the achieving value for money in operational procurement; local government performance in managing policing agreements and police budget oversight; and the third audit topic, learning from local government capital procurement projects and asset management programs.

S. Robinson: If I understand correctly…. I mean, these are a lot of performance audits to be undertaking all at once. In January it was recognized that these target dates wouldn't be met. They were pushed to August, if I'm understanding correctly, and if further time is needed, there won't be anything released between September and December. If, for some reason, the target date of August 31 isn't met, we won't see anything, then, until January. Is that correct?

[1400]

Hon. C. Oakes: In talking with the Auditor General for Local Government, there is one individual audit that will be coming forward shortly. The other reports are coming forward, as established by what I read earlier, in August 31, 2014.

Again, we have to recognize that this is the first year of operations for the Auditor General for Local Government, and it provides…. You know, really, we have to respect local governments as well. As we look at these timelines, some of the local governments required a little bit more time to go through and do a comprehensive audit. Again, matching with what we said, which was released by the Auditor General for Local Government, timelines are subject to change.

I also think it's very important that we do respect, like we all do in elections, that time frame between, you know, September and November, when local government elections are happening across the province — that we're respecting local governments in that time and taking that break from the release of these reports.

S. Robinson: I certainly understand the silly season. I don't know about the minister's community, but it has begun in mine. So I do appreciate having a break and recognizing how those can get used or misused during election time.

Part of what I guess I'm struggling with, or trying to figure out, is this notion of accountability and performance audits. How do we do a performance audit on this office, making sure that things happen in a timely manner? I guess I want to go back to this idea of…. I know that there's a separate audit council that the Auditor General for Local Government answers to, but I also recognize that it's funded by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I'm just trying to get a sense of what the role is of the Legislative Assembly in terms of making sure that there is value for money and that there's real meaning behind the office, that it actually provides meaningful information back to local government.

Hon. C. Oakes: The Auditor General for Local Government has two key accountability documents on an annual basis that must be made available publicly each year, which accounts for its appropriations.

The first is the annual service plan, which is a three-year rolling outlook, which must be published by March 31 of the fiscal year, which was just released. Before initiating the performance audits during the year covered by the annual service plan, the Auditor General for Local Government published two annual service plans concurrently on March 28, 2013, to ensure that the legislative requirements were met for 2012-2013, and again 2013-2014, so that it could begin to conduct performance audits.

There is, in legislation, the requirement for evaluation after five years of the operation of the local government auditor general. That will be the accountability through legislation.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the information about the five-year review. I just wanted to find out if that would be the responsibility of this ministry — to undertake that review.

[1405]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for your patience; we wanted to ensure that we had the legislation here. It's great to have Nicola and folks that actually drafted the legislation. It's always incredibly helpful to have that corporate memory here.

In "Review of Act" of the Auditor General for Local
[ Page 2398 ]
Government Act, under section 29: "After this Act has been in force for 5 years, the minister must begin a review, in respect of those 5 years, of (a) the effectiveness of this Act, and (b) the functioning of the office of the auditor general."

S. Robinson: I quite appreciate the ability to find that sheet really quickly, so I compliment staff for knowing exactly what page that little piece of legislation was on. It continues to impress me.

I do have a question about one of the reported themes: local government performance and managing the policing agreements. One of our local government colleagues brought this to my attention and wanted to ask. There's a number of cities, six cities — city of Port Alberni, city of Surrey, city of Merritt, Williams Lake, Victoria and New Westminster — that are being reviewed. If I am correct in my understanding, most of these are policed by RCMP, and the policing agreement is negotiated by the province.

I'm trying to sort out — I couldn't provide an answer to this colleague — how this will be helpful to the municipalities, given that they have no control over this arrangement and it's negotiated at a provincial level.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. Again, with the new agreement that has been signed with municipalities and the province, there have been new tools included in the agreements to support municipalities. The audit was an example of the ability for local governments to effectively look at those tools and how they're effectively used within best practices of the new agreements that have been set up.

S. Robinson: I'm still trying to process it. My head is out of municipal policing. I'm just trying to figure out…. Perhaps there's an example that the minister can provide about what part of the agreement. If I recall, there was certainly some frustration in my community around municipalities not having a whole lot of say around these policing agreements, that it was negotiated by the province. So there were certainly some challenges around that.

[1410]

Given that it's the same agreement across four of these communities — but yet, going in to audit four communities that all are governed by the same policing agreement — I'm still not quite sure I understand what the variability might be.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, the Auditor General for Local Government has advised me that they're not auditing the agreement. They're looking at the tools that are in place for the new agreement, and again, she has reminded me that the audit information will not be out until March 2015. Therefore, we do not have the ability to discuss the details within that audit.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that. I guess I'll have to wait. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what the variability might be among these. I guess when I read the reports I'll have a chance to see.

I have just one or two more questions about this. According to the Auditor General for Local Government's 2013 annual report, there were no payments made to the audit council members other than in their capacity as audit council members, but the secretariat function is funded by the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. I'm just curious about the role of the secretariat and how much that costs.

Hon. C. Oakes: There are no additional costs in our budget for the secretariat. It's a matter of staff time. I'd like to recognize Heather Brazier, who does an outstanding job on this and many other files within our ministry.

The way that the secretariat has supported the audit council includes setting up meetings, doing orientation packages. Some of the administrative type — putting binders and such together — is the support that the secretariat provides the audit council.

S. Robinson: So it's one of those roles where they add more, and you just make it happen. My hat's off to you, to the staff person, because I certainly appreciate that role.

[1415]

I have one final question regarding the Auditor General for Local Government. When I think about any time an auditor has come into any organization that I've worked for, it often creates a flurry of activity among staff, around: "We've got to get this. We've got to track that, or if we're not tracking that, we'd better go back and take a look and track that and pull those numbers."

I don't know if there is going to be an opportunity to find out how much it costs local governments to participate in these audits, given that it's going to take, I think — for some more than others, perhaps — substantial time and resources. Staff time, in particular, to pull together information that they may or may not have, even though they might benefit from getting best-practice information or identifying some weaknesses.

How is the ministry going to be tracking, I guess, at the five-year point around whether or not there's value for money for the municipalities? I want to get a sense from the minister if there's going to be some reflection on what it costs local government to participate in these audits.

Hon. C. Oakes: When we look at the five-year review, I think this is a very appropriate item for us to be looking at in the evaluation on the value for municipalities and their costs. Thank you for bringing that forward.

N. Macdonald: Minister, thank you for the question. My question is going to be on Jumbo Glacier mountain resort municipality, which is probably one of the most….
[ Page 2399 ]

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Well, I'll be talking for a while, as the staff come up.

It probably should be one of the biggest embarrassments for this government and for this ministry. What you have is a resort municipality that was set up pre-election. Some 6,000 hectares of public land were given away, and $250,000 from this ministry was given to a B.C. Liberal–appointed mayor and council, who are paid for entirely by taxpayers.

They have the rights of any other real mayor and council. They get to go to the regional district. They get to participate in those meetings. They act entirely like a real government, except this is public land. There are deer, there are bears, and there are squirrels, but there is not one person, and there is not one building, nor is there likely to be in the foreseeable future.

We saw over the summer where everything was in place for things to move forward, and nothing took place. The fact of the matter is that there is no investor for this project. While the government has it in their brag sheet about all these big projects going on as a billion-dollar project — or a $400 million project or an $800 million project, because it changes along with the government propaganda — there actually is no investor.

I guess the first question: in the time since we last raised this issue, has the minister become aware of any investor for this project?

[1420]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the question. Again, just perhaps a little bit of clarification.

The Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development supports local governments in setting up the land use planning and the pieces entailed around governance and pieces as such. In early May 2012 we amended the Local Government Act to clarify the province's authority to incorporate a mountain resort municipality into that.

The incorporation was requested by the regional district of East Kootenay in 2009. It was incorporated February 19, 2013. We did appoint a three-member municipal council to oversee the operations of the municipality at the time.

The decision to incorporate a mountain resort municipality reflects government's belief that the municipal government structure is the most appropriate model to provide the strong foundation necessary for a well-planned resort community. But the question that was asked really now goes into the developer's realm.

The developer, like any developer in the province of British Columbia, has a requirement to meet, such as environmental assessments and pieces like that. If they're attracting investment, that really is the developer's role.

N. Macdonald: Let's just look at the due diligence the ministry has done here and see if it stands up to any scrutiny at all. This is 6,000 hectares of public land. Presumably, there would be abilities to plan in that area if it had not been handed to a handpicked B.C. Liberal council and mayor.

Then this ministry, with a budget that this minister is responsible for, spent $250,000 to achieve nothing. You would think that the most basic of questions would be: is there any chance that this project would move ahead? You would think that the minister would be slightly curious as to ask: is there actually any money to be invested to make this project go forward?

The fact of the matter is, as the minister well knows since she avoided the answer, there is no money. There is no investor, which makes this whole project a complete farce.

Now, I would be willing to forgive the $250,000 wasted already if that was in the past, which I actually thought it was. But what we see — in documents that I'll share with the minister put out by Jumbo Glacier Resort, bylaw 0010, presented in one of the five-minute meetings this group that you pay for has every month — is a bylaw. It's bylaw 0010, 2014. I'll share it with the minister, because I see they're looking for this document. If there is a mechanism for providing the minister with the document….

I actually hope that the minister is going to say: "Hey, you've read this wrong" or "They've made a mistake." What it shows…. I'll ask the minister to turn, when they receive the document, to the second page. There it reads: "Jumbo Glacier Mountain Resort Municipality, the financial plan, 2014-2018."

Since this group is responsible to follow the rules of any other municipality, they've put forward a bylaw that is going to be read next month. If the minister will turn and look at the financial plan, they will see that the tax revenue for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 are all presented there. The tax revenue in each of those years is zero.

[1425]

Next we have user fees. Each of those five years — zero. We come to government transfers, and in each of the years, it's $200,000 transferred from this ministry to this ridiculous creation that has no investor, no prospects of moving forward. Yet the government is going to invest $1 million over the next five years.

Will the minister please stand up and say that this is a misunderstanding? If it's not, this is the most ridiculous use of public money that I've seen in a long time.

Will the minister stand and tell us that the money that is here in this bylaw is some sort of a mistake and that she does not intend on investing more taxpayer money on this project? Let's see what the minister says about that, then.

[1430]

Hon. C. Oakes: The bylaw that was presented by the member opposite — thank you very much for bringing that forward — is speculative. The government transfers that have been identified as the $200,000 are actually an application into the small community grant, and that is available for all municipalities. But it's speculative. It does not guarantee that they're going to actually receive that. That's the first point.

I would like to discuss the fact that what this ministry does is receive requests on a weekly basis around changes in local government structures in a variety of different scales. We have routine boundary matters that typically deal with small numbers of parcels to larger numbers, such as Jumbo, that affect small to large populations.

Really, what is important to note here is, again, we received an incorporation request from the regional district of East Kootenay in 2009. We received a request from the regional district. It is our role as the Ministry of Community, Sport and local governments to be supporting local governments when they put requests forward.

Whether it's a municipality…. Saltspring has currently brought forward a request to review their structure. Okanagan Falls…. West Fernie has brought forward a request. That is our role as the ministry — to support local governments or incorporations on how governance will best meet the needs of the citizens in the area. Again, this particular project was brought forward by the elected individuals of the regional district of East Kootenay in 2009.

N. Macdonald: First off, as the minister knows, to muddy the water and suggest this is anything like any of the other examples she's talking about is ridiculous, right? This is a unique situation. There is no other place in British Columbia where you have a mayor and a council looking after a community of zero people.

The mayor doesn't even live there, right? The mayor has walked through there, perhaps. But he doesn't live there, and they don't hold their meetings there because there's no building. This is a ridiculous thing that has been set up, and to suggest that it has been asked for by the people from the area is, again, ridiculous, all right?

The question was: is there any money from the province in this minister's budget that is going to go into this project, going forward? They have put forward a legal document saying that $200,000 is coming. Has the minister had any discussion — or anybody in the ministry, any discussion — to suggest that that money is forthcoming from this ministry? Or can the minister categorically state here that no further money will go into this farce of a project?

Hon. C. Oakes: You're using quite strong language, member of the opposition. And I would lead the example.

There have been 12 resource towns that have been developed, using instant town provisions of the legislation, that have resulted in similar types of cases. In two of the cases there were two small hamlets in place — Houston and Port McNeill. But in all cases it was the same model of appointed council.

[1435]

This has happened throughout the province of British Columbia, in 12 resource towns. I would also suggest — and I've very clearly publicly stated — that they have the ability as a municipality, a resort municipality, to apply for the small community grants. That does not suggest that they will receive it, but they absolutely have the ability to apply for that funding.

N. Macdonald: Again, the minister…. It is a ridiculous suggestion to compare this to Tumbler Ridge or anything else that you have talked about there. This is a project…. There's not coal in the ground. There's not timber that they're going to be cutting down with guaranteed investment. There is no investor.

That should be the first question that the government would have asked before they set up this situation, so it's nothing about at all what the minister was talking about there. This is a unique situation. Happily, it's unique, because it's ridiculous.

The minister can categorically say that not a penny more of taxpayer money is going to go into supporting that farce of a council, right? It's a B.C. Liberal mayor, and it's two others. They have spent, already, $250,000 of taxpayers' money with nothing to show for it.

If there is any sense in this government at all about using taxpayer dollars properly, the minister can say right now that until she is certain there is an investor or some hope of this moving forward, not a penny more will go in. She has within her ministry the ability to say that right now. That's what I would like her to assure the people of British Columbia: that there is no more money wasted on this project.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. C. Oakes: Every single situation that we deal with in British Columbia when it comes to local governments is unique. I would suggest that in 1975, when the community of Whistler was looking, they had a vision of what potentially it could bring to the province of British Columbia. I would suggest that that has been a very good opportunity for British Columbians. It has benefited as a whole. Sun Peaks in 2010 is another example of a resort municipality that has created benefit for all British Columbians.

Again, the resort municipalities have the ability, as all municipalities do as local governments, to apply for the small community grants. I would like to read in a scope and a history and timeline of this project.

In March of 1991 there was a formal proposal submitted to the province and start of a competitive process to
[ Page 2401 ]
identify potential applications in this area. In 1992 to November of 1994 there was a review that was delayed pending the decision under core land use process that resulted in the designation for the Jumbo area which supported commercial tourism and resort development use subject to such development being capable of mitigating potential environmental impacts.

[1440]

In 1993 there was a preliminary review under the commercial alpine ski policy. In March 1993 there was an interim agreement signed by the province that provided sole proponent status and a licence of occupation required to enter into the land in order to prepare for the master plan.

In July of 1995 to October of 2004 there was an Environmental Assessment Act review. The certificate was granted with conditions. In October of 2005 there was a judicial review of the EAO process, and the judge upheld the EA certificate. In 2006 there was a review of the draft resort master plan under the all-season resort policy. In 2006 consultation continued under the all-season resort policy with a commitment to the First Nations that a master development agreement would not be completed without the proponent until consultation was completed.

In July of 2007 the resort master plan was approved by the province. In 2009 the EA certificate was extended for a further five years. In July of 2009 the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts advised the First Nations that the consultation process as per the agreement was complete, and they provided additional information about the area. The province agreed to consider the new information, and consultation continued.

On November 15, 2010, there were more presentations. The declaration says the area was sacred to the grizzly bear. In the summer of 2011 the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations visited the proposed site, met with the Shuswap and Ktunaxa and the proponent and in March 2012 approved the master development agreement for Jumbo Glacier resort under the Land Act and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act.

In November of 2012 the previous Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development announced the letters patent approved to incorporate Jumbo as a mountain resort municipality and also appointed the three-member municipal council and the interim corporate officer.

I did this exercise to really provide an opportunity to understand that since the 1990s this project has been working through a process. I would suggest that when one looks at Whistler and one looks at Sun Peaks and one looks at other opportunities that happened throughout the province of British Columbia, it takes the amount of work to move these types of projects forward.

A. Weaver: I share the previous member's concerns. In fact, seeing as we're talking about history since the 1990s, there's a study by Tobias Bolch, from the University of Northern British Columbia, that has pointed out that since 1985 the Jumbo Glacier area has lost 15 percent of its glacier mass.

As we know, this Jumbo Glacier resort is proposing to build a resort for year-round skiing. Well, I actually have here…. I contacted Canada's and, in fact, the world's leading expert on glaciers. He's actually done analysis on the glaciers in British Columbia, and according to his analysis…. His name is Garry Clarke, from the University of British Columbia, a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. With respect to MIROC RCP8.5, which is just technical, there is still ice around at 2050, maybe 30 percent relative to 2010, and virtually none at 2100. There's no wonder that there is a lack of investors showing up to invest in this because, frankly, this glacier won't be around as this century progresses.

My question builds on that with respect to a particular First Nation ruling that's coming up. It's expected very soon. The question is this: should the legal challenges either stop construction or delay the project beyond the environmental review deadline this fall, has the ministry considered the available options? If so, what are they, and what are the cost implications? Frankly, delaying this even further, for a resort that is designed to have glacier skiing on a glacier that won't exist, is rather odd.

[1445]

Hon. C. Oakes: In respect to the court case, it currently is before the courts. We are expecting that that will come out in April. But the government is still confident that this resort will be successful, and it signalled its confidence when it approved the resort by entering into a master development agreement. With respect to cancelling or dissolving or changing the mountain resort municipality, the government does not anticipate that there will be a need to dissolve the mountain resort municipality.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister indulging some of my colleagues. They have very specific questions and wanted to make sure that we got some answers, and they were most interesting.

I'd like to shift gears a little bit. I know that the province announced in July of 2010 that it had given the green light to proceed with the 31 recommendations of the joint UBCM–provincial Local Government Elections Task Force for the spring 2011 legislation so that the changes would be in effect for November 2011 local elections, but in April of that year the government announced that the changes would not proceed for the 2011 elections, given that there wouldn't be sufficient time before the November elections to get everyone ready.

In the ministry's briefing note to the minister from last
[ Page 2402 ]
summer there's a note that the new rules for local government elections will be made public at least a year in advance of the fall 2014 elections, either through the fall 2013 legislation, which didn't happen because we didn't sit, or a white paper. I've certainly read that white paper.

I want to know if the minister believes that this white paper is sufficient for bringing the electorate, local governments and candidates up to speed just seven months before the next municipal election.

Hon. C. Oakes: We are confident. I have a parliamentary secretary, Linda Reimer, who is doing an outstanding job to ensure that. We presented the white paper at UBCM in September, understanding the timeline, respecting what the Union of British Columbia Municipalities brought forward to the province on how they wanted to see the rollout of the local elections campaign financing act, the most significant changes to local government elections in 20 years.

We respected UBCM's wishes and put forward a white paper so that we would provide adequate time to make sure local governments from across British Columbia would be prepared for the local government elections.

I will also say…. I absolutely have to compliment Elections B.C. for sitting down with us, becoming a strong partner on this very important task of ensuring that the democratic process and citizenship engagement happens by working collectively with us to put together some strong tools that we can be taking out to the area associations and a variety of groups.

[1450]

As my colleague the member opposite understands, we start to go into area association annual general meetings in April. They happen throughout the province of British Columbia, and Parliamentary Secretary Reimer will be visiting with each of the area associations with very clear documents that support the changes to the local election campaign financing act and the LESAA legislation as well.

As well, we will be following up with other strategic avenues, working with Elections B.C. to ensure that British Columbians are confident with the new rules, are educated on the new rules and that we are ready for the local government elections that will be taking place in November of this year.

S. Robinson: If I understand correctly, the minister seems to think that this year, for some reason, the same amount of time that we had in 2011 — when the decision was, "Well, we don't have enough time to get ready" — is somehow different, that the same seven months have a different kind of quality.

The minister, I'm sure, knows full well that in any democracy, anyone can run. So going out to local associations and educating those who are already elected certainly isn't sufficient, given that there are many people in our community who will be looking to run for office.

They're already getting their campaigns ready. They're already raising money. They're already asking questions, and they have nothing that will guide them. They've been doing this for months now, and the fact that this legislation has not been tabled is really, I think, a disgrace to democracy. We've been waiting since 2010.

I want to know from the minister how this is any different from where we were in 2011.

Hon. C. Oakes: Two significant differences. The first, of course, when we talk about…. Again, I would like to go back to the critically important partnerships that we have when we talk about ensuring that everybody is prepared for the upcoming elections. Elections B.C. has a significant role to play in ensuring that the educational tools are available for anyone that is interested in getting involved in local government elections.

As well, we'll be meeting with the associations that include chief administrative officers so that they ensure that if there is anybody in their community that's looking or interested in getting involved in local governments, they can provide that very fulsome, accurate information to those individuals.

The two differences, again, between 2011. First of all, there was a task force that was set up with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and our ministry that has worked tirelessly. I can show you the amount of documentation, and I know that there are mayors and councillors that have participated on that from every single region of the province of British Columbia, in your communities as well as ours. I want to provide my most sincere hats-off and thanks to these local government officials that have volunteered tireless time to make sure that we got the task force recommendations right.

The other thing that we did is we introduced a white paper, and that white paper, in front of the 1,000-plus members at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, was made available. We did workshops.

The other final thing that was a little bit different from 2011 is that UBCM requested us to rethink the idea of the expense limits. They said: "You know what? I think we need a little bit more time with this." It was a request that came in from UBCM. We respected their wish, and that is why there was a difference from 2011.

Following that, I went out and spent three months visiting communities across British Columbia to ensure that we are hearing from stakeholders on their ideas, supports, and we have brought that back.

[1455]

One of the most significant changes that came out of some of those stakeholder engagements — and it has been brought forward in a press release that it will be considered in this legislative process — is that we heard from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities that they wanted to move from three to four years.
[ Page 2403 ]

S. Robinson: If I am hearing the minister correctly, again she reiterated all the work that's gone into educating current municipal mayors and councillors but that really — even though Elections B.C. is on board, it sounds like — because there is no legislation as of yet, they have no information about the upcoming changes.

So those who are new to the process, new to government, new to these kinds of rules really will be operating in the dark. They really won't have access, and they really won't understand the process, because there's nothing in place, as of today. That's how I understand it, because legislation hasn't been introduced. Those who have been fundraising and perhaps accepting anonymous donations…. That's how things have been operating. That's how, certainly, I was able to operate. If there are changes around that, I would be really curious to see how the minister plans to handle that.

Given the fact that Elections B.C. has this expanded role, it sounds, of looking at local government elections, I'd like to ask questions about that budget. I've been talking with my staff, and initially my staff were told that we could ask those questions about how Elections B.C.'s budget is going to be prepared to handle managing all 190-ish local elections. I was told by the minister's staff, actually, that this isn't the place.

We have been trying to make phone calls and haven't been able to get an answer. I'm wondering if the minister or someone from her office can just provide some direction about where I can go at what point and which vote, which minister to ask questions about the impacts of the proposed legislation, the stuff that's in the white paper, because I have questions that will result from that legislation.

Hon. C. Oakes: Elections B.C. is an independent office of the Legislature. The way that the financing works is that Elections B.C. will come forward to the select standing committee, which is a multiparty committee. We will set up a briefing with you and your staff tomorrow to provide some other additional information around LECFA and LESAA.

I want to go back again to maybe clarify a piece around the information of individuals that may be considering getting involved in running in this upcoming election.

The white paper has been widely circulated. It has been on multiple websites. The information has been out, I believe, through CivicInfo, UBCM. It has been on all of our ministry…. We had, actually, a separate page setup to provide the information about what the changes are going to look like for the changes. So the information really has been out there for a year.

Again, the legislation — we're moving forward through that process, and we have a strategic plan, when that information is brought forward and if it's successful, to ensure that British Columbians both elected or considering getting involved are made aware of what those legislative changes will be.

[1500]

S. Robinson: I will beg to differ with the minister. I don't know if she recalls when she first ran for local government, but I didn't know what UBCM was. I didn't know what any of this was. I went to my local municipal council and got the rules from other councillors that I knew. That was what I operated under.

I actually think this is very much the same situation that we saw in 2011. This legislation should have been brought in sooner. It's a very tight timeline, and I'm frankly quite disappointed, especially since it has taken so many years to bring this forward. I do look forward to having it implemented, but I think it's six months later than it ought to be.

I do want to ask the minister questions about the UBCM resolutions. The website indicates that the provincial responses to last fall's resolutions are still forthcoming. Last year, 2012-13, they were available as of January 2013. Here we are at the end of March, and we don't see any provincial response to those resolutions. Can the minister explain the delay in the government response to the 2013 resolutions?

Hon. C. Oakes: Actually, it wasn't delayed at all. The provincial response to the resolutions of the 2013 Union of British Columbia Municipalities convention was presented to them in January of 2014.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that. I guess we'll have to talk to UBCM, because it's certainly not up on their website, which was rather disappointing.

I'm curious about who is responsible for drafting and releasing the government response to these annual resolutions.

Hon. C. Oakes: I am the minister that is responsible for ensuring that any of the items that have been identified by policy for resolutions…. Whether it's a variety of different ministries, I take that through our ministry and our staff to ensure that there is a response. I just wanted to clarify that there was, in fact, contact with the CEO of UBCM and that they in fact do have a copy of the response.

S. Robinson: Thank you for that. Given that there have been responses, I am very curious. Does the government plan to endorse the UBCM's fiscal futures report?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for bringing that question. Next week, in fact, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities executive and members will be here in Victoria, and they will be meeting with ministers and MLAs to talk about Strong Fiscal Futures. I met with them in November and started the dialogue on this par-
[ Page 2404 ]
ticular document. We've had continued dialogue on that, and it will be a significant priority for discussions when they are here in the community next week.

S. Robinson: Given that it had unanimous support at the UBCM, is this going to be the first time that the minister or her parliamentary secretary meets with the UBCM representatives to discuss this report, or have there been previous conversations about it?

[1505]

Hon. C. Oakes: Actually, we've had numerous conversations. The author and chair of Strong Fiscal Futures is the chair of the Cariboo regional district, Al Richmond. As they have gone through this process, Chair Richmond has made sure I've been informed and up to date. We've had a dialogue on this. I've met with other members, as well, on this document. I attended their UBCM executive meeting, as I mentioned earlier, in November, and this was an item that was raised. This has been brought forward to other members, so yes, there has been ongoing dialogue.

But I should clarify. The one thing that we did say — and member opposite, you certainly have raised the fact — that currently we are introducing significant legislation, legislation that we have been working on tirelessly with mayors and councils and the executive of the UBCM for many years to ensure that the task force recommendations were the correct decision points for this legislation, the most significant changes in legislation in 20 years.

With that, there's the importance to do…. We wanted to make sure that there was the ability, with the resources that we have with our staff, that we're looking at making sure…. And I've talked to Chair Al Richmond on this particular piece.

We needed to introduce the legislation for the LECFA and the LESAA legislation. We also had legislation around Bill 17 that was brought forward and is currently going through the House on readings, on streamlining and land use contracts. It's a significant amount of legislation that is being brought forward. And then, of course, we're doing stakeholder engagement on expense limits.

Those are the pieces that our staff are currently resourced out on, ensuring that we move that forward. We have heard from members, like yourself, that it's important that we need to be doing this ongoing work. When that process is handled, then we'll have the resources to focus on the Strong Fiscal Futures.

S. Robinson: Does the minister agree that a variety of taxation options, like the ones that are proposed in this report, would be beneficial in order to shift from a reliance on property taxes?

Hon. C. Oakes: A lot of the items that are in the Strong Fiscal Futures around tax policy really do exist within the Ministry of Finance. But some of the items that I'm really interested in pursuing and having further dialogue on…. And we have had that.

It was interesting that the Auditor General for Local Government talked about procurement opportunities. Procurement opportunities was one of the items that was identified in the Strong Fiscal Futures — on how we can support local governments on procurement.

I'm curious to see what the Auditor General for Local Government's reports are going to come out with to provide that best practices, nuances, ideas. I think, as we look forward to having that ongoing dialogue with UBCM, and next week to talk about a variety of the items that were raised within the Strong Fiscal Futures…. They are all items that are good opportunities to look at how, in partnerships, we can better serve the citizens of British Columbia.

S. Robinson: Part of what I'm curious about is…. You know, back at the UBCM, the provincial government really had no comment in response to that paper. In 2012 the province released a Municipal Revenue Sources Review that explored current revenue tools but didn't make any recommendations for changes to the current structure. I want to find out from the minister if she and her staff will be going back to this Municipal Revenue Sources Review, along with the Strong Fiscal Futures, and looking at some of those recommendations in the coming year.

Hon. C. Oakes: I think the difference — why we didn't have a response — is we got the report on Strong Fiscal Futures one week before the UBCM convention. At that time, that was the exact same week as we were diligently trying to get the white paper prepared so that we could circulate and put that forward at UBCM.

[1510]

As we talk about dialogue around the Strong Fiscal Futures report, I'm sure there's going to be lots of dialogue and opportunity for us to be sharing ideas. One of the items that was brought forward by the Auditor General for Local Government…. I'm curious to see the procurement best-practice audited report that will come forward. These are all types of documents that will come forward when we start that dialogue with UBCM.

S. Robinson: I'm going to switch gears a little bit off of UBCM.

I want to ask a couple of questions about taxation in general. In the Premier's leadership campaign, when she was seeking leadership, she made a commitment to review the municipal taxation formula. I want to find out if that is going to be considered by this ministry.

Hon. C. Oakes: Following the comments from the Premier, the former Minister of Community, Sport and
[ Page 2405 ]
Cultural Development worked with staff to produce a series of reports around municipal taxation — they are available on our website — and consulted with groups such as the Minister of Finance and the expert panel on tax competitiveness. Those reports are available on our website.

S. Robinson: So there was a review done, but there's no commitment to act on anything. Usually, you don't just do a review to create paper to sit on a shelf. Usually, there's an intention to say: "Well, we've reviewed it, and we've decided we're not going to do anything" or "We've reviewed it, and we decided we're going to do something."

I would like to hear from the minister if there's an intention to actually do something or to not do something.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, I will go back to something that I said earlier, that we look forward to having that dialogue with UBCM around the Strong Fiscal Futures.

Our significant priority at this time in respecting mayors and councils and all of the volunteers that have worked diligently on the task force to produce the recommendations that have now been brought forward or that should be going forward in legislation around LECFA or LESAA, the most significant changes in the local election campaign financing acts in 20 years. That's been a significant task for our staff and on the resources.

We have let UBCM know…. They had identified that a number of years ago as their main priority when working with us, and we've moved forward with that expectation — that that was a priority.

We are working through that. The next step we'll be looking at is the expense limits, and then the step after that will be looking at the Strong Fiscal Futures.

G. Heyman: My apologies to both colleagues and the minister. I'm switching gears a little bit here to move to the arts and Creative B.C. If it is not possible to give an answer to my question directly, I understand that and would be happy to receive a written response.

[1515]

My first question has to do with the recent budget in which the Finance Minister, prior to the budget, talked about keeping the promise to the film industry that the distant-location film tax credit would be extended to Victoria, which was, in fact, included in the budget. But there was a second promise made during the campaign, and that was to extend the digital animation or visual effects tax credit to post-production work. That was not contained in the budget, despite the fact that it was an election promise.

We've recently heard some good news about Industrial Light and Magic expanding their operations significantly in Vancouver. This is clearly a growing sector of the industry.

My question to the minister is: does the minister have a rationale for not extending the DAVE tax credit to post-production work, or is there a plan to do this in the near future?

Hon. C. Oakes: I would like to thank the member for Vancouver-Fairview. Actually, that question around creative futures and the distant-location tax credit and the digital animation falls under the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and the Ministry of Finance.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the answer from the minister. I hope the minister appreciates that I'm going to ask these questions in sequence, as different ministers are up in estimates, so I don't end up asking a minister and being told to go back to a minister whose estimates process has recently concluded. So I thank you for that answer.

My second question has to do with Creative B.C. I've spoken in the Legislature a couple of times about the difference…. Creative B.C., first of all, is conceptually a good organization. It has a lot of potential.

It has been well received by people throughout the creative arts sector, including film, both for the fact of integrating activities to promote the arts under one umbrella and for its potential in supporting and funding research and development, market research, export opportunity research, as well as the possibility in the future perhaps to provide seed funding that could be used to lever further funding and venture capital to support film production and other forms of artistic endeavour.

I have pointed out in the Legislature that the budget for Creative B.C. in British Columbia is significantly less than, say, the budget in Ontario, even when you factor in a per-capita basis. Of course, in much of the arts, we're much closer than a per-capita comparator.

In addition, I've talked about a request that the film industry made to the government of British Columbia to provide a very modest amount, up to $800,000, to seed domestic feature film production. In comparison, Ontario granted a little over $4 million for this. This funding is important, because it levers further funding from other investors that allow domestic film production to expand. It allows projects to be financed and to undergo development. It helps build the industry in our province, as it does in Ontario, in their province.

I should add that the answer to the request for up to $800,000 from the government was, unfortunately, no, last year.

I look at the budget line for Creative B.C., $2.472 million. If I look at the breakdown, it says that that funding is for "support and funding for the promotion of B.C.'s creative economy and industries, including infrastructure, marketing, production and post-production support for film, television, gaming, digital media, music, publishing and other creative industries."

My question for the minister — again, it may be easier and it may be better for us to receive the answer in writ-
[ Page 2406 ]
ing: how is the $2.4 million plus apportioned through those different activities that are listed in a very specific dollar amount?

Hon. C. Oakes: I would like to say thank you very much to the member opposite for your research and for coming here. Again, just for information, this was transferred during the last reorganization of government, so this particular item also falls in with the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.

[1520]

G. Heyman: My quick question, to which I suspect the answer may be the same…. Is the minister aware of any consideration being given in her ministry or any other ministry to look at providing seed funding for domestic film production — as previously requested by the representatives of the industry but not granted in a previous fiscal year?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, film was transferred during the last reorganization of government to the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.

A. Weaver: I just wanted to bring the minister to her favourite topic and my favourite topic, which is sewage. The city of Colwood has successfully applied to the capital regional district to build their own tertiary treatment system outside of the current regional secondary treatment plan.

My understanding is that Colwood is currently not considering requesting development funds from the province. However, should they or any other municipality seeking alternatives request such funding to explore or develop options, would the minister be amenable to such an appeal, particularly if such requests are less than would come through the original overall request?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the question. I would like to also recognize and thank you for your support in meeting with us to try and move forward this file. It's an important file, and I appreciate the dialogue that we've had on this.

We are amenable to looking at how we can work with the communities on this. Of course, it falls under liquid management waste, so that's the Ministry of Environment, but as you know, we've been working very closely with the Ministry of Environment to try and resolve and move these files forward.

Thank you for bringing that forward, and I'd be happy to keep ongoing dialogue on this particular file.

A. Weaver: A final question, and if I may supply a couple of written questions to the minister after the fact.

[1525]

In light of the B.C. Supreme Court ruling that municipalities have zoning authority over regional districts — I speak specifically of the case between the township of Langley and Metro Vancouver — how will this court decision affect any request to the ministry by the capital regional district to intervene should Esquimalt reject approval of the McLoughlin Point treatment plant?

Hon. C. Oakes: We are currently doing the analysis on this particular…. Justice is doing the analysis on the results of the case. But on the Esquimalt piece, on how it may be effected by this, the previous court case was around a regional growth strategy. Esquimalt's governance system is different.

We would welcome written questions, and we'd be happy to get back to you with those.

S. Robinson: I want to thank staff for the jumping around. The line change is like a good hockey game. You're sort of a couple out and a couple in. This is about accommodating some of my other colleagues and their schedules and making sure everyone has a chance to ask their questions.

I have a series of questions that I'd like to ask the minister about some of the staffing changes that have occurred in her ministry. I understand that ADM Julian Paine was recently transferred from this ministry to Natural Gas Development. Can the minister outline the reasons for this move?

Hon. C. Oakes: Actually, we're very fortunate to have two new assistant deputy ministers. It's really not uncommon for the public service to move ADMs between ministries as a way to bring new skills to portfolios and support executive development.

I know that Mr. Paine will do a great job in the new file he has, because he brings that experience, and I know Mr. Galbraith is going to do an outstanding job in the new ministry that he has.

Personally, it's a great opportunity for me to thank them both for supporting me as a new minister and a great opportunity to get some promotion and new files.

To the new ADMs, welcome aboard. I look forward to working with you.

S. Robinson: While I appreciate that we want people to move around, usually it's for some reason. I'm just curious about the reasons that Julian Paine was transferred from this ministry to Natural Gas Development.

Hon. C. Oakes: His skills really align very well with this new ministry. He has a lot of First Nations experience. He was a key…. He worked on the development of the Northern Rockies and what that revenue-sharing agreement looked like. The fact that he is now working on the LNG strategy and in that particular ministry, I think, is a great fit for his skills.
[ Page 2407 ]

[1530]

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister's assessment of the value that this particular ADM would bring to the Natural Gas Development Ministry.

Are there any projects or objectives that are also being transferred to the Ministry of Natural Gas Development along with Mr. Paine, given that he has such great experience with revenue-sharing models?

Hon. C. Oakes: I think the thing that I'm most pleased about…. One of the items within my mandate letter, of course, is looking at how we prepare the northwest communities for the significant amount of growth that will result around natural gas and liquefied natural gas development. So the fact that there is an ADM that has now moved into that portfolio that I've worked with creates a level of confidence for me as we work through that file.

Of course, we have a multiministry working group around LNG that we meet regularly with, and I know that the ADMs and the ministers also have that cross-ministry working group. I think it's just a great compliment to say how important LNG is to this government, to the economic future of British Columbia and how excited we are to make sure that we've got the right skill set and the right people in place to make sure that we're moving this very, very important project of the government forward.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister's exuberance and excitement for the ability to work closely with this ministry and having had the relationship with this particular ADM.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

I'm going to assume, given the minister's response…. I don't want to assume, so I'm just going to ask the question. The minister's mandate letter for creating the framework for the rural dividend for communities in the northwest — that will be done in collaboration with this other ministry. I just want to confirm rather than assume.

Hon. C. Oakes: I do have the lead on the work on the readiness of getting the communities in the northwest and the revenue-sharing agreements moving forward. But I work extremely closely with the multiministry LNG working group, which a number of cabinet ministers sit on, as well as with staff. We meet regularly to discuss this particular file.

S. Robinson: I'm wondering if the minister can tell me a little bit more about who participates in this LNG working group. Which ministries are involved?

Hon. C. Oakes: The LNG working group, actually, is…. All of the ministers do have a role on that. Some of the resource-based ministries is the working group that I particularly work on, on the LNG working group. But by invitation, all of the ministries, whether it's Social Development, Education — we all have a role to ensure that the communities in the northwest are ready. Whether it's Transportation, whether it's Finance on the taxation piece, we are all working collaboratively.

[1535]

I think that's maybe the unique story of the LNG working group. What has stood out to me is the fact that here you have cabinet ministers all working collaboratively. Then there is the deputy minister's group and the assistant deputy minister's group. We're all extremely focused. We're disciplined. We're moving in a very strategic direction.

The process has been one that has been an outstanding ability for us to move forward, as well as sharing of staff. One of the things I would like to compliment is we've had the opportunity to work closely with the ADM in Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, who brought a really specific skill set to supporting us on supporting those communities in the northwest. Shanna Mason has done an outstanding job. I would like to recognize her contribution and work on this because of her unique skill and knowledge with that.

That's the type of collaboration and work that we've really been doing. We've been reaching out to staff in multiministries to find out how we get the right person working on the right particular piece of the project that we are moving forward at that particular time.

S. Robinson: Given that there is so much work going on, and it's collaborative, as the minister described…. I've certainly heard this minister speak to her concern for the communities that are going to be impacted by the LNG development. There was nothing in the throne speech that spoke about the rural dividend. I would like to ask the minister if she could just let me know: where are we at with that, with making sure that those communities have the financial capacity to develop the infrastructure that they're going to need, especially given that sometimes it's not what people say, but it's what they're not saying that actually speaks volumes?

The fact that there was no mention of this in the throne speech, that this critical resource was coming on line, that all of these ministries are working together to make this happen, to make this a reality…. Somehow the fact that these communities and their need for some infrastructure development and having some sort of rural dividend that would make it possible was not mentioned in the throne speech. I would really like to hear from the minister what she and her staff are doing to make that a reality for these communities.

Hon. C. Oakes: Staff are like: "Oh no, she's going to
[ Page 2408 ]
wing it." It's just because I've been…. Again, I think it is a very important file. I know each of the local governments personally in the northwest. I'm proud to have sat on the North Central Local Government Association, where I worked with many of them closely and understand intrinsically the nature of what happens in the northwest.

Maybe if I could go back to sort of the process, since I was provided this great privilege of taking over this ministry. Within our mandate letter…. When I received it in the summer, within 60 days I made the commitment to travel up to the northwest to meet with local governments, to start understanding some of the concerns and the needs.

[1540]

The first thing that really stood out when I was meeting with a lot of the local governments was the requirements…. Many said: "You know, we've got all these subdivision requests. We've got challenges with businesses wanting to come in." Coming from local government, the first question I asked was: "Are the OCPs and the asset management plans — those really significant tools that are so necessary within local governments to do that important work so that that growth can happen — in place?"

It was definitely recognized that they needed support, so our ministry has been working tirelessly. The first round of announcements happened in September 2013, with funding announced by the Premier to support the communities with some of that initial analysis. We continue to work with them. There will be announcements very shortly on continued supports around how we ensure that those very critical official community plans, those asset management tools, enable the type of growth that we know is going to happen — and that we are supporting those communities.

We also heard, in August, something that was very important. Coming from local government, you certainly understand. Sometimes the local governments are challenged by staff resourcing, especially in some of the smaller communities. I probably shouldn't use an example of one community. If I get in trouble and say the name, please just cut me off.

There is a small community up in the northwest, and it has a council of four. It's a dynamic community that has investments, as they've come forward — billion-dollar investments on their doorstep — that they're trying to manage and put together their community plans and do all of this work. They said: "Minister, we just don't have the resources on the staffing end to make sure that those pieces are in place."

The next step that we did is I took my staff and we travelled into the north. We started to meet with some of the service providers. We started to meet with different partners on what we can really do as government to start pulling the partners together to ensure that we're supporting the communities to really address and to, quite frankly, take advantage of this tremendous economic growth.

We've got some announcements and some partners that we have been able to pull to the table that are coming out very shortly. I know that you'll be pleased, because it really will support the local governments on the ground.

We have a readiness team that meets weekly. Our team has identified all of the variety of things that need to be supported with the local governments. We've got people on the ground that are meeting with service providers, partners, businesses and local governments to start gathering the important information of assets that are required — information around transportation, health, policing, housing, all of those important pieces.

We're currently doing that analysis. We're doing those projections of where the growth is so that we can ensure that those supports are in place for those communities. We have that ongoing commitment on working with those communities. We'll have ongoing announcements that will be coming out shortly that I'm sure everyone will be very pleased about the work that has happened.

I'd just like to compliment staff again — for a short amount of time to do a tremendous amount of heavy lifting.

S. Robinson: I certainly heard the minister talk a lot about analysis and planning and the government taking a facilitative role, and those are important roles. But certainly, I, too, have heard from those communities. I've heard that they need bridges, roads and affordable housing. That's going to take considerable funds and resources.

The angst and anxiety and worry is that unless they have a model for having enough cash to actually build those, it doesn't really matter whatever planning or analysis we do. A facilitative role doesn't really help. They need ways to raise revenue so that they can actually put in those very, very important pieces of infrastructure that will actually make this all work for their current residents and for the future residents.

I look forward to hearing how things move along, and I want to let the minister know that I'll be watching very closely, because the truth is that these communities are in a state of angst. They need to know sooner than later about how they're going to be able to raise the revenue and have the revenue needed for real stuff, not just plans and ideas that get put on a shelf. They need to know that they're going to be able to build those bridges and have that affordable housing.

[1545]

My next question is related to some other staffing changes. I understand that earlier this month Jay Schlosar from Citizens' Services moved to local government. I'm curious about what his responsibilities will be for this ministry.

Hon. C. Oakes: His role will be the assistant deputy minister for local government.
[ Page 2409 ]

S. Robinson: In doing my research and in talking with some of my colleagues, it has come to my attention that this particular ADM has a very partisan record in government. Does the minister have any concerns about his background interfering with the work of this ministry, which I'm sure we would both agree needs to be studiously non-partisan, due to the work required with the breadth of municipal leaders in our province?

Hon. C. Oakes: Staff kindly provided me with a significant resumé of our new ADM. Quite frankly, I firmly stand in full support of our public servants, who have astonished and astounded with the commitment and the effort they put in every day.

I know that you, Member, have commended the staff and the work they have done, even just looking at how they've achieved such a great job with the estimates. I'm pleased to work with the new ADM and know that he will be held to the high standards that the public service delivers to each of us and citizens in British Columbia.

S. Robinson: While he had served as an ADM since 2011, in that time he also did some very political work around public engagement. Does the minister expect to engage him in any of that work for this ministry?

Hon. C. Oakes: It's a well-defined role, the ADM of local government. I expect that those responsibilities will be carried out as they have been defined within the responsibilities.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for her comments on that.

I want to go back and ask a series of questions again about the minister's relationship with UBCM and talking about the LNG. What twigged from yesterday was the minister's response that there wasn't really an issue for the minister around LNG, making note that there's a consideration for capping industrial taxes around LNG.

I pulled up a couple of articles — it wasn't just one; there were a couple of articles — in the paper. One of them says, "The B.C. government should keep its hands off municipal tax powers as it finalizes its own liquefied natural gas regime," which came from the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

I would like to again check in with the minister about what she's hearing from the Union of B.C. Municipalities around some of the suggestions being made by the LNG ministry.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, highlighting that I was drawing caution in premature conclusions about what the overall tax regime will be…. But next week the Union of British Columbia Municipalities will be here at the House, an opportunity to engage in this discussion. I'm sure it will be another topic of discussion that I look forward to having with them.

[1550]

S. Robinson: The minister keeps assuring us that she's in regular and constant conversation with the UBCM, which I think is really important given her role. But again, a senior UBCM official said — this was last month — that the province hasn't consulted with local government about curbing property tax authority. Then he goes on to say: "We are quite surprised to hear cabinet is even considering this."

I guess I want to hear from the minister: when she meets with the UBCM, does she have some frank conversations about what is being considered by this government?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, the Minister of Finance has urged caution in drawing premature conclusions about what the overall tax regime will be. We do not have the overall tax regime in place.

I welcome and look forward to dialogue with UBCM on what their recommendations are. It's always important that we strike the right balance of fair return for communities while ensuring that B.C. remains competitive relative to other jurisdictions. I know that this will be a topic of great dialogue when we meet with UBCM next week.

S. Robinson: I, too, look forward to that dialogue. But it's still not clear to me. I mean, the minister here is saying that we're not committing to anything. But the minister for LNG said he's prepared to set a ceiling for industrial property tax rate hikes. He did it in a quote: "We did it with ports, and that's what we are looking at doing here."

I want to hear from the minister. Who is responsible for looking out for these communities and maintaining that relationship with the UBCM — her or the minister for LNG?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, going back to comments that I made earlier, I continue my dialogue with UBCM. The structure — we have the policy recommendation book that we held up that was tabled to UBCM in January. I am the minister that is responsible for communication with UBCM.

On this particular file, the tax regime is premature on drawing that conclusion of what that will be. When we have the firm conclusion of what the tax regime will be, I will be consulting with UBCM.

S. Robinson: I have a couple of questions. I'm just going to roll them in, because I am aware of the time.

It's not clear to me if the minister for LNG can announce — or I guess announce, because it caught everyone off guard — that he's prepared to set a ceiling for industrial property tax.
[ Page 2410 ]

This is the ministry responsible for local government, and somehow this other minister is making these sorts of statements. I'm sure the minister can appreciate how it sort of sets a tailspin going. I'm wanting to confirm with the minister about who will be responsible for this file around LNG and property taxes.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, the Minister of Finance is ultimately responsible for what the overall tax regime will look like. Within the LNG working group, we have all been working with the Ministry of Finance to look at what the overall tax regime will look like for LNG.

S. Robinson: Does the minister agree that it's perfectly acceptable to set a ceiling for industrial property tax as it relates to LNG?

Hon. C. Oakes: For the third or fourth time, again, the Minister of Finance urged caution in drawing premature conclusions in what the overall tax regime will look like.

[1555]

S. Robinson: Something that the minister said earlier is that once there is a proposal put together, there will be some consultation with the UBCM. So will it be a consultation before there is something on the table, or will it happen once it's on the table?

Hon. C. Oakes: As part of the LNG working group and as part of the Minister of Finance development of the overall tax regime, I will be receiving direction on what that looks like and will be happy to report that out when that's clarified.

S. Robinson: If I'm to understand correctly, this ministry will not be responsible for developing that but will be responsible for bringing that to UBCM in that facilitative fashion, in some ways after the fact.

Hon. C. Oakes: Nope. What I said was that there is the Minister of Finance. He is responsible for what the overall tax regime will look like. We have an LNG working group, and each of us as ministers has a role to play in that.

My particular role is the local government piece and the communities in the northwest and looking at doing the analysis of what the needs and requirements are. We're doing that work right now. In tangent, I bring that information to the LNG working group and then will receive direction on the steps that need to move forward on how best to achieve those results.

S. Robinson: I'd be interested to hear a little bit about where the UBCM comes into play, given that the UBCM's role is that it represents all of the municipalities in the province and they are an advocacy group. I'm just trying to figure out where they will be in all of this decision-making.

Hon. C. Oakes: As I said earlier, we'll be meeting with them next week to talk about, I imagine, this particular item. There are two distinctions, though, that I would like to make. When you're looking at a UBCM overall policy, that's policy and scope, and you know that from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Anything that you bring forward to UBCM has to be regional or provincial in scope. We are dealing with the northwest communities on this particular issue, and we will be meeting with those communities.

S. Robinson: Given that, will there be consultation with these communities about a possible cap to the property taxes?

Hon. C. Oakes: As I said before, we have had ongoing dialogue with these communities. Our first step…. Let me reiterate. We need to assess and understand exactly what the needs are in the community. It would be extremely irresponsible if we were to earmark an amount of money without knowing what the needs are.

We are doing that very important assessment of roads and bridges and health services to understand exactly the amount of money or support that will be required and the types of partners that we need to put in place. Again, it would be premature for us to set an amount and say, "I think that they should get X amount on this," without understanding clearly what the needs are.

S. Robinson: The minister for LNG said last month that he's prepared to set a ceiling for industrial property tax rate hikes. I want to know if the municipalities, local governments, where these LNG plants are being considered were consulted prior to the minister making that statement.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, it's premature to look at the overall tax regime. The Ministry of Finance sets that.

S. Robinson: So I am getting a full picture. I appreciate the minister's patience with these questions. It sounds like the minister of LNG really hadn't consulted at all with these municipalities and they were completely caught off guard. Although this minister works hard to be respectful of these local governments, it doesn't seem like it transfers right through.

[1600]

I do have some questions about B.C. Assessment that I'd like to ask. I know that there's going to be a changeover of some staff. I just have a few.

I have to say, reading the service plan — most fascinating of service plans — when I take a look at the numbers, certainly I am in awe of the number of properties that get reviewed. I just have a couple of questions, and then my
[ Page 2411 ]
colleague here has a number of questions.

In 2014, 19,000 folios were added to the work of B.C. Assessment. How has this impacted staff, given the volumes are increasing?

Hon. C. Oakes: With your indulgence, may I possibly introduce some of the folks that we have here today: from B.C. Assessment, David Highfield and Lisa Dedeluk; and then from our department, Rob Fraser. If I possibly may, I'd also like to recognize that they were recognized as one of the top 50 employers in British Columbia. Thank you very much for the exceptional work that you do for citizens in British Columbia.

The 19,000 folios were added. I think what's important to know is that a significant amount of the work has happened by this team. There has been a lot of modernizing that has gone on, a lot of investment in technology to ensure the efficiency and the ability to identify new types of folios. So it hasn't increased…. They've been able to manage that efficiently within the staffing that they have.

S. Robinson: I certainly appreciate that technology and efficiencies can go so far, but at some point there becomes a capacity issue. I mean, I've certainly worked in the non-profit sector when resources were tough and tight. We did more and more. We just took on more. We reduced staff. We took on more and more, and at some point you just can't anymore. I don't care how much technology you have; at some point something's got to give.

I'm looking at the service plan. On page 11 there's a fascinating chart about B.C. Assessment's productivity. There's a line at the bottom of the chart that takes a sudden dip. Actually, it demonstrates that there's been about a 15 percent employee reduction in 2003 that stays flat for a few years, and then it goes up. It creeps back up to levels from 2002 about 2012, so for ten years there was a reduction in staff, and they're just sort of climbing back out of that.

[1605]

I'm going to assume, based on that little chart, that the capacity for modernization is sort of…. We just need to increase staff. I'm very interested to hear what the plan is, given that this is a growing province. We've just heard that LNG is the elixir that's going to fix everything for us, and it's going to make sure that we have tremendous growth in so many communities. All this development is going to happen. That will certainly put pressure on B.C. Assessment.

I would like to hear what the plan is to manage the increased folios. Here we have 19,000 increased folios in a non-LNG environment, and there's all of this activity that we're expecting in a number of communities. I'm imagining that, if the government is right, it will increase maybe tenfold. If that's the case, I'd like to hear what B.C. Assessment is preparing to do in order to accommodate that.

Hon. C. Oakes: In the short term we don't believe that we're staffed adequately. They've been able to gain some of the productivity with a new desktop management plan that's really supported greater efficiencies. Aerial photos have been a great ability to support assessors in doing their important assessment work. A streetscape…. There are so many new technology forms that have really supported us to go….

One of the great examples is we're able to identify a lot of properties through aerial photos and pieces like that, which previously we weren't assessing. This new technology starts to…. When we start to talk about some of those 19,000 folios that are on there…. A lot of them are folios that have been in place for a number of years. But depending on the remote area or where they were located, the aerial photos have now provided the ability for us to identify and provide the tools necessary for the assessors.

S. Robinson: I'm going to, then, assume that it means that the assessors will work differently. Some might call it "work smarter" but certainly "work differently." Does that mean that assessors won't be out on site as often — that there's actually going to be less contact, actual viewing? Or is there an intention to sort of sit behind a desk and review photos more?

[1610]

Hon. C. Oakes: It really is very interesting, fascinating, this new technology, and the team would welcome you to have the opportunity to come and see that.

I guess, in answer to your question of does that mean that they're not going to be out on the ground, what it does is it has now identified where a lot of those locations are. It's really saved a lot of that time, and it's created this sense of efficiency supporting the assayers to go out and know where those properties are.

It's a whole complement of new tools to provide that level of service. I mean, we've got a new phone line. One of the things that really stood out for me is the ability…. They've done an outstanding job on the communications for even appeals, right? Because that's the next nature of that.

There are people there that are really very customer service–focused, people that you actually talk to — I'd like to compliment the work being done on that — to make sure that if people have appeals to their assessments, that is in place.

It's very well communicated. In January I was very impressed with the communication detail that went out by B.C. Assessment. Again, I think that they are very deserving of top 50 in British Columbia.

L. Popham: My questions will be around farm classification. How many farms do we have classified in B.C. right now?
[ Page 2412 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: There are approximately 18,000 farm assessments in British Columbia.

L. Popham: What's the average income of those farms?

Hon. C. Oakes: We'd be happy to report back to you and find the specific information. We don't have the income right at this moment, but we'd be happy to provide that to you.

L. Popham: Well, my line of questioning might be a problem, then. You may be writing to me with more answers. I think it's very important to understand the average income of farms in B.C.

One of the changes that were made to the way that farms were assessed, farm income was assessed…. Last year there were products that were added to the list of things that classified as farm income. I was hoping at this point we would know what difference that made in the average farm income in B.C. Did it increase the farm income, or did it decrease it? I was hoping to find out the number that that brought in.

Hon. C. Oakes: So twofold. First of all, some of the detailed information that you require comes through Revenue Canada. And it's when, again, my family farm and the way that they present on their income tax…. The specific is that they have to just reach a threshold through tax assessment on reaching that.

The specific requirements around income tax and how the increase in the products that have been also added would be through Revenue Canada.

L. Popham: It's my understanding, though, that you report out your farm income to B.C. Assessment when your farm is reviewed, every two or three years now.

[1615]

I think there were four products that were added to that list last year. Could the minister review those products, please?

Hon. C. Oakes: It's great that we talked about this last year in estimates, so thank you for bringing that forward.

For the implementation in the 2013 assessment year the following products were added: broadleaf maple and birch sap or syrup — and if you haven't tried it, I highly recommend it; breeding products — livestock semen, ova and embryos produced as part of livestock raising; and horse stud services provided as part of horse rearing.

L. Popham: So at this point we don't actually have a measurement on how many farms took advantage of those new products.

Hon. C. Oakes: Staff advise me that those numbers will be minimal. We'd be happy, as we did last year, to take the question, and we would be happy to provide that information to you.

L. Popham: Thank you. I'd appreciate that.

Are there any discussions going on right now to add other products onto that list?

Hon. C. Oakes: Annually there is an ongoing dialogue around new products that could be included for these types of products, primarily agricultural products. I know that there is a number that are coming forward now, and this is an ongoing process.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me if wild-gathered products are going to be added to the list this year?

Hon. C. Oakes: I know that the group has lobbied for a while on the inclusion of this. At this point it is speculative. The ones that are on the list are the ones that we read out. The way that the list of regulation under the Assessment Act…. It actually is the Ministry of Agriculture who is responsible for making the recommendation on additional products to the list.

L. Popham: This is a topic that I have covered for five years now, and the Ministry of Agriculture believes that it's the responsibility of the minister's ministry. I will be going to the Agriculture estimates as well, but just on the record, they may refer me back to this ministry. At that point I would really like to have, maybe, a meeting, and we can chat about that.

The minister has disclosed that there are 18,000 farms with farm tax status in British Columbia. Can the minister tell me how many of these farms are in the Peace River area?

Hon. C. Oakes: The approximately 18,000 farms that we identified earlier — they're not broken down right here in our system.

[1620]

I know that when they go back, we'd be happy to use our data management system to provide you an accurate, detailed account of what that is in Peace River. We'll take that on notice and report that back to you.

L. Popham: My next question was going to be the number of farms in the Kootenays as well. So if that could be reported back, that would be great.

These questions, the reason why I'm asking them is…. It's generally known that some legislation will be coming forward in the next couple of weeks around the agricultural land reserve. I understand we're not to speak of legislation in estimates, but given that there may be legislation coming down, I'm wondering if there have been discussions with B.C. Assessment and the ministry — and Ministry of Agriculture — around how many farms
[ Page 2413 ]
could potentially be lost with the boundary change.

Hon. C. Oakes: That dialogue has not happened with B.C. Assessment.

L. Popham: This ministry has not had any discussions with the Core Review Minister on that topic?

Hon. C. Oakes: I wouldn't want to mislead you. I learned some interesting facts around…. Did you know that 40 percent of the farms within the ALR actually don't have farm status? I think that's great.

On the core review, I think you should go to the Minister Responsible for Core Review.

L. Popham: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understood you. You said 40 percent of farms within the ALR don't have farm status.

Hon. C. Oakes: Forty percent of properties.

L. Popham: Did you say that's great?

Hon. C. Oakes: No, what I was saying is that…. You know what I find very interesting? It's an opportunity for us. We have staff here, incredibly knowledgeable staff, that give us information that we otherwise may not have known. I would have assumed that that number would have been obviously much higher. I was surprised to hear that number, so that's why I shared that with you.

S. Robinson: My colleague here asked questions about core review. It twigged for me one question that I did have about staffing, so if you don't mind just going back to that for a second. That had to do with the drop in 2003 and 2006 with staffing. In the fine print at the bottom it says: "The significant drop in staffing levels during 2002 to 2005 was a direct result of the B.C. government's core review process."

I understand there's another core review, and I want to know if there have been any discussions about reducing staff at B.C. Assessment under this current core review.

[1625]

Hon. C. Oakes: With your indulgence, I hope that you'll permit me to clarify. Again, when you hear something that you previously did not know…. Sometimes we speak before we digest that. So with your indulgence…. Forty percent of properties in the ALR don't have farm status. Again, that surprised me.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Oakes: Exactly. I shouldn't have…. That was where that was coming from, so please accept my apologies for coming out there.

In response to the core review and the response to the changes that happened in 2002 to 2005. Really, the purpose of government's core review is to ensure the best possible use of government resources, to respect the interests of taxpayers and to ensure that we are structured for success on our objectives. Currently there is a level of confidentiality that is happening with the core review, and so respecting that and your question to B.C. Assessment, that goes to core review.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me if there's going to be any change to the minimum income requirements for farms?

Hon. C. Oakes: The farm panel recommendations on increasing income thresholds for farm status was that the panel recommend changing the income threshold to one amount, of $3,500, eliminating the current $2,500 for farms of two to five acres, which is indexed for farms larger than ten acres, and the $10,000 minimum for farms smaller than two acres. That's what the panel recommended.

And the next bullet: "Government decided not to implement this change as there was concern that this would impact the smaller, marginal farm operations in the province. Government is not planning to review the threshold levels in the near future."

L. Popham: Thanks for that information. As far as the other recommendations from that panel that travelled around the province, are there any other changes or any other recommendations being addressed right now?

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. C. Oakes: No further changes are being looked at, at this time.

L. Popham: Is it safe to say, then, that that report has now been shelved?

[1630]

Hon. C. Oakes: No, actually what it says…. It's not that we shelved it. We've moved forward on the recommendations — for example, the addition to primary agricultural products.

The panel recommended that government consider conditions to the primary agricultural list, and the implementation in the 2013 assessment year — the following products that were recommended on the farm panel review, when it went out — was to add these to the list. Yes, we've now added broad leaf maple and birch sap or syrup, breeding products, horse stud services provided as part of horse rearing.

We've also looked at the panel recommendation that the government implemented for the 2013 assessment
[ Page 2414 ]
year. The extension on farm improvements was increased to the greater value of 87.5 percent or 50 percent of the assessed value.

Benefits were extended to retired farmers on the agricultural land reserve farms that remain in production by retaining exemption on farmers' dwellings in rural areas and farm status on all dwelling sites.

The farm income reporting period was changed to be consistent with the Canada Revenue Agency income tax reporting period. Additional products were added to the schedule of primary agricultural products that qualify for farm income.

Probably because this will be the next question, recommendations that were not implemented…. The panel did recommend changing the income threshold to one amount of $33,500 on farms of two to five acres. This was not supported as there was concern it would impact smaller farm operations in the province.

The other recommendation that was not implemented was that the panel recommended implementing a requirement that in order to qualify for provincial farm status, all farmers must show that an income tax return was filed, including the farm operation. This was rejected due to jurisdictional concerns, enforcement challenges and inconsistent reporting of income tax.

Panel recommendations implemented as well include that farms in the ALR will not be split-classified as long as they are not used for other specific purposes. Farms not in the ALR will not be split-classified if 50 percent of the farm product is in production or supporting production. Farms not in the ALR will not be split-classified if 25 percent of the farm property is in production or supporting production and the $10,000 minimum income threshold is met. By policy, more flexibility will be applied to the granting of new farm status.

That is the review of the work that has been taken on the farm assessment.

L. Popham: Thank you for the review. I have followed it quite closely. That wasn't really my question. It was: is that it? Are we finished with that report now? There were other recommendations, maybe not official but from the community of British Columbia, that recommended things like value-added products be used, wild-gathered products be added to the list.

Is the conversation that the panel had with British Columbia now over, and we're on to something new? The reason why I'm asking is because in my community that conversation is still going on, and there hasn't really been any communication back from that panel. Nobody really knows where we are.

I understand that there have been changes that have been made, and that's great. But there is still a lot more that needs to be done, in my belief. It certainly wasn't to say it was being shelved because nothing has been done, but in my mind, there's a lot more to do.

Is that it for that report, or are we continuing on with the recommendations from British Columbia?

Hon. C. Oakes: The farm review panel that was set up — that work has been completed. As a panel, the recommendations were brought forward. Some moved forward, and some did not, as I read out.

[1635]

The Minister of Agriculture is always open to the dialogue on these items. I previously outlined the process through the Ministry of Agriculture to look at different products and how that gets on the list. That work, for your community to take that voice back — that the Ministry of Agriculture is looking at that, and there is a process for that.

L. Popham: I just want to clarify on the record that it is the minister's belief that the Minister of Agriculture is able to add products to that list.

Hon. C. Oakes: As I previously read into the record, the process…. The list is part of a regulation under the Assessment Act. The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for making recommendations for adding additional products to the list. The Ministry of Agriculture then must consult with the Minister of Finance, who will review the suggested additions from a tax policy perspective.

S. Robinson: I believe we're done with B.C. Assessment, and I thank the staff for their hard work and for sharing what they do. I am going to take them up on the offer to take a look at some of those very cool maps.

I have a couple more questions that some colleagues have forwarded to me. They couldn't be here, so I'm going to ask those. They have to do with the UBCM resolutions. If the minister's staff doesn't mind, I'll just read….

There are three resolutions in particular that people had interest in. I'll just read them in to get some answers. Does the ministry intend to renew its commitment to small community grants? Will new infrastructure grants be independent of P3 funding? When will local government election financing legislation be introduced? And will Vancouver's request for an amendment to the Vancouver Charter be included?

[1640]

Hon. C. Oakes: The small community grants will be consistent and maintained. It is a great program. As of 2015 it'll go back to the similar funding model.

The question around the P3 funding. This is a provincial capital standard. Also, when you look at Build Canada, the other partners that we have such as the federal government for Build Canada, those types, there is a requirement to have P3s over $100 million on projects.

The question around the local elections campaign fi-
[ Page 2415 ]
nancing act and the LESAA bill as well as the Vancouver Charter, the changes for Vancouver — the bill is imminent. I'm not allowed to speak to legislation that has not yet been tabled.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that, and I'll certainly report back to my colleagues on those responses.

I have one last question, actually, for local government, and then we can move over to arts. I probably should have asked this before, but it was a piece of paper off to the side that wasn't in front of me, so I missed this one.

I want to speak to the expert tax panel's report that came out in 2012. The report made some recommendations, basically saying that it's a good time to take reasonable corrective actions. The recommendations included asking the government to "initiate and lead a process with local government and business groups to arrive at…agreement on a set of benchmarks for measuring municipal business taxation."

It also recommended that this ministry should measure municipal taxation against these benchmarks, advising municipalities of where they stand relative to these benchmarks; that the UBCM should develop an appropriate action plan for taking remedial steps when a particular local tax rate moves outside these benchmarks; that this ministry should work with business groups and local government organizations to develop a best-practice guide; that the government and UBCM should negotiate an agreement that creates an effective framework for ongoing dialogue and joint action on containing municipal costs; that B.C. Assessment, through its board or CAO, should be given the capacity to phase in sharp increases in assessed value; and that the province should work with local governments to improve the integration of economic development strategies so that local, regional and provincial efforts at building the economy are more effectively synchronized.

I'm wondering. It's quite a long list. I'm aware of the time, so I wanted to read them into the record. I would like to hear the minister's response, if any of those things are being considered over this coming year.

The Chair: I'd like to take a few minutes and have a brief recess.

The committee recessed from 4:42 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. C. Oakes: Some of the items that have been followed up from the report that was released three years ago…. We've promoted fiscal best practices. We have extensive statistics on our website. Data is available in response to financial indicators. We've supported and promoted asset management within local governments. That's a key philosophy that we have moving forward and that has been a part of the dialogue we've had with the federal government.

We've promoted best practices with respect to the development of financing, and future work will likely fall under the discussions that I know are going to be occurring next week with UBCM around Strong Fiscal Futures. But the province has really chosen to focus on advice, best practices, as opposed to imposing change.

L. Popham: We're going to move to arts and culture now.

Hon. C. Oakes: May I humbly ask a question, just from a staff perspective?

Interjection.

Hon. C. Oakes: You're done with local government. Thank you very much. I appreciate your questions. Thank you to staff.

L. Popham: My first question around arts and culture. I was wondering if the minister could break down the funding for Creative B.C. for me.

Hon. C. Oakes: This is an ongoing theme that we've had. A previous colleague of yours asked the same question. Actually, Creative Futures exists in the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.

L. Popham: Creative B.C. does not fall under your purview.

I would like to visit the accountability statement of the minister. In one paragraph the minister states: "In building our provincial economy, we need to continue to focus on our arts and culture sectors. B.C. has more artists per capita than any other province and is the only province where artists make up more than 1 percent of the labour force. Our creative sector employs more than 78,000 people and contributes $5.2 billion to our provincial economy."

Given that statement, I'm wondering. Can the minister tell me how much we invest in arts and culture?

[1655]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the important question in highlighting what a success our strategy has been around artists and ensuring that we have such a great amount of successful artists in British Columbia.

This year the province will invest over $60 million in arts and culture, an increase of $7 million from 2012-13. We place a high priority on the arts and cultural sector, as demonstrated through a number of different programs, our increased support of the B.C. Arts Council. So we've invested $60 million.
[ Page 2416 ]

L. Popham: A $7 million increase. Can the minister please tell me where the $7 million went?

Hon. C. Oakes: It went to the B.C. Arts Council.

L. Popham: Given the focus of the minister and the current government…. I've read quite carefully the accountability statement and the plans and the supportive comments. As the minister knows, I have put forward an idea to have a standing committee on arts, culture and the creative economy. I'm wondering if the minister has given that any thought and maybe could find any room within her ministry for that.

Hon. C. Oakes: As the member opposite alluded to, we have great success in British Columbia with the amount of artists that we have per capita and the work that is happening by great groups across the province of British Columbia. This process that we have in investing with increased money to the B.C. Arts Council — a council that is made up of artists from across British Columbia, that's separate from government and is doing an outstanding job of identifying and creating that rich fabric of artists across British Columbia — is working. So I support the fact that it is working.

I would like to compliment the member opposite, though, around B.C. Book Day. I'm glad that you put that proclamation forward. We are making sure that we're advertising that, because we think that's a great initiative. We would like to thank the member opposite for bringing that forward.

L. Popham: Thank you. I'm very excited about B.C. Book Day. That will happen on April 9. I think that our B.C. book publishers are quite happy to see the proclamation modernized, as it hasn't been since, I think, 2007.

As we're on the topic of books, I don't think there's actually been an increase specific to our book industry since the 1990s. I'm wondering if maybe the minister has different information than I have.

Hon. C. Oakes: We provide block funding for publishers, and that has increased by 14 percent this year.

L. Popham: I was in quite deep discussions with the book industry. The increase may just be replacing funding from a funding cut. Do I have that right?

Hon. C. Oakes: No, this is not replacing a cut. It is a 14 percent increase.

L. Popham: Given that it's an increase, could the minister give me some exact figures?

[1700]

Hon. C. Oakes: There are actually 39 programs that are under the B.C. Arts Council. We'd be happy to provide you with the before and after on those 39 programs.

That's where the one specific that you've listed…. If you just want that one specific, we'd be happy to provide that, but there are 39 programs that exist within the B.C. Arts Council, and we've increased the B.C. Arts Council to $24 million, which is an increase of $7 million.

L. Popham: So the minister doesn't have the figures specifically for the book industry today?

Hon. C. Oakes: That is correct. We have provided $24 million to the B.C. Arts Council. There are 39 programs which exist within that. There has been a $7 million increase in the B.C. Arts Council funding, and there has been a 14 percent increase to the publishers.

We will provide you the specific information. We'll take it on notice, and we'll provide you with that information specifically.

L. Popham: Okay. I will look forward to that information. But I guess I'm a bit concerned because the book publishers are a really big part, and an important part, of our creative industry. I understand that it's a 14 percent increase, but we are reviewing the budget. Is there some way that we can get those numbers now?

Hon. C. Oakes: We have just met with the publishers, so staff are currently e-mailing. If you'll provide us with a few moments to get that information for you, perhaps we could move to another question and come back to that, with your indulgence.

L. Popham: That would be great. I'd appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Very often you'll hear the arts and culture industry quoting that for every dollar invested in arts and culture, we get back, I believe, $1.38. Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. C. Oakes: When you look at the arts community, it's incredibly diverse and complex, as I'm sure you will agree. Different art forms will have a different return on investment, and to set one particular amount…. I would suggest that some art forms actually have a greater return on investment, and maybe some have a little bit less.

That's why if you look at…. Despite difficult fiscal challenges, this government has committed and demonstrated its commitment to this sector through investing the highest level of funding ever, at $24 million. We recognize the return on investment and are proud of our continued commitment to that and an increase in this budget.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me just in general across Canada where B.C. stands as far as investments
[ Page 2417 ]
in arts and culture?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, it's difficult to make that comparison to different provinces and different jurisdictions, because if you look at what the complement is for British Columbia, it's rich. It's diverse.

We include film. We have publishing. We have arts. We have culture. They're not all…. For example, I had mentioned before, if you look at the film industry — and there were a number of questions by your colleagues earlier on — that doesn't exist in this ministry, so it's not captured within a statistical analysis that people would use on how much this particular ministry is investing, because there are multiple ministries.

Something else, I think, is critically important when you look at arts and culture. I'm passionate about heritage. I think that the work that we do in the province of British Columbia for heritage….

[1705]

I come from a region that's very proud to have Barkerville Historic Town — and there are a number of significant heritage properties across British Columbia — but that actually exists in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. So we have a very diverse mix within arts and culture. There is a little bit in a lot of our ministries.

I think that again speaks to the importance of arts and culture and heritage, by saying: "Look, I don't think it belongs just in one ministry. We have multiple ministries that are looking at that and moving different projects forward."

L. Popham: I agree. The minister makes a great argument for a standing committee on arts and culture and the creative economy. I, also, am a strong believer in heritage, which leads me to the B.C. Archives.

There isn't an increase in funding for the B.C. Archives this year, and there wasn't last year. In fact, much of our work within the B.C. Archives is inaccessible due to a lack of space.

There is also some concern that the way we're storing our materials is putting them in jeopardy. I know that the museum has put out a document, and they're directly talking about the security of our collections. I believe this also includes our B.C. Archives.

One of the things that they mentioned is to have conversations with this ministry around ways to mitigate that potential threat. Could the minister give me an update on that?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for bringing forward that conversation on the B.C. Archives and the Royal B.C. Museum. Again, I think they are treasures in our province, and we need to be ensuring that we're looking at…. I have to also say — I think it was one of my first meetings I had with the deputy minister — that that was the first conversation we had.

We have ongoing discussions around the work that needs to happen with the B.C. Archives. It's in the master plan, identifying some of the gaps that we have. I'm the first to admit that there is work that we absolutely need to be doing, and we're making that commitment that we are working with RBCM to ensure that this great, vital, important piece in our province continues.

Again, I'm very proud of the work that the RBCM continues to do on behalf of all British Columbians.

L. Popham: Yes, I know that the minister is passionate about it, and I appreciate that very much. I think that we have amazing people working in that industry.

I think I'm very concerned about the Archives right now, as we read reports about a not if but when earthquake risk — situations like that which would definitely harm our B.C. Archives in the state they're in right now. Does the minister have any idea how much value…? What is the actual value of the things that are stored within our B.C. Archives in the building across the street?

[1710]

Hon. C. Oakes: I would like, if I possibly may, to introduce the COO of the RBCM, Angela Williams.

Thank you very much for coming today.

In our discussion around putting a value on the items in the B.C. Archives, there is insured value, and it's complicated. Some of the items — how do you put a price tag on them, right? We have Colonel Moody's new photo album that the RBCM now has. There are pieces that are so intrinsic to the value that it's difficult to put a dollar amount.

Please, let me assure you that this is a priority of myself, the ministry, working across ministries to make sure that we find a solution for this, because I think it's absolutely necessary. I applaud you and thank you for bringing this forward.

L. Popham: I think the minister hit the nail on the head. It's priceless — completely. I'm wondering if the minister has a timeline of dealing with it.

Hon. C. Oakes: The first thing I would note is that I'm in monthly contact with the RBCM on this and a number of items, because again, I see incredible value with that. We are currently also in the process of putting in multiple submissions both federally and internationally to try and address some of those cost pressures when we look at the replacement. There is a report that's been brought forward on what steps need to be happening. Now we're doing the very important work of going out there and putting submissions in to access that funding.

L. Popham: It's my understanding that the government provides $19 million to the museum as a grant. It
[ Page 2418 ]
has an operating budget of $20 million, and they're currently trying to figure out how to raise $7 million more to fit their budget. Are those numbers correct?

Hon. C. Oakes: Actually, this year the province will invest approximately $12 million to support the annual operations. It's not a shortfall of $7 million, because of course, we've got this amazing museum that actually makes revenue. So there isn't a shortfall.

The $7 million is revenue that they have been able to, through a number of different programs, exhibits, hosting events…. I highly recommend to people that if you're looking, if you need a place to hold some kind of event, the RBCM is a great place to consider hosting an event that you may have.

L. Popham: I completely agree. It's a wonderful place.

So $12 million coming from government — is that a reduction over what has been given by government previously?

[1715]

Hon. C. Oakes: From a provincial operating point, the $11.866 million is consistent with the previous year's funding for the RBCM. But I would like to comment on a few of the other items.

When I met with Dr. Lohman at one of my first meetings, actually my first meeting as a minister, Jack talked about the idea of a treasures book. If you go to museums anywhere in the world, they have this beautiful coffee-table book that really becomes a showcase and a reminder of what a great museum that is. We absolutely agreed that this is something that we needed for the RBCM, so we have funded that this year for $70,000.

The other thing that was very important was the Our Living Languages exhibit, which is an outstanding exhibit. We funded that for $100,000 this past year.

I know that they're working very diligently on a Gold Rush Trail exhibit. There is a Vikings exhibit that is happening. There are so many things that are happening that as these exhibits, as these requirements, as the needs come forward, I'm always, our ministry is always, willing to sit down and meet with the museum and identify if there are any other tools or abilities within our ministry to help provide additional support.

L. Popham: As far as funding goes, does the minister expect the museum to use philanthropy as part of its funding source?

Hon. C. Oakes: Yeah, absolutely. We should be looking at philanthropy. We should be looking at sponsorship. We should be looking at different revenue opportunities, whether it's hosting an event at the museum. Absolutely, they're looking at ensuring that they have a diversified portfolio, ensuring the greatest success that we possibly can for our museum.

L. Popham: Is that an opportunity that's been explored as far as the Archives go?

Hon. C. Oakes: As it is one organization, it would apply to the B.C. Archives as well. If you have additional ideas, I'd be happy to meet with you off line and talk about different ways that we might support the RBCM.

L. Popham: We don't have that much time left, as another set of estimates will begin. We have about ten minutes left. I'm going to run through some questions quickly with the minister.

I noticed that there's been quite a focus by the minister on engaging young people in the arts. I think that's great, but I'm quite concerned with engaging young people in the arts and then sending them out on a career path that may or may not be supported, because although the minister is very enthusiastic about the funding for the arts and culture for British Columbia and the way that it's working so well, it's not exactly the story that I'm getting from our arts and culture community.

They're reporting that they're not as supported as they think they should be and definitely not as supported as they feel other artists are in other provinces. One of the things that has been brought up is that we don't actually have a cultural policy for British Columbia. That's something I know has been discussed with the ministry, and I'm hoping that will continue.

[1720]

That being said, we're engaging young people in the arts to put them onto possibly an unstable career path. I'm wondering what work is being done to make sure that doesn't happen.

Hon. C. Oakes: I have got, actually, two answers. I've got an answer to a previous question and then the question around what the comprehensive formula is that this ministry is doing to support artists.

One of the things that went out last week…. Again, I agree that we need to get the word out. We focus on the young people and getting them engaged and excited about the arts. Then we have a scholarship program for those individuals that want to pursue higher education within the arts.

We have a newsletter that will assist anybody, if people want more information on how to make that application. That's the B.C. Art Council's scholarship program, which supports post-secondary school students studying dance, theatre, music, visual, literary and digital arts. We provide $750,000 investment into that program. So that's that program.

Then the next piece is they graduate from a program. How do we support them, make that a career, a business? That's often tricky as well. How do you apply that entre-
[ Page 2419 ]
preneurial type of spirit to something you're passionate about, to grow that? We have the artsVest program. That's $150,000 each year.

The strength of this particular program is that we also have matching private sector funds to go in the artsVest program. It is really to try to find within communities those coaches or mentors to artists on how they can set up a successful business and grow that business — whether it's how you do your financial statements to marketing to websites to providing those kinds of supports for the artists community.

We are looking at a comprehensive approach to building the arts community. Do we have a ways to go? Absolutely. Can we work harder? Absolutely. We are diligently working as a team to make sure we're supporting that.

We do have an answer, as well, on the question around the total publishing. We did misspeak, and I do apologize. There was actually an increase of 19 percent. In 2012-2013, $462,493 was provided. For 2013-2014, $549,491 has been included. That's a 19 percent increase. Then for 2014-2015, it's $615,000.

I would like to thank staff for getting us that information. Thank goodness for technology.

L. Popham: Thank you. I appreciate that information very much. To confirm, this is block funding for the book publishers. Yes, I see there's nodding. Great.

Back to the other question. I had been the Agriculture critic for four years before I went into being the critic for arts and culture. One of the things that I like to say is that there are a lot of similarities between the agriculture community and the arts community. Really, I think they both believe that they have fought long and hard, and they do what they do because they're passionate about it, regardless of the support that they feel they're getting from government. I see that same type of fight in the arts and culture industry.

[1725]

What I'm hearing a lot is that we've got a demographic of artists who have given all they've got to their industry — a lot of it is physical work — and they're starting to age. We don't have supports in place, really, to assist aging artists into retirement, such as an artist's pension.

I'm wondering if the minister has had any discussions with arts groups around that — supporting our artists who may either have to change occupations because they can't physically do it anymore, or they're just done and they haven't been able to maybe accumulate savings because of the industry that they work in. This is coming to me more and more often as I meet with artists, and I think it's an interesting discussion to have.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for bringing that forward. It's interesting. Again, in my previous hat…. I come from small business. I worked for many years — 14 years to be exact — with small businesses. I look at artists as a small business and how we can support artists to develop as a small business and how they can be successful. There are a number of tools that are placed, both federally and provincially, to support people in looking at your retirement goals.

It's important that we look after our retirement. You know, when I talked with small businesses, I always talked about making sure that you're planning and doing that preparation.

But if you're looking at the transition piece…. Say you're an artist and you're looking at perhaps having to transition to something different. The Social Development and Social Innovation Ministry…. I shouldn't speak out of tune about what they do, but I'm familiar with some of the work that they do through Work B.C. They have a great complement for anyone looking at changing direction and careers. They'll help with developing, doing some of the assessment analysis of what potential could be next. For a career potential, they'll help you, whether it's job boards or resumé writing. So Work B.C. is another option to look at.

L. Popham: One of the connections that I have made over the last eight months is between arts and culture and tourism. I'm wondering what discussions have been happening between the arts and culture ministry and the Tourism Ministry.

One specific thing that I've been in discussions around is having a provincial map of arts and culture. I know that there are a lot of arts and culture groups that make their own specific maps to their own specific part of the industry, but has there been any money or investment discussed to invest in a provincial arts and culture map so when someone lands in B.C., they can actually find their way around anywhere in B.C. — connecting all arts and culture? Within that, I mean culinary art — all of it, all wrapped into one.

I know that the arts and culture ministry has limited funds, but I think that it could be a connection to Destination B.C. as an investment.

Hon. C. Oakes: I have to correct the record, because that's what happens when I speak off…. Work B.C. is actually in Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. I had it in the incorrect ministry. My apologies, please — for the record.

[1730]

Around the idea of the cultural mapping and the connection with how we start having that dialogue around arts and tourism. Actually, in 2012-2013 a creative communities grant was provided for cultural planning and mapping. Something that staff have brought to my attention — I think it's a great program — is that we have a First Nations cultural map, a similar idea of what you've said. It's that same idea across the province of British Columbia.
[ Page 2420 ]

On the art one, I'd be happy to have that dialogue with Destination B.C. We're also looking at, for example, sports hosting. You know, how do we have that dialogue and make sure that we are maximizing all of our efforts to ensure the best for citizens of British Columbia?

L. Popham: I'd love to have a further discussion about that with the minister.

This is going to be my final question, because my colleague is here to start a different set of estimates. As we look at arts and culture, I'm wondering: in what ways are we measuring success? You know, we could talk about "every dollar invested in the arts brings back this."

I'm not sure that the minister agrees with that, because the arts and culture file is so large we can't specifically put a number on dollars we're getting back. I think the average is $1.38. I think that the arts and culture movement believes wholeheartedly that that's what it is. They don't understand why more can't be invested, because they think it is an investment and not an expenditure.

The minister does say that it's working, but how do we know that? What are we using to measure that?

Hon. C. Oakes: Certainly, the list I'm about to go over is…. You know, we can always look at new opportunities for measurement, but currently some of the indicators that we use to measure performance are that we measure major cultural organizations that maintain or improve their net financial position compared to the previous year. What this means is an indicator of the health of the organization reflects their financials. That's one of the indicators that we utilize.

We look at the geographic reach of the B.C. Arts Council, and that's something that I highly respect about this organization. There are representatives from across the province of British Columbia. They're independent. They do their selection independently. What always astounds me is how they're so able to reach out and find those treasures throughout the province of British Columbia.

You know, we're also looking at how we can support the unique role of aboriginal artists and communities and B.C.'s artists and cultural life by investing in the aboriginal artists and cultural organizations. One example, of course, was the First Nations cultural map, which I think was really exciting.

Some of the other things that I've noticed as I've had the opportunity to travel across the province is that there are some really unique programs that we've invested in. I was at a small elementary school that we have — a partner, an investment in the arts community — that is teaching young students how to…. They have elders coming in, and they create drums.

[1735]

It's just an outstanding program. I measure it by…. To be honest, I hold Harwin Elementary School dear to my heart as an example of: is it successful? When I see somebody who is ten years old that stands up and talks about some of the programming that we're doing and the difference it makes in their lives and how they're able to stand up confidently and talk about how they feel when they're engaged in arts or sports, I think that's a huge measurement that we possibly don't have as an objective here but is equally important.

Sometimes in a service plan we outline objectives and goals and measurements, which I think are critically important as we move forward, but I never want to forget the on the ground, how the programs and the work that we do absolutely make a difference in the lives of people in the province.

The Chair: Member for Saanich South, would you like to make your conclusion?

L. Popham: I do. I'm just going to ask a question and then wrap up.

Within the measurements that we're going to use or that we are using, is an artist's average income used as a measurement? I'm only saying that because it's all well and good…. And I completely understand the importance of how arts and culture feed our souls in this province. I do. I think it's critically important; I don't think we can live without it.

But at the end of the day, what an artist makes as an income is also a measure of how well it's working. And I don't see that being used as a measurement, and that's something I'd like the minister to consider.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. The staff did provide that to me before. Currently, there's a cultural satellite account that starts to…. That is where we're moving to looking at incomes and things like that through Stats Canada. So we are absolutely moving in that direction, and it's called the cultural satellite account. I'm sure staff can provide you more information on that.

L. Popham: That's great. I'd be interested in seeing that.

That was my final question, but I just want to say that it's a pleasure doing estimates with you, Minister. I also want to say that we often travel the same paths around the province, covering the same areas, and I do get a lot of feedback that people are very impressed with your passion. I want you to know that I appreciate that too. So thank you very much — and we'll see you on B.C. Book Day.

Hon. C. Oakes: Yeah, thank you.

Vote 17: ministry operations, $210,718,000 — approved.

Vote 51: Auditor General for Local Government,
[ Page 2421 ]
$2,600,000 — approved.

The committee recessed from 5:39 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $36,495,000.

Hon. J. Rustad: I'd like to make a few opening comments, if I may — unless, of course, the member opposite would like to just vote.

I'd like to recognize, of course, to start with that we're on the traditional territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I'd also like to take a moment just to introduce the staff that are here with me. To my left here is Steven Munro, my deputy minister. We have Peter Walters, who is my assistant deputy minister; Peter Cunningham, who is also assistant deputy minister; Neilane Mayhew, assistant deputy minister as well; Shauna Brouwer, who is the assistant deputy minister, corporate services, for natural resource sector. I think that's everybody that's with me here today.

First of all, I want to start off by saying that I've had an opportunity over the last number of months to be able to travel around and meet with many First Nations but also meet with many of the staff within the ministry. I just wanted to say that the staff are doing a phenomenal job out there. I really appreciate the work that they are doing on behalf of the people of the province and on behalf of the ministry. It's making a real difference, and we're forming some great relationships between government and First Nations.

Partnerships with First Nations are a vital part of our B.C. jobs plan, and I think you'll agree that it has the potential to create major economic benefits and new opportunities across B.C.

Since we last had the pleasure of doing estimates here, we've achieved a number of significant accomplishments. I'd like to just highlight a few of those.

In December the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation signed the 22nd non-treaty agreement achieved since the B.C. jobs plan was been launched in 2011. These agreements include mine revenue-sharing agreements with First Nations, clean energy revenue-sharing agreements, reconciliation agreements and strategic engagement agreements. The progress we've made in reaching so many of these agreements in the past 2½ years shows our commitment to finding innovative ways to bring benefits more quickly to First Nations communities.

B.C., of course, also remains committed to the treaty process and is continuing to work with Canada and First Nations to build on the current momentum within the treaty process. In December I joined the five Maa-nulth chiefs to sign a memorandum of understanding to create a framework agreement to guide their ongoing work in implementation of the treaty.

I also recently joined the Tsawwassen First Nation to celebrate the start of construction on two major development projects that they're able to undertake after, of course, reaching treaty. It's absolutely phenomenal to see the progress that the Tsawwassen Nation is making.

In the past two years we've seen the Yale final agreement ratified by B.C. and Canada and the Tla'amin Nation final agreement ratified by B.C. It is now awaiting ratification with Canada, which we hope will happen in the very near future.

I have to say that just a week ago Saturday, I had the opportunity to be in Powell River to do the official signing with the Tla'amin Nation and to see the gathering and the excitement of so many people about what their future will bring. It was very gratifying to see that that work is coming to fruition.

In addition, we've also signed 14 incremental treaty agreements over the past several years. These agreements also provide opportunities for First Nations in advance of final treaty.

Looking into the future, this year's budget reflects the importance of B.C.'s liquefied natural gas opportunity. This is truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and my role is to ensure that First Nations communities can participate and benefit from success. Ministry staff have met with dozens of First Nations whose traditional territories may be impacted by liquefied natural gas–related infrastructure to discuss the benefits and also, of course, discuss their concerns.

We have established negotiating teams that have met with First Nations to begin engagement and discussions on the proposed natural gas pipelines within their territory, and we continue to work with the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training to increase the number of First Nations people participating in apprenticeship and skills-training programs.

[1750]

This budget will continue to allow the ministry to effectively deliver on this mandate. It demonstrates our commitment to achieve reconciliation with First Nations, and it continues to fund key aboriginal partners, such as the B.C. Treaty Commission and the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres.

The ministry's 2014-15 budget is $82.275 million. This represents a $427,000 or 0.5 per cent net decrease from the previous year. The net budget decrease is due to a $1.72 million net increase in the ministry operations vote offset by a $632,000 reduction in government transfers under the treaty and other agreements vote, a $200,000 decrease in government transfers under the first citizens
[ Page 2422 ]
fund and a $1.315 million decrease in government transfer payments under the First Nations clean energy business fund.

The lift in the ministry operations vote reflects government's continued commitment to facilitate economic and social opportunities for First Nations and aboriginal people. Specifically, the net increase from last year supports our work to ensure that First Nations are partners in the liquefied natural gas potential.

While there's a net decrease in the treaty and other agreements vote of $632,000, the gross First Nation benefits actually increase because of the way mine revenue-sharing benefits are accounted for. In particular, there is a $4.92 million increase to fund new and existing agreements, which is offset by a $5.552 million increase in recoveries to support revenue-sharing payments to First Nations, such as for the Highland Valley Copper mine and New Afton agreements.

The first citizens fund reduction is primarily due to declining investment and fund revenues. Interest from the fund supports programs and services for aboriginal people. In fiscal 2013-14 the estimated budget was $3.03 million, but the ministry maintained that funding at $3.23 million by reducing costs in other areas. The fiscal 2014-15 estimates budget is $2.83 million, but the ministry will maintain the funding at $3.03 million by reducing costs in other areas, which will mitigate year-over-year program reductions to $200,000.

The First Nations clean energy fund net expenditures reduction is a result of the reduction in forecasted revenues from water and land rentals compared to previous forecasts and because our revenue-sharing is attached to the amount of revenue that comes in. This reduction, however, is also offset by an injection of $1 million from general funds to support future opportunities for First Nations.

The main aim of the ministry is to work with First Nations to reach agreements not only supporting economic development with First Nations communities but also to support social and cultural needs. First Nations understand that economic development is the path to improving social and economic outcomes for their communities.

We will continue to move forward in the B.C. treaty process, building on successes, as I mentioned earlier, but recognizing that for some First Nations that may not wish to pursue a treaty at this time, we also will continue the work towards innovative agreements outside of the treaty process. In fact, the two paths are not mutually exclusive, and these other agreements can function as building blocks towards treaties and other forms of reconciliation agreements.

Our commitment, following last year's election, is to achieve ten more non-treaty agreements with First Nations by 2015, in addition to the 18 non-treaty agreements we've achieved since the B.C. jobs plan was announced. In fact, since the election, we have already reached four new agreements, and I'm confident we will be meeting our target.

With approximately 200 First Nations in the province, it's clear that when it comes to treaty or other agreements with government, one size does not fit all. So as we move forward, we will continue to listen and to respond to the needs and visions of individual communities and to innovate in our approach. That approach is very much reflected in this year's budget, which I firmly believe once again shows B.C.'s leadership, and moves us closer to bridging the social-economic gaps that have existed for too long, helping to build and to create new opportunities for aboriginal people across the province.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for the opening statement.

I'd like to acknowledge, as well, that we're on the traditional territory of the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations. We cross their territories when we come here to work, and when we are working here, we are on their traditional territories as well.

[1755]

I'm looking forward this year to budget estimates, as I was last July. And I'm looking forward to a wide-ranging discussion and not strictly limited to how the money in the budget is spent but the philosophy and the ideas and the policies behind how that money is spent as well.

I want to acknowledge the offer from the minister of a briefing with staff, which I had a couple of weeks ago. That was a nice offer, and it was well worth it. I acknowledge the staff that's here today and that waited around, maybe, for a little bit before we could get started today.

We're going to be discussing activities related to, as the minister pointed out, the operations budget of $36.495 million and to the overall budget of $82.275 million — so activities related to that.

I would like to say at this point, as well, that as I've pointed out in the Legislature on numerous occasions during throne speeches and those kinds of opportunities, I am the representative for Stikine, but I'm also an adopted member of Wilp Dawamukw. My Gitxsan name is Ax jabits, and it's a Gisgaast fireweed clan.

When I became an MLA, my hereditary chief, Dawamukw, contacted me and said that as I undertook my duties here in the Legislature, I was free from not simply advancing the interests of Wilp Dawamukw, which I belong to, but for advancing the interests of all people in the constituency and all First Nations. I wanted to make that clear, because there is no conflict of interest in me being a member of Wilp Dawamukw as I conduct the budget estimates today.

We've only got a certain amount of time to do these estimates, although when I talk to people and say I'll be spending a number of hours — more than several hours — with Minister Rustad in budget estimates, they some-
[ Page 2423 ]
times I think have the impression that…. How could two people speak for hours and hours like that? But we know that that's not exactly the case, that there's lots of consultation that goes on, on the minister's side with his staff and, as well, that we're interrupted on occasion and have to leave and come back.

What I do appreciate is that the answers last time that the minister gave were often quick and to the point, and there wasn't a lot of time-wasting in between answers. I appreciated that as well.

As I said and as the minister and I have discussed, the ministry has an amazing, wide range of topic areas. It's simply not just what we see in the service plan but the cross-ministry consultation that the minister is responsible for in advancing the interests of First Nations and aboriginal people in the province that make it a very complex and interesting file. So I want to acknowledge that as well — that we're going to be able to have a wide-ranging discussion.

I also appreciate that, as he did last budget estimates, there might be some times when he refers me to other ministries, and that's why I'm happy we're having this session early on in the budget estimates. If there is something that I need to follow up with, with other ministries, I'll have the time.

Again, it's the cross-ministry consultation that is part of the duties that I'm interested in talking about quite a bit during this budget estimates.

I also want to acknowledge the good work that is done. I try to bring that perspective to budget estimates and to the work in the Legislature.

I will start off by saying that I think the aboriginal youth internship program is a very positive program that your ministry is responsible for and that you're responsible for. I think that there've been many positive examples come out of that. I've known, personally, a couple of youth who've gone through that, and I think it's an awesome program and really well worth it. I want to acknowledge that.

[1800]

Having said that, I know that over the course of the next number of hours, we're going to have some disagreements around policy issues. That's what we're here to do, to have that kind of discussion on some of the decisions that have been made within the ministry.

I think that's just normal. When I think about the injustices I see, not just in Stikine but around the province, when it comes to First Nations and aboriginal peoples, that's the basis of what gets me motivated to ask the questions around the policy decisions that are supposed to address those injustices. That motivates me every day when I come to the Legislature.

I'll move on now, getting into some of the content of our discussions. Maybe the minister will be surprised. I don't think so. I'm going to start off again with a positive example of, I think, how the minister has approached this file in one particular way.

I asked in July, last budget estimates, around an issue of really significant concern to me and to the minister and, I think, to any fair-minded person in the province around the biomedical experimentation on aboriginal children at residential schools across Canada.

That came to light in June of last year by accident, accidental research by a University of Guelph researcher who stumbled upon this information. We know that certainly the Alberni Residential School was one location where these experiments took place in the late 1940s and early 1950s over a five-year period.

When we talked about that last year, I offered to be part of a joint letter from the minister to the federal government that supported the BCAFN resolution that came after the discovery of this information. Not just the BCAFN, but the AFN generally, in July, at their Whitehorse annual conference put forth a resolution that called for, amongst other things, a provincial and federal strategy around this absolutely horrific issue.

I want to acknowledge…. I brought that up in July, and the minister said that he would consider it. His words were that he'd get something like that drafted. He'd allow the member to have a look at it and possibly look at the opportunity to maybe even send it as a joint letter.

About a month ago I received the letter, February 27, from the minister. It was a draft letter to the federal minister, Minister Valcourt, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. I'm happy to let him know now that I'd certainly be happy to sign that draft letter and send it together to the minister as a representation of how offensive and hurtful and unacceptable the biomedical experimentation issue was in B.C. and across Canada.

I appreciate the minister following up on his commitment to draft that letter and for us to jointly sign it. Thank you for that, and I look forward to soon seeing the draft taken off that letter, putting my signature on it and sending it to Ottawa on both of our behalf.

I also posed, during budget estimates in July of last year, that in reflection of the AFN resolution around the biomedical experimentation issue, there had to be some public education done around this topic and a further investigation into this topic. Subsequent to that, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, in the fall, passed a similar resolution. The BCAFN, Assembly of First Nations…. Again, another similar resolution in November.

[1805]

In early December at Port Alberni I attended a conference, a day-long conference that featured Dr. Ian Mosby, who was the University of Guelph researcher who came across this information. A number of Alberni Residential School survivors were there as well, and a number of First Nations from across B.C. It was a solemn but a very informational and strong event. Alberni Residential School had First Nations from the Fraser Valley, from up in my
[ Page 2424 ]
neck of the woods in the northwest, that were sent to that school.

I wrote to the minister in January. We had discussed again, in July of last year in budget estimates, about activating the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to consider this issue — a select standing committee that is one of the committees of the Legislature but hasn't been activated since 2001, even though each year members are appointed to it.

I wrote in January to the minister, and I'm going to read that letter into the record.

"Dear Minister Rustad,

"I am writing to you regarding a recommendation for action that falls within your ministry's and government's stated goal of reconciliation with the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia.

"In June 2013 Dr. Ian Mosby of the University of Guelph published evidence he had unearthed while researching another topic that documented aboriginal children who were taken from their families and sent to residential schools were unwittingly the subjects of biomedical experimentation.

"One of the schools from across Canada identified was the Alberni Residential School, where between 1948 and 1952 malnourished aboriginal children were denied proper nutrition and dental treatments so that their dental health could be compared to other children at the same school who were provided with an improved diet and dental care.

"As Professor Mosby said at the forum hosted by the Tseshaht First Nation and the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council that I attended in Port Alberni, December 11, 2013, he 'blindly discovered' the evidence by accident while conducting other research, which 'begs the question if additional experiments were conducted. Much work is yet to be done to get to the bottom of this story.'

"Subsequent to the publishing of Dr. Mosby's article, the Assembly of First Nations passed an emergency resolution at their July 16 to 18 Annual General Assembly held in Whitehorse that called for action on this disturbing new information. Article 6 of the resolution calls for the federal and provincial governments to initiate a strategy to ensure information on these experiments is made public and reflected in public education curriculum.

"During our July 25 budget estimates debate I offered to cosign a letter from your ministry to the federal government endorsing the AFN emergency resolution in order to demonstrate a bipartisan approach and our collective condemnation of these disturbing experiments."

I acknowledge that you forwarded that letter, and I appreciate that.

"We know that thousands of aboriginal children attended the 22 Indian residential schools in B.C. between 1861 and 1983. It is unknown at this point how many of these children were the subjects of biomedical experimentation, either in the schools or at community hospitals.

"The Truth and Reconciliation Commission says at least 4,100 children died while in residential school care across the country. This month the commission received" — and that would have been January — "4,000 new documents, including death certificates, on aboriginal children who died in B.C. between 1917 and 1956.

"As recorded in the news media last week" — and that would have been in January — "the commission is in the process of cross-referencing to determine how many of these deaths occurred in B.C. residential schools. Amongst the primary causes of death cited is children succumbing to diseases such as tuberculosis due to their weakened state from malnutrition.

"In light of these new insights, beginning with Dr. Mosby's work, and your government's goal of reconciliation, I am proposing a course of action that will assist B.C. in taking a significant step towards honouring the intent of the AFN resolution condemning the biomedical experiments in indigenous communities and residential schools.

"I recommend that you use your authority as Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to activate the B.C. Legislature's Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs with a mandate to focus on this topic. As you are aware, this body is one of nine such committees of the Legislature whose bipartisan composition is appointed by the Legislative Assembly. Each committee derives its power from the House and must report its findings back to the House.

[1810]

"Although government and official opposition members have been appointed to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs for every session since its creation in 1992, the committee has not been activated since 2001, meaning it hasn't met as a body since then.

"Parliamentary committees allow for a more detailed examination of policy and other matters than is possible in the larger House. It can provide opportunities for public input through written and electronic submissions and public hearings and can travel within B.C. to obtain evidence.

"I propose that activating the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on the topic of biomedical experimentation in indigenous communities and residential schools would be a concrete demonstration of the seriousness of you and your government's desire to pursue reconciliation with aboriginal peoples in this province.

"The terms of reference of the committee are at your discretion. I offer my cooperation in assisting with the development of the terms. Examples of those that that could cover may include hearing from experts such as Dr. Mosby, receiving public input through submissions and hearing from those with information and experience regarding this topic from aboriginal and non-aboriginal sources, and receiving input from aboriginal groups and organizations regarding the creation of a provincial government plan to educate and publicize this topic throughout B.C.

"In the words of Nelson Mandela, 'Reconciliation means working together to correct the legacy of past injustice.' I believe this recommendation to activate the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on the topic of biomedical experimentation will provide a valuable avenue as one way for the province of B.C. to work together with aboriginal peoples in this province and to assist in correcting the legacy of past injustice. It's a critical step in building trust for the future that all in B.C. will benefit from.

"I look forward to your reply."

I wanted to read that into the record, because in July budget estimates I did bring up the topic. I wrote to the minister in January. When I brought it up in July, you said that you'd consider the suggestion that's come forward around the select standing committee. "At this particular point we don't have any plans to constitute the committee or charge it with a task. However, it's something I'll consider and think about over the next little while."

I would just like to hear from the minister. Again, I appreciate the letter that we're going to send jointly. What consideration has he given the matter of activating the select standing committee on this topic, or perhaps on any other topic?

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member opposite, thank you for the opening statements. Also, thank you for the offer to sign the joint letter. Hopefully, we'll be able to proceed with that and get that out fairly quickly.
[ Page 2425 ]

[1815]

I have given some consideration to the request from last summer around finding a terms of reference that we could bring forward. As you know, select standing committees are charged through the Legislature. I have given some consideration to that.

I want to start by just mentioning that I do find this issue of the biomedical experiments to be quite disturbing. It's something that is certainly unacceptable. The issue, though…. Obviously, it stems from residential schools and the process and what went around residential schools.

B.C. was not actually involved in the running or the mandates of residential schools. It is a federal jurisdiction. Because it was under federal jurisdiction, it would be very challenging to charge a provincial committee that would be looking at what is a federal jurisdiction issue.

I also want to comment that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been gathering information. It's in the last year of its mandate. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission will come out with a number of recommendations that will go through that process. Of course, when they were here in British Columbia, they heard much of the input from residential school survivors, and they're collecting that information. I know that they will also be turning attention to this specific issue.

Although I understand the intent of why the member is asking for this — and I understand, also, trying to do this from a non-partisan perspective and trying to get to information through a vehicle like the select standing committee — I don't feel that it would be appropriate to charge it, because of that federal jurisdiction.

Do we have time for one more question? If it's quick, we can.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Rustad: Okay. One quick response.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for opportunity to respond.

Yes, I understand the various jurisdictions that are involved. Unfortunately, the lines drawn sometimes don't make a lot of sense or aren't conducive or work very well in trying towards reconciliation. I think that any tools that B.C. can use to try to work toward reconciliation and the goals the minister outlined in his opening statement need to be considered.

I wanted to finish quickly and just say that although there were a lot of sad stories at the Alberni forum that we heard around biomedical experimentation, there was still the resilience there that people have weathered this and are trying to move forward. That's why reconciliation is important.

One of the stories that stick in my mind was from a survivor who actually spent time at the school during that period, 1947 to '52. He was in his 80s. He stood up and said that they were malnourished consistently and that they would look for food in the mangers of where the animals were kept. He managed, and a few of his friends, to get off site and find a garbage dump where food was dumped from a local grocery store, which had gone bad.

They scrounged around there and found some produce that had gone bad but was better than the food they didn't have. They brought it back to the residential school. This was all during recess. A younger boy followed him around as he was eating his apple that was rotten anyway and had been thrown out and said: "When you're done, can I have the core?"

This is what went on at these schools. I know the minister is aware of that. That's why any tool that we can use to address reconciliation…. It needs to happen so that we can move together as a people in the province. For the benefit of all, I think it needs to be considered.

I just want to thank the minister for understanding that.

Hon. J. Rustad: I agree with the member opposite in that reconciliation is something that we need to try to achieve. Education and understanding amongst all the people in the province is an important step in reaching reconciliation.

[1820]

That's why we are looking at our curriculum and how we can better reflect the experience and the understanding of the residential school as part of what we have as our curriculum so that people, when they grow up, have a better understanding of what we have gone through together, and some of those decisions.

That's something that I know the Minister of Education is looking at in terms of curriculum. Like I say, my hope is…. I believe I had similar words during the truth and reconciliation week — that we do need to be looking at how we make sure that the shared knowledge and understanding of the residential school experience is distributed and is learned by future generations.

Thank you for those comments. With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Sorry, hon. Chair, there’s one other task. Of course, there’s been lots of activity that’s been happening in the room prior to the start of our estimates, so I move that the committee rise, report completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development as well as rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:21 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada