1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd 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)

MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6657 ]

CONTENTS

Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill M219). Mr.

Howard

Introduction and first reading –– 6657

Oral Questions

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6657

Brunette River toxic waste contamination. Mrs. Wallace –– 6658

Tabling Documents –– 6659

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

On vote 57: minister's office –– 6659

Mr. Blencoe

Lottery Corporation Act (Bill 43). Committee stage –– 6669

Mr. Lockstead

Third reading

Natural Gas Price Act (Bill 52). Committee stage 6670

Third reading

Coal Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 51). Committee stage 6670

Third reading

An Act To Amend The Trinity Western College Act (Bill PR406). Committee stage 6670

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. Segarty)

On vote 51: minister's office –– 6670

Hon. Mr. Segarty

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Michael

Tabling Documents –– 6682

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries this afternoon

we have Mr. Alejandro Monge, who is a 17-year old exchange student from

Spain, where he attends grade 11. He's accompanied by his British

Columbia guardians, Ron and Mary Parkinson of Nanaimo and Mr. Charles

Giordano from Delta. They have come to Victoria in order that Alejandro

may see exactly what our provincial Legislature is about. We bid them

special welcome.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery this

afternoon are two constituents of mine, Mr. Vince and Mr. Greg Waring.

I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like all members to bid a

happy welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Robert Bevan from Port Alfred, Cape

Province, South Africa, and Mr. Peter Bevan. They are the in-laws of

Mrs. Eileen Bevan in the Clerks' office. Welcome to them.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the House would like to join with me in wishing a very speedy recovery to Mrs. Dorothy Macdonald.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Mr. Howard presented a bill intituled Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act Amendment Act, 1985.

MR. HOWARD: The purpose of the bill is to designate that

minister as the one who forthwith is to communicate to the government

of Canada the opinion of the Legislative Assembly that the proposal by

payments is an imposition upon the living standards of our senior

citizens and should be withdrawn from the federal government's current

budget.

Bill M219, Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act Amendment

Act, 1985, introduced, read a first time unanimously on a division and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM: To the Minister of Tourism. The latest

tragedy to strike the Expo world's fair comes with the news that

Specialty Mfg., who has been awarded a contract of some $75 million in

souvenir contracts, virtually without tender, is purchasing half of its

T-shirt requirements from Korea.

Would the minister explain how contracts awarded to foreign firms could possibly create jobs for British Columbians?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I question the member's use

of the word tragedy; it was anything but. Also, the member is wrong

when he says the contract was awarded virtually without tender. That is

incorrect.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Again, on my question to the minister, the

minister hasn't explained how the awarding of such contracts to foreign

firms can create jobs for British Columbians. I think that's the

critical issue here.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, Specialty Mfg. is not a foreign firm.

MR. MacWILLIAM: One more time with feeling: the contract has

been awarded to Specialty Mfg., who is now subcontracting — or in the

process of subcontracting — to a firm in Korea to supply the T-shirts.

A supplement to the minister: has the minister decided to table the

contract between Expo and Specialty Mfg., which apparently has no

provision for local employment?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, again the member's assumption

is incorrect. Specialty Mfg. has given an undertaking to Expo 86

Corporation to purchase goods and services in British Columbia and in

Canada wherever possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How's the Honda?

MR. MacWILLIAM: For the interest of the members, I also have

a Pontiac and a Ford truck. Again, the minister has refused to answer

the question, the question being — and again once more with feeling —

will the minister table the contract between Expo and Specialty Mfg.?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister told the House last week that

the monopoly contract with Specialty Mfg. was awarded following a

public tender in which a number of bids were submitted. This statement

has since been flatly contradicted by Expo finance chairman Peter

Brown. Has the minister decided to reconsider his answer, and will he

begin to conduct public business as if the public interest really

mattered?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, as I said last week — and I

will reiterate — the tender for the souvenirs and novelties at Expo was

public. There were several interested parties and it was narrowed down

to two, Specialty and another B.C. company. Subsequently, the other

company withdrew its bid in that case. A very equitable deal for Expo

86 was hammered out between the Expo 86 Corporation and Specialty Mfg.

which stands to benefit the corporation by approximately $22 million.

My statement still stands, and to the very best of my knowledge that is

correct.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another supplementary. Again the minister

seems to be at odds with his own board. I simply ask if he is aware of

the statement that Mr. Brown has made, and can the minister explain why

continually the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing in

this situation? Does the minister have control of this situation?

[ Page 6658 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer to the very last part of the member's statement, Mr. Speaker, is yes.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another question to the same minister. The

business community in British Columbia is very upset that this

government has placed Specialty Mfg. as a buffer between the Expo 86

Corporation and the suppliers. The normal rules of public tendering

will be bypassed through this arrangement. Has the minister decided to

respond to these concerns by B.C. business people, who have virtually

been hung out to dry by this government?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I said publicly on television

last week — I think it was Thursday — that I would gladly examine any

complaint or query from any British Columbia businessperson who feels

they have not received fair treatment from the Expo 86 Corporation. I

did not say that we would necessarily reopen contracts, but I did say

that we would take a close look at every proposal and make sure

everyone was treated fairly. Even that member knows full well that we

cannot possibly deal at the Expo 86 Corporation with every

businessperson in this province; it would be physically impossible. But

we do wish to deal with as many as possible, and I make the statement

here again that anyone in this province who feels they have not been

fairly treated or had a fair hearing by the Expo Corporation need only

contact my office, and I will make sure they either have had or will

have a fair hearing.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another question to the minister, again

regarding the purchase of Expo T-shirts from Korea. Expo operations

vice-president Jeff McNair has said that Expo — not Specialty Mfg. —

has the final say on what is sold at the fair. In view of the statement

and in view of the lost employment opportunities for Canadian

manufacturers as a result of the purchase of T-shirts from Korea, has

the minister decided to reconsider this position?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, Expo 86 reserves the right to

examine every product sold at the fair or with the Expo 86 logo on it.

We want to make sure that for the price being paid by consumers they

receive the very highest value possible. We realize that some goods

will be made in Canada; wherever possible they will be. But we also

realize, Mr. Speaker, that we must in some cases trade abroad. After

all, we are encouraging trade with our Pacific Rim neighbours, and we

want to shut neither Canadians, British Columbians or our trading

partners in the Pacific Rim out of Expo 86.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister is responsible, through this House, for approximately $1.5 billion in public money at Expo. As the Vancouver Province

has observed, secrecy breeds corruption and suspicion is never far

away. Has the minister decided to lift the veil of suspicion regarding

Expo by coming clean and tabling both the souvenir contract and the

contract for the printing of the souvenir guidebook?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the only veil of secrecy

regarding Expo, I think, is in that member's mind. Every decision of

the Expo 86 Corporation board has been made public. He is also

incorrect in the amount of the budget that the Expo 86 Corporation has

regarding public moneys. It has been on record now for some 18 months

as being exactly $802 million.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The allocation is approximately $1.5 billion.

However, the minister still has not answered as to whether or not he

will make public the minutes of those meetings and the details of the

contracts tendered.

A new question to the minister. Two well-known local artists were

enticed by Expo to prepare detailed proposals for the opening

ceremonies on the basis of public competition. Those were both local

artists, by the way, in the Vancouver area. My question to the minister

is: will the minister please explain the reasons — and the rudeness, I

might add — of Expo in subsequently cancelling the competition and

again awarding a contract without competition, this time to the

Hollywood designer, Tom Walker.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Once again the member is incorrect. There

has not been a contract awarded to a Hollywood person, as he mentioned.

If he had said that there has been a person hired to assist Expo as a

consultant, then he would be correct.

MR. MacWILLIAM: One more question. Will the minister confirm

that Mr. Walker has been given a budget for staging the election and

the extravaganza?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Any budget ties with a person in the name

of Mr. Hamilton McClymont, who has been given the sole responsibility

for staging the opening ceremony.

MR. MacWILLIAM: One last question to the minister. Has the

minister considered that his refusal to open the books to public

scrutiny is casting doubt on the affairs of Expo, as well as on his

ability to minister?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The auditor-general, Mrs. Erma Morrison,

has just handed me a complete report that she has done, after

inspecting the books of the Expo 86 Corporation. I hardly think that

that is keeping things from the public. She has gone through the

corporation from one end to the other and has given me a complete

report on her findings, and I would be happy to table that report in

this House.

BRUNETTE RIVER

TOXIC WASTE CONTAMINATION

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment.

After some 16 years of community effort, including provincial and

federal funding aimed at successfully restocking the Brunette River, a

tragic fish kill occurred as a result of toxic waste contamination. Has

the minister decided to review the environmental policies of the

government in light of this tragic event?

HON. MR. PELTON: To the hon. member, I am as appalled as no

doubt you are, hon. member, and other members on both sides of the

House, at what happened in the Brunette River. Unfortunately we never

know about these things until after they happen, instead of before.

Insofar as reviewing the policies of the ministry is concerned, I

understand that the rules and regulations that apply within our

[ Page

6659 ]

province are as strict as, if not stricter than, those in any other place.

No matter how many rules and regulations we have, there is going to be, you'll

find, the odd person out there who will break laws regardless of what they are.

In my opinion, that is what happened in this case.

The ministry is working very closely with the federal people in

trying to determine at this point what toxic chemical was placed in the

river. As we all know, that killed the fish which involved 16 years of

hard work on the part of a lot of volunteers, who brought a dead river

back to life.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I wonder if the Minister of Environment

set a standard when he authorized massive dumping of untreated waste

into the Fraser. It has been suggested that this dumping also

occurred.... Hydro is also allowed to get away with it. What we need is

something to do with this waste. What steps has he taken to provide

safe, local means of toxic waste disposal?

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well

that there is an ongoing program to deal with toxic wastes of every

kind. We discussed in this House not too many weeks ago the problem

with PCBs and other toxic wastes.

Some two weeks ago I attended a short conference in Montreal with

the federal people on the disposal of toxic wastes — or special wastes,

as we call them in British Columbia. There are actions underway that

will deal with this problem, but it's a problem that in a lot of cases

has been around for at least 75 years. Although technologies that will

take care of most of these toxic wastes are rapidly coming onto the

scene, they're not all here yet. So we can only continue to tackle this

problem on a day-to-day basis.

As I said before, I believe it's most unfortunate that we only

become involved in these things after they have happened. But unless

there is someone around who's psychic and can tell us when they're

going to happen, there's really not much more we can do about it.

MRS. WALLACE: It'll be around another 75 years as long as we have

that minister and this government looking after our toxic waste.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, this is question period.

MRS. WALLACE: In view of the restocking effort, has the

minister decided to provide provincial funds for an accelerated

restocking program on that river?

HON. MR. PELTON: No, not at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted for the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs to make an introduction?

[2:30]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I've just been advised that in

the gallery today we have a visitor from New Zealand, Mr. Anthony

Bruce, who is a member of the Social Credit Party of New Zealand. Would

the House please welcome Mr. Bruce.

Mr. Speaker tabled the ombudsman's Special Report No. 12 and

appendix.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 57: minister's office, $179,377.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'd like to respond very briefly to the

comments of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who took up

the entire time of two members to make two points in his opening

remarks.

The number one point was that he left the very distinct impression

that as a result of a study by the federal association of

municipalities...that indeed we should be pouring vast amounts of money

into infrastructure. I would like that member and the House to know

that I will be attending a meeting of ministers in August, in

Saskatchewan, and that particular report will come up. But I would like

to make the point to the member that indeed these problems are not

always answered by pouring more and more money into them. I think we as

government have a responsibility to make sure we're getting full value

for the dollars already invested.

I speak particularly of one area, Mr. Chairman, and that is sewage

collection, treatment and disposal. I believe we could get greater

mileage out of the money already spent on behalf of the taxpayers if

some changes were made. For instance, in many places throughout the

entire province we have storm sewers being directed into the sewage

lines, which means we are treating basically fresh water. I also

believe there could be increased capacity of existing facilities if the

manufacturers of toilets were convinced to produce a toilet that would

flush on much less volume of water than is now the case. I estimate

very roughly that the capacity now in place could be increased by 400

percent to 500 percent if we removed all this water — most of which is

quite fresh — from the collection, treatment and disposal systems. It

is the intention of this minister to discuss this particular item with

the manufacturers of this equipment and also take a close look at those

communities where some changes could be made in respect to the removal

of storm water runoff.

The other point that was made was the lack of leadership in the

administration of this minister with respect to serving municipalities.

This member is always highly critical of the administration of this

minister and the leadership that is provided for municipalities

throughout this entire province. As you know, we have 144

municipalities in the province, 28 regional districts and about 322

improvement districts. So there is quite a large clientele area to look

after. I'm not going to speak for the ministry myself or for my own

administrative abilities or the leadership that's in my ministry; I

will simply read into the record a letter recently received from a

municipality, and I believe it speaks for itself. The letter is dated

June 5, 1985. I'd like that member to pay particular attention to this.

"Dear Mr. Minister,

"During the twenty-third meeting of the sixth council of

the District of Chilliwack, held in the council chambers, Municipal Hall, on

Tuesday, May 21, 1985, at 7:30 p.m., the following resolution was carried unanimously."

[ Page 6660 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Who's riding is it?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Not my riding. Does it matter to you what

riding it is? Would you like one of these from a riding you consider to

be a socialist riding?

MR. BLENCOE: I just asked.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: If you would like to get a letter of this

nature from a riding you consider to be a socialist riding, then I'll

get you one. This reflects the attitude of all councils throughout

British Columbia.

The letter goes on to say that the resolution, which was passed unanimously, is as follows:

"'That a letter be sent from the council and staff of

this municipality to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his staff

expressing our deep and sincere appreciation for the cooperation,

enthusiasm, support, advice and the prompt and efficient attention to

such matters as bylaw approvals that we have received for the past

several months.'

"During the discussion of this resolution it was

brought to the council's attention that the relationship, at all

levels, between your ministry and this municipality is of the highest

order and is directly attributed to your ministry's outstanding

cooperation and support. This discussion and the resolution were

reported in both our local newspapers, and it was also included in news

broadcasts on local radio.

"Your ministry's efficiency is perhaps best

illustrated by the time taken to receive approvals of bylaws. Two or

three years ago we were accustomed to waiting anywhere from six to

twelve weeks for approval. That delay has now been reduced to two to

three weeks, and most of that time loss is attributable to Canada Post.

"Mr. Minister, all of us here believe that you and your staff deserve this most sincere thank you."

I don't have to go on; that speaks for itself. But if that member

would like a letter of this nature from a socialist constituency, I'm

sure we could get something similar.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to get into letters back and forth, and I really won't take much time responding to the minister.

I did take some time last time we sat to outline some positive

agenda for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to be taking in British

Columbia. As I travel the province and meet with municipal people in

the next six months, I shall be continuing to outline our positive

agenda and what we believe partnership is all about.

The minister talks about consultation and partnership with

government. It was our side and my office that recently had to send all

mayors and councils copies of the new special enterprise zone

legislation. They had not been consulted about that, and many of them

were calling my office — and had no information — because they were

going to be heavily involved. It's our side that has had to inform

those municipalities how they are going to be involved in that

legislation.

MS. SANFORD: That's consultation.

MR. BLENCOE: That's consultation again.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The wrong ministry.

MR. BLENCOE: It may be the wrong ministry, but when any

legislation directly affects the financial health of local government,

Mr. Minister, you should be concerned about it. You should have had

some mechanism in place whereby they could have known about those

implications and not read about them through the newspapers, if they

are going to be involved. Constantly local government finds out about

potential changes in policy or implications for local government....

They find out through the back door about what's going to be happening,

through the media or in some other fashion. There's not direct

consultation or, I suppose, if you will, a real partnership framework.

Mr. Chairman, to reiterate quickly some of the things that we said

last time in terms of how the approach to local government should be

taken by senior government, I think it can be stated quite clearly in

legislation or private member's bills that I have tabled in this House

in this session. It can be indicated by various motions I have put

forward for true partnership and how we can get together with local

government, and it can be looked at in terms of the outline, the

positive agenda I gave, when we were debating these estimates last week

in terms of municipal infrastructure-rebuilding in the province of

British Columbia.

I indicated in that discussion, and the minister talked about that

today.... He's quite right: it's not a matter of always finding money

to do it, but in this case we are indeed in need of municipal

restructuring in the province. What I and our side of the House are

calling for is leadership, goals set, management by objectives, and a

clear enunciation of short-term and long-term management programs for

rebuilding municipalities of British Columbia. I would remind that

minister what the Premier has said, or alluded to, that he believes in.

It's in the UBCM News , the

April edition: infrastructure is the key to economic recovery. "In his

recent televised address to the province, the Premier stated: 'We won't

forget the basics, like keeping our transportation systems and our

highways in shape to move existing products and attract new industry

and development."'

The Premier is supposedly.... Unless there's no meaning behind those

statements, the Premier himself says that's what the government

believes in. Yet we have seen no restructuring program put forth by

this minister or this government. The evidence is in, the analysis has

been done, and we need some leadership in the province of British

Columbia to rebuild municipalities. We need agreements with the federal

government and between all levels of government to rebuild our

municipalities.

Last time, Mr. Chairman, I gave a detailed proposal on how

rebuilding municipalities can be the grassroots of our economic

recovery. I gave statistics and figures of how it could be done, and

why we have to do it, and why it can be the biggest generator of jobs

that we have seen in many a year. That positive agenda would be

rebuilding the roots of our province. As I indicated at that time — and

the minister will not respond to it — clearly, unless municipalities

are in good shape, unless local government is in good shape, anything

you put in place is on quicksand. We believe that local government is

the cornerstone of anything you're going to do in the province of

British Columbia, and it has to be in good shape.

In the figures that I gave, Mr. Chairman, up to $586 per capita to upgrade these essential services would be necessary.

[ Page 6661 ]

I have suggested that we spread it over ten years.

It would require an increase in annual public works budgets of

approximately 28 percent. This represents a 7 percent increase in total

municipal budgets. Funding for this municipal rebuilding should be

shared between the three levels of government.

It is going to take leadership. It is going to take will and

dedication to believe in local government to get this kind of agreement

between all levels of government. This is what local government wants.

This is what they're looking for: some determination to come to terms

with the nitty-gritty nuts-and-bolts problems that they're facing, not

some trumped-up partnership deal that was concocted in some

smoke-filled room in Victoria and shovelled out: that this is

partnership. We all know it's not partnership, Mr. Chairman. We all

know that local government really is very apprehensive about that

particular program. They want to see this government address the

nitty-gritty nuts-and-bolts issues that face them daily.

I have presented in this Legislature, and I presented it some time

ago but refined it in this session, a major proposal for rebuilding

municipalities in the province of British Columbia, which, spread over

ten years, would not just be a megaproject developed in a vacuum, but

would rebuild this province and last for generations to come — not

something that would be here today and gone tomorrow in a huge vacuum

in terms of economic direction. Here is an opportunity for a ten-year

major project in the province of British Columbia to rebuild our

municipalities, put our people back to work and allow the federal

government to participate as well. Supposedly they are interested in

British Columbia. Supposedly they got elected on putting people back to

work. What we're talking about here is the next ten-year project that

could rebuild our municipalities, put people back to work and rebuild

the grass roots of this province.

[2:45]

That's the challenge. But it's going to take leadership, and it's

going to take goals. The UBCM is prepared. They have outlined that they

want it to happen. They want a government that is prepared to sit down

with them in true partnership and develop the modus operandi, develop

the plan. Our side is prepared to participate. I am now in the process

of developing those ideas with local government, because it's clear

that it's going to take a New Democratic government to rebuild the

province of British Columbia in terms of its municipalities.

Those are the concepts we've put forward. I would reiterate that if

the Premier is to be taken seriously about his belief in local

government, we must see a plan. We must see a plan of operation to

rebuild local government in the province of British Columbia. It can be

done. It must be done, or otherwise.... And your staff will tell you;

they know all the evidence from the United States and other

jurisdictions about, at your peril, neglecting local government. At

your peril neglect local government, and see your real property taxes

ten years from now escalate to rebuild those things you've neglected.

Put back into place some of those essential funding formulas that you

have taken away. Let's take a look at how we can start to develop a

ten-year — or spread it even further if you will — strategy for

rebuilding our municipalities.

We have a fine example, Mr. Chairman, of.... We have a fine

opportunity to utilize the Select Standing Committee for Municipal

Affairs and Housing, a committee of this Legislature. It's an

opportunity for both sides of the House, with those who are involved in

local government, to be able to establish that plan and that objective.

That would be partnership. That would be real consultation. That would

be meaningful planning for the future.

I hope the minister is not sceptical, because I think that unless we

do it, we're going to run into very serious problems down the road.

We've already got serious problems.

I agree, it's not a matter of throwing money. But when you've got

some basic ingredients of how your community survives, if you allow

those to fall apart, you are going to be in serious trouble.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to leave this particular component and

go on to some specifics about some concerns I have with the current

status of municipal affairs in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I think before we get away

from that subject, the member should be made aware of the fact that my

ministry has been looking very closely at proper planning of

municipalities over the past two years. Just recently a decision was

made, after considerable work and communication with others, to put

together a special committee which will be charged with the

responsibility of putting together a model that will indeed achieve the

goals that you suggest, but in a more free-enterprise, open way, not

having come down with the heavy hand of government. The idea is that we

stop pouring money into straight land-use designations. Rather there

would be a full comprehensive community plan done that will not only

designate what land uses will take place within a municipality, but

will also identify population growth, job requirements in order to

support that population, types of industries suited to that community

and cost of all of the services that this will require as time goes on,

so that we can, by way of computer, be able to look 10, 15 years down

the road and know exactly where we're going and be planning accordingly.

So — through you, Mr. Chairman, to that member — you're really

coming in months and months ahead or behind with some of these ideas.

But this approach that we are taking is quite different from yours, in

that we will be dealing to a very large extent with the private sector

on this, and they will be assisted by representation from

municipalities and regional districts and my ministry. So we fully

anticipate having something ready for unveiling by September when the

UBCM will be having their convention.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, what the minister is referring to

is a recognition by him and his staff or senior staff, or those who

advise him, that he canned regional planning and made a gross error in

British Columbia. He's having to bring back regional planning, because

you need that kind of planning. It's an admission of failure by this

government.

He talks about computer planning or some sort of study of population

projections. That's what regional planning is all about — projections,

economic forecasts. You've had to recognize that you have to do that on

some sort of regional capacity. It's an admission of failure, and I'm

pleased the minister has finally recognized.... For whatever reason, he

introduced Bill 9. He has had to recognize that he made a gross error

in eliminating regional planning, and he's finally bringing it back.

I'm pleased to hear that he's going to do that. It's about time,

because we need those kinds of projections. We have him admitting in

the Legislature today that he's

[ Page 6662 ]

having to bring back planning, for whatever

reasons; I suppose he had a mind-set against planning. Well, that's

terrific news. I'm pleased to hear that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, let there be no

misunderstanding in the member's mind. Bill 9 removed the regional

plan. The regional plan will not be coming back. We are speaking only

of municipal plans. The regional plan will not be coming back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further, it is not competent for a Committee of Supply to discuss the necessity of legislation or legislation.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I seek your guidance for me to

talk about planning and regional planning, and cooperation between

municipalities. I think that's quite appropriate. Despite what the

minister says, he's had to recognize that the very items he just

outlined — population projections, economic directions, that sort of

thing — were done on a regional basis. It makes a lot of sense to do it

on a regional basis: coalesce your effort to determine what a region is

going to do.

What this minister doesn't recognize is that this province is made

up of different unique geographical regions. There are certain

approaches, if he understood planning and how it works today and didn't

have a mind-set against it because he thought it was a way to thwart

developers, but recognized that civilized societies have to lay down

some kind of planning process for people simply to get on together, to

start with. Well, in those regions there is.... He's outlined it; he's

finally recognized that you've got to have some regional projections on

population, economic growth, investment potential and that sort of

thing, which I would indicate to the minister is what regional planning

departments and regional plans did for a long, long time. That was one

of their major mandates.

In the city of Victoria we had a cost-of-growth study. Now he's

talking about bringing back some.... He has obviously picked up on some

computer lingo, and thinks he might be able to do something with it.

He's saying: "Maybe that's something we should do." A cost-of-growth

study done by the regional district here in the greater Victoria region

did the very things that he says he wants to do now. If he'd take off

his blinkers about planning, he could see that that was being done,

should be done. Really, this attitude is that if you mention the word

planners, or have some planning departments or a regional approach to

problems on issues across the province, it's a way to thwart

development or free enterprise. With respect, Mr. Minister, planning

can be useful to free enterprise. One of the things that industry wants

to do when it moves to a region is to take a look at those regional

plans. It wants to see what they have done, what the projections are.

After all, we are in the twenty-first century, and there are approaches

to economic development and economic growth that are essential in terms

of coming out of a proper approach to planning.

We have had great frustration in the province over the last few

years because we have lost many of those bright young people who were

doing those very plans. The minister now says he's eliminated planning

and he's going to bring it back by computer. You can't bring back

proper analysis and proper planning and projections just by a computer.

The minister will never agree, but he's had to recognize that he blew

it. He got rid of or eliminated regional planning in British Columbia,

and he now has to bring it back in some form because we need those

projections. You can't have municipality after municipality developing

their own economic strategy in isolation from their brother and sister

municipalities next door. It takes cooperation. Maybe the minister

can't understand that it takes cooperation and partnership.

Municipalities have traditionally done that, and they want to do it

again.

Glad to see that regional planning is coming back to British

Columbia, and that the minister has had to recognize that he made a

mistake. He made a gross error in the province. If we want economic

recovery, we need to have that analysis and those projections made out,

and we need to have staff and regional planning departments do it.

We're pleased to see it.

I want to move on to a couple of issues, now that we have

established that regional planning is coming back in the province of

British Columbia and this minister made a mistake. I want to talk a

little bit about the Islands Trust and remind the minister.... This is

the minister who says he believes in partnership. With the Islands

Trust, of course, we just had the most blatant power grab and

centralization we've seen in this session. I'd like to ask the

minister, because I suppose he's concerned about costs of the Islands

Trust, why he won't authorize the Islands Trust Fund to be proclaimed.

A number of requests have been made. The Islands Trust Fund, the

minister will know, would allow the Trust to take advantage of

bequeaths and donations, would indeed allow the Islands Trust to be

self-sufficient in the very near future, and would eliminate the

problem of the Islands Trust relying on the provincial government for

revenues. Why don't we allow the Islands Trust to proclaim their trust

fund and not have to utilize public funds for their operation? Can the

minister give us the background on that? Will the minister answer a

very direct question? Will he proclaim the Islands Trust Fund?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No.

[3:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: Why? Would the minister give us a reason for not

saving the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia a lot of

money? Will he give us one reason why he will not allow the Trust to

support itself and not be relying on taxpayers' dollars? It's a great

way to save money, and that money could be utilized in other ways. Can

the minister not answer the question?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It has been made quite clear to the

chairman of the Islands Trust that I will not proclaim that

section of

the act, simply because anyone who wishes to turn land or cash over to

the Trust and the Crown may do so without going to the Islands Trust.

There is already a mechanism in place to receive such donations.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister or his staff — I am sure they

are — aware of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, one of the healthiest

trusts, if you will, in the country, which is highly successful and is

recognized by all parties? It has such a mechanism. With respect, Mr.

Minister, you may find that people are very reluctant to donate to

government, but they might indeed donate to a non-profit society with

its objectives clearly laid out and its accountability to the public

[ Page 6663 ]

directly. What this minister is doing is saying

that he's prepared to see more and more public dollars spent on the

Islands, when we have a fine opportunity to save the taxpayers of the

province of British Columbia, I would say, at least in excess of

$200,000 a year.

Why he would not save the taxpayers that amount of money I don't

know, and let them collect and run their own show, and become

financially self-sufficient. After all, he's always saying that we

should go to the private sector and allow them to relieve the public

sector of responsibilities. Here is an organization that is prepared to

relieve this government of funding the Islands Trust. It's prepared to

be self-sufficient. It's prepared to relieve the taxpayers of the

province of British Columbia of any financial responsibility. What does

the minister really want to do with the islands then? Does he still

want to hold onto them, for some other purpose? Has he got another

agenda again? Don't you believe in saving the taxpayers money? If you

do, proclaim the Islands Trust Fund.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Again, I will not proclaim that

section of

the act. However, the Trust have my assurance that indeed they will

stay in place. That's the desire of this minister and this ministry: to

make sure that the Trust is well equipped to carry out their mandate.

We will do so in spite of the rhetoric and nonsense that's been spewed

out by this member, who really has a political axe to grind and nothing

really constructive.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, this is a political arena and there are

political issues, and the public of this province is interested in the

political issues of our time. I say today that we in the New Democratic

Party would proclaim the Islands Trust Fund. We would save the

taxpayers of the province of British Columbia thousands of dollars by

allowing it to become self-sufficient. That would be a positive move.

It would be one way to allow them to get on and do their job without

interference. We've got this minister who's constantly interfering in

the islands; of course, as we all know, he has just taken the staff

under his own wing, to direct that staff to do whatever he will.

We'll leave the Islands Trust because we're not getting anywhere. We

know, Mr. Chairman, that obviously there is a plan. I will ask the

minister, however, before I do leave the islands, when he will be

tabling or telling the public about the administrative structure he has

in mind for the Islands Trust.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: A meeting was held just recently with my

deputy and senior staff, the chairman of Islands Trust and their

manager, and the staffing was discussed at that meeting. The report

covering that meeting has gone, or will be going, to all of the

islands, through their local news media. I can assure the member that

we will continue to discuss and plan any changes that are anticipated

in that manner, and the islands people will be kept up to date at all

times. During this process I intend, as I've indicated, to personally

visit all of the islands and speak to the people, and let them know

that indeed some of the rhetoric that is coming out from this member,

who would like to make it a political ball, is quite incorrect; that we

are very constructive and supportive; and that the Islands Trust is

here to stay. We're going to see that they are able to carry out their

mandate properly and efficiently, in the interests of the taxpayers.

MR. BLENCOE: Why didn't you consult with the islanders,

consult with the Islands Trust, before you brought in Bill 30? You're

not kidding anybody. You bring in legislation that grabs the staff,

that leaves you to set the political agenda for the islands, and then

you say you're going to consult. The people of British Columbia have

seen through you. They've seen you fire the Vancouver School Board.

They've seen you take over the staff of the Islands Trust. They've seen

you eliminate regional planning in the province of British Columbia

because you want to get some private initiative through on the

Spetifore lands. We all know what that was all about. And now you say

you're going to consult with the Islands Trust. You can't continue to

con the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would

ask that the member retract the accusation about the Spetifore land.

It's totally incorrect.

MR. BLENCOE: Retract what, Mr. Chairman? I'm not sure....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the minister repeat the words with respect to the accusation.

MR. BLENCOE: He's very nervous.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, not at all nervous. I just would like

to keep the record clear. Obviously, with his inexperience in this

House and his youth, he gets off on tangents. In his remarks he accused

me of removing the regional plan in order to cater to the Spetifore

land wishes, and I ask to have that withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member, of course, would acknowledge that he was not impugning any...

MR. BLENCOE: No. I wasn't impugning....

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...lack of ethics on behalf of the minister at the time. Would the second member for Victoria please continue.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is still very edgy about Bill 9, clearly.

MR. COCKE: He doesn't even dare face you, Robin.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Victoria will continue on vote 57, the minister's estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: He will have to constantly face, of course, those elected people that work diligently at the local level.

I've got a letter here from the minister, and I think it sort of

pertains to his attitude towards the Islands Trust, local planning and

local decision-making. I'd like the minister to explain what he meant.

It was addressed to me on April 12, 1984. I was writing to the minister

about my views on his attitude towards local planning. His last

paragraph was: "Plans are simply guides for orderly development in the

future, but no plans should be cast in stone. Decisions of elected

bodies, we hope, are made on firm grounds. However, such decisions,

particularly as they apply to land

[ Page 6664 ]

use at the local level, should be subject to appeal in the interests of all citizens."

I'm wondering if the minister could let this House know to whom

local decisions could be appealed. I would remind the minister that

there is a tradition of local land use matters being decided by the

local government. Has the minister got something else in mind here?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No. The letter is quite explanatory. Plans

should not be cast in stone. Plans are guides as to what may take place

in the future. If indeed there is some need, for whatever reason, for

an amendment to the plan, then that should be brought to the attention

of the elected people, and no doubt they would then make their decision

in the best interests of the community at large. It's quite simple.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not talking about plans being cast in stone,

Mr. Chairman. But the clear inference in this letter is that, after a

local decision is made, if enough citizens or whoever — companies? I

don't know; it doesn't say here — don't like the decision made by local

government, there is going to be a process whereby they can have that

decision turned around. We've already seen that with the minister's

attitude to bare-land strata regulations. Musgrave Landing on

Saltspring is a good example of this interference by Victoria in local

decisions and violation of community plans.

The inference here is that the minister is going to allow some

process whereby local land use decisions.... Whatever they decide, if

the minister decides that he doesn't like them, he's going to find some

way to change them. I hope that's not accurate. They're elected, and

they make those decisions about their own land uses. Any further

interference by this government or this minister in those kinds of

planning decisions will be fought long and hard. We've seen it too

often. There's too much Big Brother government. We need less government

by senior government. Let local government, which is efficient and

accountable, do its own planning. With respect, senior government

should keep its hands off.

I'd like to ask the minister again: what does he mean by: "...should

be subject to appeal in the interests of all citizens." You've got some

ideas you're not telling us about, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, unlike the NDP when they were

in office, I at all times respect those people who own land in our

province, particularly our senior citizens who worked very hard over

the years to obtain a piece of property that would someday be their

retirement nest egg. I believe that at all times we must keep in mind,

with all of the legislation that we bring in, whether it's at this

level of government or any other level, respect for those private

individuals who own land. All decisions must be tempered with them in

mind. Therefore, as long as I am Minister of Municipal Affairs, I will

insist that those people — and again I repeat, particularly our senior

citizens — always have an opportunity to come back and appeal a

government decision, no matter what level of government it is. That is

something that that member there should respect. He shouldn't be asking

this question at all.

MR. BLENCOE: Is that why you violated the community plan,

changed the strata regulations and allowed condos to go ahead at

Musgrave — mondo-condo for Saltspring? Is that your appeal mechanism?

If anyone in the development industry happens to get your ear, you'll

change the rules overnight? Is that what you mean? You've already done

it, and we know you're going to do it with the Islands Trust. We know

that's what you've got planned. Is that what you're going to do in the

future, and is that the appeal mechanism? Or are you going to allow

local government...?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm only telling what happened.

It's in the record. You allowed the strata regulations to change,

violating the community plan decided by the local residents so we could

see some development go ahead that violates what the community wants.

Is that going to be your new Big Brother, centralized Municipal Affairs

ministry, running over everybody and determining what local government

should have in terms of land use or zoning? Is that going to be your

attitude?

There has been a tradition struck in this province and in this

country that those people are elected to do a job. They fall or they

get re-elected by the job they do. Land use and zoning has always been

a controversial issue, no question about that. But as we have already

seen, any interference by this minister and this government is an

erosion of local autonomy and respect for local government, and we will

not stand for it. We will always stand by local governments right to

direct their own environment, to create their own objectives and their

own land use planning.

That's why this minister eliminated regional planning. It's part of

the same thing. He wants to take away the checks and balances that

people have to say how their community should develop. I agree that we

need a balance between the two, but that balance is being taken away by

this government, and they continue to centralize.

As I indicated, it's quite obvious. We have had it with Bill 9, as

we have with Bill 30, the power grab on the islands. We are going to

see another piece of legislation come down whereby the minister is

going to be able to.... It's going to be Mr. Vander Zalm revisited.

We're going to see legislation that is going to allow the minister

awesome powers to control land use planning and decision-making by

local government. I hope we're wrong, and I hope the minister will heed

our caution, will change his mind and not bring that in. By all the

indications we've had so far in the last two or three years, that's

coming down, and we're going to see that kind of legislation brought in.

I want to move on — unless the minister wishes to respond, and I'm sure he doesn't — to a couple of other items.

Now that we're talking about Saltspring Island and a couple of

issues that I want to bring up, I wonder if the minister could outline

for us the Ganges sewer situation. How does he rationalize that

particular situation in light of the fact that many municipalities

would like to see the grants that Ganges got for sewer, whereby we have

now virtually all public money paying for the capital project, and yet

we have many municipalities which can get virtually nothing for such

projects?

The minister gave a huge amount of money just recently to complete

that project. He's never allowed a referendum to go ahead or never had

a proper study of all the options that are

[ Page 6665 ]

available for Ganges. Yet he managed just like that

to find close to $300,000, if I recall, to complete a project that is

extremely controversial. I recognize that it's gone on for many years,

but how does he justify the huge expenditure of public money for a

capital project when there are other jurisdictions who are asking? My

colleague from Okanagan North would love to have some special

consideration such as they got for this project.

I'd like to hear the minister, and then we'll go on with that.

[3:15]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the Ganges situation had been

kicking around for years and, as far as I was concerned, after

analyzing the whole situation I again came to the conclusion that it

was being politically kicked around as a football. It was my decision,

after we discovered that indeed both the school and the hospital had to

have their facilities renewed, that the cost of that was going to be

more than by completing the total project. There were already millions

of dollars sunk in the ocean in there, and thousands and thousands of

dollars tied up in equipment and stored, doing nothing — while we're

sitting listening to people like yourself who want to stop progress in

this province.

Mr. Chairman, I discovered that because it was going to cost more

money to properly equip those two facilities than it would to put the

whole project together, we decided to go that way. As a result of that,

Mr. Chairman, we have people now, they tell me, who were opposing it

before and are now asking to be part of the community that's going to

be served by that sewer. Mr. Chairman, the case was brought before the

courts here just recently. The Capital Regional District, which is

spearheading that project won the case — a very good decision. The

project is going ahead. It's going ahead because it's needed for that

community. It's going ahead because the school needs it. It's going

ahead because the hospital needs it. It's going ahead because there's a

tremendous investment already in the ground and it's going ahead

because it's going to cost less to do that than it would to facilitate

both those institutions.

So I would suggest to that member that he stop this political

garbage. That thing is underway and it's going to be completed, and

there are going to be many people in that community who at one time

opposed it but are now seeing the light and indeed will be benefiting

from it by hooking up to it. The decision is made. It's finished. It's

on the way and we're on to new things.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's just the compounding of the public

perception that this government is.... The government in this country

that continues to allow raw sewage to be pumped into the beautiful

oceans and the beautiful island environments — we had it in Vancouver,

we've got it off Victoria — has cut the sewerage assistance program,

and we're now going to have the Gulf Island knee deep in you-know-what.

What evidence...? I'd ask the minister what studies he looked at for

alternative sewage treatment. How many studies did he look at?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, for years there were

thousands — I believe hundreds of thousands — of dollars spent on study

after study. I didn't think that it would be responsible of me to spend

more tax dollars on more studies. There are ample studies. I was

totally satisfied with the studies already done saying that indeed the

project should go ahead. It's gone ahead. It's finished. Just drop it.

You're not going to change it.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I know we're not going to change it,

because this government never changes when.... It's a totally

inflexible government. There indeed are studies, and there are good

studies that indicate you could have done this much cheaper. You can

still do it much cheaper. The ongoing cost of maintenance of this

operation is going to be astronomical. But unfortunately you want to

pump raw sewage right out to that beautiful environment, as you've done

in Vancouver, as you do in Victoria and as you allow in the Okanagan

Lakes. The member for Okanagan North talked about that. You never come

to terms, and I would say that there has never been a proper or a

reasonable approach to the alternatives in terms of sewage treatment on

Saltspring, because those who are in control have wanted to do things

in a traditional way, which in this area has been to pump raw sewage

out into the beautiful ocean and our beautiful island environment. This

minister is going to compound that, and has refused to take a look at

alternatives that would be cheaper in the long term. He is going to

continue to pump raw sewage into the beautiful Gulf Islands, off

Victoria; he's allowing it in Vernon; he's allowing it in Vancouver. He

won't change the sewerage assistance so we can build treatment plants.

He is the minister that will be seen as pumping raw sewage into our

waters and won't took at alternatives.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The raw sewage is pumped by that member,

and in tremendous volumes. The sewage from the Ganges project will not

be pumped raw into the ocean; it will be treated. I already indicated

to you that money was already spent on equipment some years ago and was

sitting in storage for exactly that — for the treatment of it. It will

not be raw sewage. The only raw sewage that we're getting is from

yourself.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't get down to the minister's level.

Tertiary treatment, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member address the Chair and not the minister.

MR. BLENCOE: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Through you, Mr. Chairman,

to the minister: are we talking about tertiary treatment, or is this

primary treatment, which basically is just an Osterizer that grinds it

all up and shoves it out? No answers? No, because you have made an

incorrect statement to this House. It's primary treatment, not tertiary

treatment. So we have raw sewage, for all intents and purposes, being

pumped out in Ganges into the Gulf Islands.

I would suggest that there's never been a serious look at the

alternatives. There's never been a referendum on the islands. The

minister has said, and has been quoted as saying, that that last

umpteen thousand dollars — close to $300,000.... He would withdraw that

money if a referendum was held. He wouldn't give this great amount of

money for this raw-sewage pumper if they held a referendum. I'd like to

ask the minister what he has been scared about. Why has he been

reluctant? What's he got to hide in terms of not allowing a referendum

on Saltspring and Ganges to see

[ Page 6666 ]

where they want to go? They've been asking for

years to be allowed a say in what kind of treatment facility they want,

and they've always been denied that democratic right. Why did he tie in

"no vote, no democratic referendum" to that last grant?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Sometimes it's necessary to make a decision

and move in the interests of a situation, and after approximately ten

years of public debates, of demonstrations, of sabotage and of all

sorts of nonsense, I simply said that I was not going to commit — not

$300,000, but closer to $800,000 — to this project if indeed it was

going to be put out there to be kicked around again and locked in along

with all of the other money that's locked in there at the taxpayers'

expense. I simply said that if indeed you feel that a referendum is

necessary after all these years and after numerous studies, hundreds of

thousands of dollars in studies, then you may have a referendum, but

you're not going to lock in another $800,000. If you want a referendum,

you'll do it before that is committed. That is reasonable when you

consider that those dollars come from the taxpayers of this province.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what

representation he had from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on

this latest amount of money to Ganges.

Did the Minister of Finance consult with the minister on this latest amount of money?

There has been no discussion between the MLA for the area and the minister on Ganges and Saltspring: is that the answer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member will direct his debate through

the Chair, and the hon. member will also appreciate that no other

member can stand to speak until you....

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'm prepared to sit down, but the minister's got his back to me.

I'll ask again. What discussions did the minister have with the

Minister of Finance, who is the MLA for Saanich and the Islands, over

this latest grant or any other particular items on the Ganges sewer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria continues.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not going to get the answer. It's quite

clear by his silence that he doesn't want to admit anything to do with

the Minister of Finance or the member for that area. We certainly had

that during the Islands Trust debate. I think it's unfortunate that the

minister is not prepared to answer and tell the public or his

constituents in Saanich and the Islands what his role was in this

particular aspect.

I'll move on to another topic, still to do with sewers. As you know,

Mr. Chairman, this minister was responsible for change in the formula

for grants to municipalities for sewer installation and sewer

construction. I wonder if the minister can detail the Rutland sewer

proposal and why Premier Bennett's riding gets 75-cent dollars when

nobody else can.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, in accordance with our

principles, we normally live up to agreements. It just so happened that

that particular project had been approved prior to the change.

I'd like to elaborate very briefly on this whole question so that he has

a message before he uses up too much of his time on this particular topic. There

is absolutely no thought at this moment of changing that formula. My ministry,

through revenue-sharing, is already committed to approximately $90 million per

year for principal and interest payments on past expenditures for sewer and

water. That was climbing at such a rate that, had we not done something about

it, all municipalities in this province would have suffered through having their

unconditional grants reduced, while the major ones, and those who could take

advantage of this very rich formula, did so.

So just for his interest, the program will not be changed back.

Those projects that were approved during the old 75-25 formula have

been lived up to, and that applies to Rutland.

MR. BLENCOE: Not a satisfactory answer, unfortunately, for

those municipalities that would like to get 75 cent dollars. They just

happen not to have the Premier of the province in their riding.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that member is not only badly inexperienced, but he appears to be deaf as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I refuse to accept the comment he just

made. The grant was not put through because of the particular MLA. It

was put through because they did qualify while that formula was in

place. Keep it clean, please.

[3:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order was probably out of order,

Mr. Minister, because you would have an opportunity in ordinary debate

to stand and rebut the statement of another member.

MR. BLENCOE: The Premier had a different answer, Mr.

Minister. He justified this program by saying that it was a

reallocation of funds that had been placed from a previous agreement. I

wonder if the minister could tell us where that money was reallocated

from, and why it took four or five months of secret negotiations with

the city of Kelowna when that money supposedly was already there.

You don't want to answer that question? Well, clearly we've got the

Premier and the minister on different sides of the issue and giving

different reasons why the Premier's riding gets 75-cent dollars when

everybody else gets 25 cents.

Is the minister prepared to table the evidence that there was an

agreement prior to the announcement by the Premier that there was an

allocation of funds? Is that evidence available and are you prepared to

table it?

Stonewalling again, Mr. Chairman. No evidence. Clearly there is, I

would suspect, no agreement. It's a blatant partnership of patronage

for the Premier's riding. Ah, we're going to get an answer.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: There's no need to talk about need for

evidence or secret meetings or so on. This is all useless tripe. There

was an ongoing bylaw that protected the original qualifications, so

that's there. Talk to the municipality.

[ Page 6667 ]

MR. BLENCOE: All municipalities can and probably do have a

bylaw that would protect any prior arrangements they might have with

the province, but not other municipalities, after a program is

cancelled. In some miraculous way the Premier says: "Oh, well, this was

signed or agreed to some years ago. We can take 75-cent dollars." I'd

like to see that agreement. Every single municipality in the province

would like to see that agreement, and see why the Premier got special

treatment for 75-cent dollars for sewer in Rutland. I'd like to see

that agreement — signed prior to your cancelling that program — tabled

in the House. Is the minister prepared to table that information?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: We have to go on blind trust, do we? There are

very few people in British Columbia who will go on blind trust with

this government anymore. They want evidence — like Expo evidence. We

want to know what's going on, but, of course, we're never going to find

out, Mr. Chairman.

The Premier also indicated that other municipalities might also be

eligible for 75 percent provincial funding for sewer projects. I think

these were his words: "...depending on the nature of the project, the

priority and the quality of representation given by their local MLA."

Boy, if that doesn't mean underhanded — wink-wink, nudge-nudge and the

right MLA is going to get 75-cent dollars.

Could the minister tell us whether this means there is no longer a

specific funding formula for municipal grants? Who is it that will

decide whether a municipality has the right kind of MLA or the right

kind of representation? These are the Premier's words, and I remind the

minister of that.

I've asked you a number of questions there. Obviously I'm not

getting very far. Has the funding formula changed depending on

representation?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: If and when there should be a funding formula change, it will be announced in the proper manner.

MR. BLENCOE: It's fascinating that the major exceptions to

the rule that all municipalities have to go under are the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier of the province. Actually,

the Minister of Finance has more than 75 cents; he virtually has 100

percent public support. But the Premier gets 75 cents where everybody

else gets 25 cents. There's no satisfactory answer from this minister.

He's not prepared to table the agreement signed before he cancelled the

program. He's not prepared to say that the Premier has agreed that

representation now is a criterion for getting various types of grants.

I'd remind this minister that municipalities throughout British

Columbia had applications in for a total of $300 million for sewer

projects under the 75 percent provincial funding formula. Rutland may

have been one of them, but hundreds of others had applications in

totalling $300 million. Why is it that the Minister of Finance's riding

and the Premier's riding get the special funds when no other

municipality can? Prior to your cancelling the program they had

applications in. By allowing this to go through, Mr. Minister, you've

changed the rules.

The Premier has clearly said that it depends on the representation.

How can both the Premier and the minister justify giving his friends —

I suppose — in Kelowna 75 percent while telling every other

municipality that it doesn't happen to have the right MLA to get the

same deal? What kind of game do we have here? We had many other

municipalities lined up before the funding changed. There was $300

million requested. But you're going to tell us and the people of

British Columbia that, by accident, the only two ridings that got

chosen for exception and special patronage were the Premier's riding

and the Minister of Finance's riding. Is that what you're telling us?

All the others could come and say they applied prior to your reversing

the formula.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Do you want an answer?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, that would make a change.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: There may have been $300 million or more in

applications for sewer and water grants, but not all of these had their

loan authorization bylaws in place. It so happened in the case of

Rutland that they had an ongoing authorization bylaw in place which

protected them on funding that had been approved before the change to

the formula took place. As far as the Ganges situation is concerned,

this is the last time I intend to respond to it to that member.

Obviously, through his lack of knowledge here, I, of course, forgive

him. Because of his youth and newness around here, he hasn't learned

yet. But that money was not part of the sewer water program, that

additional funding.... If you're interested in an answer you may wish

to listen. That funding was arrived at simply because there was going

to be a need to spend more than that to upgrade the facilities at the

hospital and the school. It was a decision that rather than spend, I

believe, close to a million dollars upgrading just for the school and

hospital, that we'd use just under $800,000 of that, combine it with

the funds that were already in place and all of the equipment etc. at

Ganges, and complete the total project including the school and

hospital, therefore benefiting the people of that community, now making

it possible for many others to get the benefit of that sewer

installation. That was done only because it was judged that it was the

best use of tax dollars. Rather than put a million dollars into

facilitating two institutions, we used $200,000 less and took care of

the overall community project. That's the last time I intend to respond

to that.

MR. BLENCOE: With respect to the minister, I don't care

whether it's the last time or not, I'm doing public business here, and

at least I will ask the questions. Let me make that determination. I

will make that determination in the public interest — who I represent —

not you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Jackboot opposition.

MR. BLENCOE: Dr. Strangelove talks about jackboots.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee will come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: Authorization bylaws have got nothing to do with

the issue, Mr. Minister. Many municipalities had authorization bylaws,

and they still have them. That doesn't

[ Page 6668 ]

mean

to say they're going to get 75-cent dollars. If it does, you're in

trouble, because they're all going to be lining up tomorrow.

The Premier.... I'm going to ask another question on Rutland,

because here we have, I think.... This is partnership and patronage.

This is what this is all about. The Minister of Finance and the Premier

of the province of British Columbia.... The Premier stated on March 9

that extra funding for sewer construction in Kelowna was available

because money had been set aside a number of years ago. I'd like the

minister to tell us under what agreement that money was set aside; and

why, if the money was available, did it takes months and months of

negotiations with Kelowna and the province before the announcement was

made? What was the agreement? How was that money set aside for Rutland?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's not called an agreement; it's called a

bylaw. I'm not going to respond to this question again, so here it is:

it was covered by an ongoing loan authorization bylaw, period.

MR. BLENCOE: So if I come tomorrow with a whole list of

authorization bylaws from another municipality in the province of

British Columbia, you will honour the 75-cent dollars? Is that correct?

You'd better think very quickly with your staff.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I indicated earlier that we live up to

commitments made. The difference here is that this was already

approved. If that member can go out and have a great lineup at my door

of people with bylaws in their hands that were approved prior to the

change in formula, we will deal with them in a like way. I repeat,

again for the last time: it was approved whenever the old formula was

in place. It's not an agreement; it's a bylaw.

MR. BLENCOE: It doesn't matter whether the municipality has

an authorization bylaw; that doesn't mean to say you have to give them

money. We ask you again: are you prepared to table the evidence to show

that that agreement was in place before the 75-cent funding formula

changed? Are you prepared to table the evidence? On Rutland

particularly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the Chair, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Through you, Mr. Chairman.

We're not going to get the evidence, because I think we all know

there is no evidence. It was a special deal for the Premier's riding.

It was agreed on; secret negotiations were done. The minister

authorized it. Every other municipality that has sewer problems would

love to get some special deals, but unfortunately won't be able to. We

all know. There's no evidence and no tabling.

I'm going to move on to a couple of other items very quickly. There

was an announcement by this minister — again part of the problem with

this minister as to how he informs municipalities — of a change in

grants in lieu for certain municipalities with hospitals in their

ridings. For Vancouver it was in excess of a million-dollar change for

their budgeting; for Victoria it was in excess of half a million

dollars. There was no consultation with those local governments. There

was a major change in their budgeting. It's not necessarily the issue

in terms of the budget, although that's bad enough; but again what I

refer to, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that they had to find out about

that change through the back door, through the media — not through the

minister. You can't deal with local government that way.

I had a meeting with the minister and asked him to phase in the

change for those municipalities affected. Unfortunately, he wouldn't do

that. That process, and those municipalities affected, many of them

financially in a big way, I think again shows the basic incompetence of

this minister. He continues to not inform local government about major

policy changes and major financial changes, and they find out by

accident. Again, I just had to send Bill 49, Special Enterprise Zone

and Tax Relief Act, to council because they hadn't got it. I had to do

that; our side had to do that. You know?

Here we have another example of the minister not informing those

affected municipalities properly and decently in partnership, and they

find out through the back door. I know the minister won't change his

mind in terms of phasing it in, but I surely hope he has changed his

modus operandi in terms of how he informs local government about his

decisions or changes in policy. That was most unfortunate, and it's not

the way to run a tight ship. It's not management by objectives. I don't

think it's good management. The Municipal Affairs ministry is a special

ministry, and it takes a delicate kind of approach to policy changes,

particularly in these difficult times when it involves finances.

Many of those municipalities that were affected were right in the

middle of their budget deliberations, and such a shift, found out by

accident, in what was going to happen to them was totally, I think,

unacceptable. It's just like, again.... We've just seen Bill 49 — 1

think it was Bill 49, the special enterprise bill — and the same thing

has happened again. No consultation, no partnership, no discussions —

here it is, folks; this is what it's all about; take it or leave it; go

away. Well, Mr. Chairman, it's not acceptable. I wonder if the minister

could tell us whether he has put in place a different management

procedure on policy and information sharing with local government.

[3:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I'll caution the committee that we cannot discuss the content of legislation.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The move that was made in respect to grants

in lieu was made in the interest of equity with all municipalities. The

most noise that we've heard about that has been from the opposition

member himself. So we're not all perfect, but he should know here

today, and it may be a little embarrassing to him, that indeed he has

made more noise about this than anyone else.

As far as the special enterprise zones are concerned, immediately

that was introduced those kits were sent to all municipalities along

with our update on the total partnership program. So I'm afraid you're

barking up a wrong tree.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I happen to disagree with the minister.

Unfortunately, we have no indication that that kind of process is not

going to change, and we're going to find out. Let me ask it this way:

is the minister prepared to utilize the Standing Committee on Municipal

Affairs and Housing for a consultation process over policy shifts?

[ Page

6669 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would be a decision of the

Legislative Assembly, not of the minister, if it involved a select

standing committee of the Legislative Assembly.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, would it be in

order to ask the minister is he prepared to recommend or support the

use of the Municipal Affairs Committee in a more innovative way in

terms of policy for local government? Would that be in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, that select standing committee

is empowered to do whatever it's empowered to do by the Legislative

Assembly, by the whole House, and not by one specific minister.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister sits on that committee, Mr. Chairman. Can he pass comment on the committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the statement is clear. The

minister cannot make that decision. Select standing committees are

selected by the House and appointed to their duties by the House.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then I will just say I think I

can pass comment that we would certainly welcome the use of that committee in

a far more forthright, in an innovative and creative way. It's just now,

this week, going to have its first meeting of this portion of the session —

organizational meeting. I'll leave it there. We would hope that committee

will do a lot more in the future, and hopefully we can all participate in an

innovative way on that particular committee.

I don't have many more items for the minister, except to once again

repeat that we hope the minister will take very seriously our concerns

about municipal infrastructure rebuilding in the province of British

Columbia. We hope that we will see some long-range objectives and plans

laid out for the building of municipal infrastructure in the province

of British Columbia. It is certainly our intention to take a look at

ideas and concepts for municipal government. Through municipal

rebuilding we can put thousands of British Columbians back to work.

It is our view that the current attitude of this minister and this

government to municipal affairs has been a very unfortunate one in

terms of treating them with respect and treating municipalities as

equal partners in any kind of development process or on any proposal

they come forward with. We cannot support the last year's operation by

this government and this minister, in terms of how local government has

been treated. It has gone from emergency to emergency, through

announcements about policy changes in the newspaper to a partnership

deal that really is giving money away through the back door when local

government wants to talk about rebuilding its infrastructure. The whole

question of how this government approaches local government, its

centralization and taking away of local decision-making powers, is an

issue.

Over the next few months we will be bringing forth alternatives. Many of them

are already on the order paper in the form of private bills — how we think local

government can be a real partner in economic recovery in British Columbia. I

have tabled and presented the sketch, the concept. In future days and months,

in consultation with local government, we will be putting together the nuts

and bolts of that particular program. We would hope that this minister's

and this government's attitude in treating local government will change

in the year ahead.

We have been very disappointed, and local government has been very

disappointed, in the rather paternal kind of attitude. I think the

minister's remarks in the Newcombe Auditorium some months ago were very

symbolic: "I'm not interested in this partnership program. We don't

want to talk to you." We need real partnership, real consultation, and

any proposals that are developed.... We are developing them now in

consultation with local government — putting forward ideas. Those

proposals and those concepts must be actually developed by local

government, the UBCM or whatever forum is appropriate.

To conclude on these particular estimates, Mr. Chairman, we happen

to believe that local government is the senior government

chronologically and in terms of, I think, respect by the taxpayers. I

think you will find — and surveys have indicated this — that local

government is highly respected. That is because local residents feel

they get the most value from local government.

I think we should be using those regions and municipalities, and

developing regional economic plans — using local officials and their

contacts with labour or management, and developing regional economic

strategies for British Columbia. I have already given a number of

specific concepts with which, if we have a mind to and this government

has a mind to, I think we can put a lot of people back to work and

rebuild local government as a crucial component in the economic

development of British Columbia. It hasn't happened so far in the last

few years, since I reached this House, in terms of this minister and

this government. But maybe they will listen in time.

Vote 57 approved.

Vote 58: operations and administration, $7,188,968 — approved.

Vote 59: municipal revenue- sharing, $235,000,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 43.

LOTTERY CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 43; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Under this

Section it's not clear, certainly

to me, how the funds that will be generated by this Lottery Corporation

will be disposed of. This bill does not allow for documentation; it

does not allow.... Let me pose a question to the minister: will this

bill, as most bills of

[ Page 6670 ]

this type, be governed by regulations that will at some point appear

before cabinet and be passed by order-in-council, indicating precisely

how the funds are going to be administered? And secondly, will MLAs, as

has been the practice in the past, from time to time receive a list of

how and where the funds have been granted?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member is not on the right

section; in fact, he is not on the right legislation. Instead of

reading something into the Lottery Corporation Act which doesn't exist,

I think he should read the Lottery Act.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I think the

Section is quite clear. The

Provincial Secretary can't get up in this House and answer a question

without making it appear that there's some kind of confrontation. Well,

if he wants confrontation, he has come to the right member. We've got

all summer, if we wanted to spend the next summer here. All I asked for

was a reasonable response to a reasonable question in an attitude that

is not confrontational — up to this point.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, it's not my intention to start

a dispute, an argument or anything else with the member for Mackenzie.

As I said a little earlier, I think he's confused on the legislation.

Just to show how confused he is, I'll go to the Lottery Act, which is

not the legislation we're discussing now and in which there is a

section 7 which deals with disposition of funds. It's very clear, and

I'm not going to read it, because I think the Chairman would be

inclined to rule me out of order if I attempted to read that particular

section.

Section 7 of the Lottery Act, not the Lottery Corporation Act,

deals with the disposition of funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 7 of Bill 43 deals with an accounting system and the disclosure of that accounting system.

Sections 7 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

[4:00]

Bill 43, Lottery Corporation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 52.

NATURAL GAS PRICE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 52; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 52, Natural Gas Price Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 51, Mr. Speaker.

COAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 51; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 51, Coal Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR406, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

TRINITY WESTERN COLLEGE ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR406; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR406,

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Ree in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 51: minister's office, $210,175.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'm pleased, Mr. Chairman, to take my place

in debate of the Minister of Labour's estimates for fiscal year

1985-86. I'd like to take the opportunity to

[ Page

6671 ]

introduce my staff: the deputy minister responsible for women's

programs, Isabel Kelly; Bob Gray, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour,

along with Stephen Stackhouse. My deputy minister, Graham Leslie, has

just come in. I'd like to express my thanks and gratitude to the

ministry staff for the co-operation they have shown me over the past

three months as British Columbia's Minister of Labour.

I would also like to take the opportunity to introduce the grade 7

class from St. Mary's School in Cranbrook who are in the precincts. I'm

sorry that I won't have time to visit with them for a few minutes.

The past three months have been a very challenging time for me, a

period in which I have learned a great deal from the employer and

employee community of British Columbia. It's been a time of

consultation and discussion, and in many cases, of cooperation. I'd

like to express my gratitude, too, Mr. Chairman, to all of the groups,

clubs and organizations that I've met with over the course of the past

three months and received a great deal of advice from in many matters

relating to the operation of the Ministry of Labour.

The area that has occupied most of my time for the past three months

is the area dealing with the operation of the Workers' Compensation

Board. It is an extremely difficult and complicated area of

administration and I have met with many individuals, groups, clubs and

organizations across the province to get advice from them on the

direction that they feel we should go, in terms of the operation and

administration of the board, along with the boards of review.

We have gone a long way in the past three months, I believe, in

sitting down and talking to many people in the field of labour

relations, and have gotten their ideas as well on how they feel that I

should conduct myself, my office and the policy-making process in our

government and on the ways that we can help them achieve better

understanding of labour relations across the province. Many of them

have suggested new ideas and new tools that we could put in place to

achieve such goals.

We will be looking at areas for change over the course of the next

year. But without question the biggest change that's got to take place

is the change in attitude on the part of all British Columbians

recognizing both organized individuals' and management's right to exist

in economic partnership with each other across our province. Anything

that I can do along with the government to assist the groups in those

areas will without question enhance that opportunity. Labour relations

is not something that you can etch in stone. It's something that you

have to spend a great deal of time at and be very patient with; it's

something that you have to work at day in and day out, year in and year

out, casting aside suspicions and emotions, with all of the community

working together to build new bridges that will see us through the

difficult and challenging period of time that our province, our

citizens and our economy are in in 1985 and beyond.

The other area of responsibility of my ministry is programs for

women. As I said earlier, I'm pleased to have my deputy minister

responsible for women's programs with me today. Again, it's an area

where we have come a long way over the course of the past few years —

particularly the last ten — in providing equal access to opportunity

for all our citizens in participating in our economy. But, without

question, we have quite a way to go. While, again, government can

facilitate all the tools for change in attitude or marketing new

programs and providing opportunity, nothing will replace the change of

attitude and the trust that needs to be developed across our province

if we're going to make headway in that area in the future.

I had the pleasure recently of meeting with the federal minister

responsible for the status of women, along with my provincial

counterparts in Winnipeg. From that discussion we have initiated a

number of programs through my deputy minister. I feel they are programs

that will assist all our people to reach a better understanding of the

economy of today and provide greater opportunities for all the

community to participate fully in the development of our economy.

As I said earlier, since my appointment I've spent most of my time

dealing with matters relating to the Workers' Compensation Board, and I

will ask members to be patient with me and to give me some advice and

guidance on where they see me going, along with the ministry, over the

course of the next year to improve the industrial relations climate in

our province. I beg their indulgence if I don't have all the answers to

the questions they raise, but I will leave with them my commitment to

get back with the answers at every opportunity.

[4:15]

MR. GABELMANN: I notice there are more staff in here than

there are MLAs — almost. In any event, Mr. Chairman, we'll just proceed

and see if we can go through this in a quiet and comfortable way.

First of all, I want to thank the minister for the opening comments,

as brief as they were — that's fair enough. The minister has been in

office for a very short period of time and, as we all know, has a lot

of different things to get a handle on.

I think we probably would be supportive of the minister's apparent

decision to spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to solve the

dreadful problem caused by the backlog with the boards of review cases,

and I trust that tomorrow we'll see a step toward putting an end to

that particular problem.

I don't think I have any intention in these estimates of spending

much time being critical of the minister for what he hasn't done. We

have next year for that, and perhaps we'll have a longer time to talk

about some of the things he might have done in his first sixteen months

when we do this next year.

But I thought it would be useful, in these estimates, to raise a

number of issues, not in a critical or confrontational way but just to

talk about a series of things I think should be brought to the

minister's attention from my perspective, so that when he is planning

his work

schedule for the next little while he will have some idea as

to what some of the concerns are as expressed to me from members of the

community and, of course, some of my own biases as well. If we approach

it in that way I think we can have a fairly productive few hours of

discussion on these estimates.

Structurally — just so the minister is aware of what the opposition

members intend to do with this vote — we would divide it into.... I

don't know if government backbenchers are going to participate, which

can throw it off. And this might enable the staff to use their time

more effectively too. Our intention would be to spend the most time,

initially, just on Ministry of Labour operations, and then move to WCB

as a separate topic and, finally — and not for any reason is it final —

to move to programs for women as a third

section of these estimates.

For what that's worth, that's the way the official opposition members

will participate.

[ Page 6672 ]

1 want to start out by saying that although I recognize that the

Ministry of Labour has not been perceived as the employment ministry or

as the lead ministry in employment programs, I would argue that the

minister has a responsibility as Minister of Labour to be more than the

person who mediates and arbitrates between labour and management in

this province; he also has a fundamental responsibility to attempt to

pursue goals of full employment. I recognize that at the present time

there aren't a lot of levers the minister can pull in that respect, but

I think that one of the objectives of the ministry, and particularly of

the minister, should be to act as the spokesperson in cabinet on behalf

of full employment. We really don't have anyone who's mandated to do

that. We have various ministers who are mandated to deal with various

parts of the economy, but we have no one person who says: "What we want

overall in economic strategy is a full-employment economy." People

could argue that that's the Minister of Finance's job or the Premier's

job, or whatever else, but from the perspective of labour and the

perspective of working people, I think it would be useful if the

minister, if not in a formal way then at least in an informal way, took

it upon himself to act as the lead advocate for issues of full

employment.

None of us are naive enough to believe that the provincial

government can bring about full employment, whatever it did. If our

programs were so magnificent in this province that we reduced

unemployment that dramatically, we would have an influx of population

that would keep all the roads into this province full, so obviously

that's not a possibility in a country like ours. But when we have

almost double the unemployment of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario at

the present time, there are some very real concerns. I just want to

say, not to belabour it, that I think it should be a high priority for

the minister to talk about full employment.

There's a debate that goes on in the community about whether or not

full employment is a possibility. Economists have this intellectual

debate among themselves all the time. I think politicians, from

whatever political perspective they come, should be out there saying to

people who are having that debate: we will not rest until we have an

economy that does provide full employment. It may be differently

defined — radically differently — but until we achieve a society where

every single person who wants to work is able to work, those of us who

are involved in politics, particularly those of us who claim to

represent working people, have our jobs undone. I trust that the

Minister of Labour will make speeches about that, will talk about that

and will take an advocacy role in cabinet in respect of full employment.

In specific terms the minister does have the ability to affect or to

assist student and youth unemployment or, to put it positively, to do

something about student employment. I keep calling it student

employment when I really mean youth employment, but a lot of it is

obviously directed at students. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think

the provincial program at the moment is paltry and inexcusable. Without

worrying about the precise numbers, which I have in my file here, I

think we're talking about a $19.6 million program — in that range —

half of which, or a bit less than that, is funded by the province. Mr.

Chairman, whether we're talking about $9 million or $10 million, if all

of the money that's been allocated is spent we're not talking about

very much money in terms of the need that exists out there: recognized.

youth unemployment figures of 24 percent to 26 percent. There is a

clear indication from university and high school students that jobs

just are not available. No matter how hard people look, there just

aren't jobs available.

People in the House get tired, I guess, of comparing with previous

administrations, but when I think of the $25 million contribution that

was made in 1974 or '75, as compared to $10 million now, we're talking

about not just a drop of significant numbers in absolute terms, but an

even more significant drop in terms of the value of those dollars today

as compared to a decade ago.

I recognize, as we all do, that there are a limited number of

dollars. I recognize in saying this that the minister himself had no

part in the decision-making process that led to the agreement signed

with Flora MacDonald. What I'm saying by this is that I would trust

that the minister will begin discussions, whenever that's appropriate,

and I assume it's not far from now, to attempt to reach a situation

where in next year's program significantly more dollars are expended.

We should be spending, I would say, in the $50 million range as opposed

to the $10 million range in this kind of program. If the federal

government won't match those numbers of dollars, so be it. Ontario

didn't worry about having equal dollar contributions from Ottawa. If my

memory is correct, in Ontario it was two-to-one moneys involved,

provincial to federal. If Ottawa is prepared to provide, say, $10

million or $11 million next year, that's no reason to say the province

should limit its contribution to a like amount. I would urge the

minister to shoot for some reasonable target. I think $50 million is a

reasonable target. We could easily spend $100 million or $200 million,

and it would all be used very well, but I'm realistic enough to know

that that's not an appropriate amount of money in the scheme of things.

I would just urge the minister not only to dig in hard in his own

discussions with Finance with respect to the amount in next year's

budget but also to take a clear message to the ministers responsible in

Ottawa. Additional money is required. I not going to make a long speech

about the social implications of young people not working, but they are

profound and costly. It is costly beyond anything we're going to be

able to measure in terms of lost lives and additional health costs.

Suicide rates are up. Our jail populations are increasing, and there is

a whole series of social implications to this massive unemployment

among youth that we need to recognize.

Money invested for summer jobs will pay dividends beyond almost any

other equivalent numbers of dollars that are spent by government. There

are too many people in their late 20s and approaching 30 years of age

who have never really worked, and if a student summer job or a youth

summer job enables somebody to begin to develop a curriculum vitae, a

work history, it will then enable them to do better in terms of job

searches when they're on the full-time labour market. I guess we can

all stand up here in the House and argue strenuously for expenditures

of money in various areas, and we all do it, but with respect to this

ministry at this time, I would say that expending significantly more

money on youth employment would be — should be — the major priority for

additional ministry funds in the next little while. I realize that it's

lost for this year, but certainly next year significantly more will be

available.

Minimum wage in British Columbia is $3.65 an hour and has been since

December 1, 1980, and is the lowest in the country now. The minister

shakes his head. I'm going to doublecheck my figures.

[ Page 6673 ]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Oh, the federal government. Yes, you got me.

The federal government minimum wage.... You got me. The lowest

provincial minimum wage in Canada is in British Columbia. We can smile

about you catching me out on that, but the fact is that it's not good

enough for British Columbia, which has one of the higher costs of

living in the country, if not the highest. We're a province which has

an industrial wage structure that is for the most part significantly

higher, not in terms of some regional economies in other parts of the

country but certainly in terms of provincial economies across the

country.

An hourly wage of $3.65 is $7,000 and change a year — if you can get

a 40-hour week. Pensioners in this country make more, and they don't do

so well — and if the federal government has its way they'll do worse.

But they still do better. One of the greatest tragedies.... The word

"tragedy" gets overused. I was making that comment to one of my

colleagues in question period today, Everything is a tragedy. In fact,

we tend to cheapen words by using them too easily. But this is a

tragedy when people can work full-time and actually be at a level of

less than half of anybody's poverty line — whichever group you might

want to take.

[4:30]

I'm not suggesting that the minimum wage should be doubled

overnight. The shock that that would provide in the economy would be

impossible to take, but we should not have gone from December 1, 1980,

to June 17, 1985, without a single change in the minimum wage, $3.65 an

hour.

I notice Saskatchewan, which is at $4.25 an hour, has just increased

its minimum age effective, I think, September. They are a rural

economy. It's inexcusable, and I know the howls of outrage that will

come from some sectors of our society about an inability to pay more

than the $3.65. I'm talking about the adult minimum wage, not the

teenage minimum wage. They both should be raised, but should be raised

in lockstep with each other. The significant thing is that $3.65 an

hour is just not tolerable.

I would hope that before very many weeks or, at worst, months go by,

cabinet will consider a recommendation from the minister to improve

that rate — not only to improve it, recognizing that a jump of, say, $2

all at once would be impossible to take, but that there will be some

indication, so people can plan. There would be some indication as to

what the steps will be over the next year or two years. Give people a

chance to adjust to it. Initially raise it in small amounts, but do it

frequently until you get to a level.... I'm not going to propose a

level; any level I would propose would be too small. But on the other

hand, to pick a figure out of the air is difficult to do. I'm not going

to do that at this time.

I'm proposing instead that the minister signal to the community that

it's going to be raised, and it's going to be raised in the following

ways: 35 cents and then another 25 cents and then another 25 cents, all

within a few months or three or four months of each other — those kinds

of raises, rather than doing it all at once. But let's get it done

fairly quickly in the next year or two. Let's get it up to a level

where we can at least hold our heads up again. We were the highest in

the country, and from every standard one can imagine, we should again

be the highest in the country.

Has the minister ever thought about going back and looking at W.A.C.

Bennett's time in office and bringing in a ban on overtime — just

saying flat out, without specific authority from somebody, that there

will be no more overtime in this province? Obviously there are some

situations.... You've got pipes bursting, and the plumber has to stay

and work an extra hour or work all night perhaps. But why not say to

the employers and to the workers in this province, until we're back to

a reasonable unemployment level, which I would define as being 2

percent or 3 percent, that there would be a ban on overtime?

[Applause.] I notice there is some bipartisan support for this, Mr.

Chairman.

I say that on an issue like this I will receive some criticism from

some of my supporters who like it. I know guys in pulp mills who, when

the ships are in, are working 70 and 80 hours a week. Their paycheques

are so big that their income tax adds up to being more than most of us

even make — certainly more than I make. They complain about how much

income tax they're paying. We could create untold numbers of jobs — in

the thousands — in this province if we were to bring in that kind of

arrangement.

You have to be careful with these things. There are a lot of things

you have to watch for. Obviously a ten-hour day for construction

camp-related jobs is a reasonable thing. Sometimes six tens are

reasonable in that kind of industry too. So you might have to look at

variations in construction. Most of those guys are only working six

months of the year anyway, so you're not going to put a ban on overtime

that's going to limit somebody's hours from 1,000 down to 800. So there

are all kinds of things like that that I recognize and, I think, that

anybody who looks at this kind of issue recognizes.

But there are all kinds of industrial situations in particular in

which a rule like W.A.C. Bennett brought in back in the sixties, an

outright ban.... I'd like the minister, when he responds, to give me

some idea as to his reaction to that particular idea.

[Mr. Witch in the chair.]

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'll just move on. I guess if the minister's

estimates had come up a lot earlier, I would have spent quite a bit of

time talking about construction contracts being let to companies who

prefer to find their labour elsewhere. I have raised it in the House on

a number of occasions in question period and statement period. So I

won't belabour it at this point. I'm still angry about the fact that

... not that an Alberta-based company can win a contract in British

Columbia; I don't have any problem with that. Nor have I any problem at

all with that company, if it's the successful bidder, bringing its

keepers — key personnel, the people it keeps with it; that's a pun on

the word "keeper" — with it when it goes to a job. No contractor could

operate properly unless he could bring with him people who have worked

with the company.

But I have a heck of a serious problem when that same company

specifically and deliberately recruits its Cat operators and its

truck-drivers from Alberta. That has happened on three jobs in the last

year or less: Ledcor on two jobs on the Coquihalla; Douvan on that

powerline between the Alberta border and Cranbrook. I'm sure the

minister knows all about that particular issue. I'm sure the minister

has had neighbours of his saying: "How come I haven't been able to get

work on that particular job?" Unemployed electricians who string lines

for Hydro, who have not worked for some time and who live in Cranbrook

can't get jobs on the line that goes out of Cranbrook to the Alberta

border. It's ridiculous, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 6674 ]

As I say, I'm not offended by the fact that that's an Alberta

contractor. I'm not offended by the fact that the key people come with

the company. But I am grossly offended by the fact that they

deliberately seek workers from Alberta. They do it with a clear

purpose. It's simply to prevent people who might be pro-union from

coming on the job, so that they don't get organized. That's what it's

all about. Plus, they think they can get away with a lower wage.

Although when you look at the wages that Ledcor is paying its people in

terms of hourly amount, they don't get away with it at all; they

actually pay a dollar more, I think, in some cases. The benefits aren't

much, so they save money in that respect.

Now I want to deal just briefly with the Charter of Rights argument.

Every time I have raised it in here, I hear back that it's against the

Charter of Rights. If my memory is correct,

section 6(4) of the

Charter of Rights allows the province to have an affirmative action

program in respect of employment when the province's unemployment

levels are higher than the national average. The Charter is phrased the

other way — when our employment levels are lower than the national

average.... But people understand unemployment, and it's common

vernacular. So when our unemployment rates are higher than the national

average — which they are; 14 and 15 percent compared to 11 percent in

rough terms — the government is allowed to establish, as I read the

Charter, an affirmative action program for British Columbia

construction workers. That's not the way that particular

section of the

Charter was anticipated to be used. My grammar is awkward, but you know

what I mean: that's not what it was designed for. There were other and

loftier goals in mind when that particular

section was introduced. But

it's there, and I believe it can be used by the government, and should

be used, to prevent the situation that we have in those two jobs — as I

say, on the Coquihalla and on that B.C. Hydro lining job out of

Cranbrook.

Moving to another issue in the same area, there is the question of

fair wages. We have fair-wage legislation in this province. Most people

don't recognize that. In all of the hullabaloo about fair wages, people

forget — or they don't know — that this province has

an act called the

Wage (Public Construction) Act,

an act administered by the Ministry of

Labour. But it's not much good without regulations. My question is: are

we going to get some?

In that connection, when the minister is responding about whether or

not we're going to get regulations to make this legislation meaningful,

I wonder what happened to the government's commitment that the federal

fair-wage regulations would apply at Expo in respect of the non-union

work that is being done at Expo. There was a commitment. The minister

didn't make it; it was before his time. It was the commitment of the

government that the federal fair wage would apply. It may be that the

wage

schedule and the benefits package at Expo is above what the

federal fair wage guidelines would provide. Even if it is above, I

think the province still, as a signal of government policy, should put

the fair wage into place. If the federal fair wages aren't an

appropriate mechanism to use, then more properly there should be a

provincial set of regulations to make that particular legislation more

meaningful.

I'll probably get back to some of these things, depending on the

kind of response, Mr. Chairman. I'm surprised at how long my 15 minutes

has gone.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Oh, the first shot's 30, is it? My first time

as a debate leader under the new rules, and I thought I had 15 minutes.

I get 30; it shows I should read the rules, Mr. Chairman.

I want to move on to labour relations in more general terms and ask

the minister what the ministry's role, if anything — that would include

his or the previous minister's, or perhaps the ministry's itself — was

with the ILO and its proposed trip to British Columbia, as one of four

provinces it wanted to have a visit with in terms of legislation. What

might have happened...? Does the minister have any theories as to

why the ILO decided not to come to British Columbia at this time? I'd

just be curious to know what happened. While we're at it, would the

minister welcome a visit by the ILO to talk about the fact that British

Columbia no longer has any free collective bargaining in the public

sector?

I'm not going to make a lot out of it today. We talked about it

under legislation that was introduced earlier this session by the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and we've talked about it in

other forums. But I can't let it pass without saying that I hope the

minister sees it as his job to work towards the end of this denial of

collective bargaining in the public sector in this province, which is,

day by day, being further denied, in terms of the way the office of the

CSP operates.

Now my time is up, Mr. Chairman. We'll get back to this one after.

[4:45]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I appreciate the member and his comments,

and all of the items brought up under the discussion that's just been

put forward. The first of a series of comments was dealing with full

employment and the responsibility of government — and indeed all of us,

whether we're in government or in industry. Whether it be at the

in the private sector, I think our goals, dreams and aspirations would

be for full employment for all British Columbians and Canadians.

The member mentioned the amount of money put aside this year for a

student employment program. The total amount of money was just short of

$30 million. The number of jobs created was estimated at 17,000 jobs,

which compares to last year's 7,300 jobs.

I did meet with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon.

Flora MacDonald, last Friday in Vancouver, and talked to the minister

responsible for employment. I look to her, over the course of the next

and training fund that is currently being negotiated by both levels of

government and both ministries. I hope that we will have an

opportunity, once that program is finalized, to provide further

employment opportunities for young British Columbians, particularly in

the area of forestry, mining and tourism, as well as improving the

skills of individuals who have no skills at all at the present time, or

individuals who want to re-enter the workplace. In terms of re-entry,

is there opportunity for them to participate in the area of expertise

that they had developed prior to leaving the workplace? If not, what

opportunities are available for them to participate today? So I look

towards the finalization of that agreement with the government of

Canada, and I look to the province of British Columbia getting a fair

share of the money available through the federal employment and

training fund. I look to

[ Page 6675 ]

the help of the Members of Parliament from British Columbia to

secure a good share of those funding dollars for that valuable program

in British Columbia, in an effort to provide future employment

opportunities and training for British Columbians.

The member talked about the minimum wage. The minimum wage in

British Columbia, without question, is the lowest of any provincial

government in Canada. I have asked my staff to bring forward to me a

full review of the minimum wage and the implications of raising the

minimum wage. The member quite clearly pointed out the concerns of the

community with respect to increasing the minimum wage. Some employers

argue that any increase in the minimum wage would put them out of

business altogether, while others have volunteered to increase the

wages that they pay to their employees well beyond the minimum wage. So

it's that delicate balance that one is always trying to achieve.

Looking at it on the surface, yes, it is bad. I look forward to

receiving the report from my staff on that particular subject matter,

and will possibly take some action on it when it comes forward. But it

is a complicated area and one that needs careful study before

proceeding with it. Of course, people who pay minimum wage always have

to bear in mind that there are other opportunities available for those

employees to gain access to higher funding, should the employer not

treat them in a fair and reasonable way in terms of compensating them

for their labour.

I remember working in construction in 1966 on the Big Bend highway

when the former government of W.A.C. Bennett brought in not a total

freeze on overtime across the province, but he did leave available the

opportunity for a special permit that could be applied for in

extraordinary circumstances. The construction industry is one of those

areas where there are special circumstances. For example, a pulp

operation might be shut down for two months or so to do annual

maintenance, and they would get the boilermakers' union, for example,

or the electrical workers' union, to go in there over that one-month

shut-down period and have them work all sorts of hours, day in day out,

to get the project completed and get the mill back in production as

quickly as possible. So in the proposal, without question, there is

need for flexibility. While we would look at those individuals maybe

earning $4,000 over the course of a week, it might be the last

paycheque that they would receive for a considerable period of time.

Quite clearly, today's economy is different than it was in the sixties

when, although the economy was tough at that time, there were other

opportunities for people to go out and participate in a variety of

construction projects across our province. There is need for

flexibility in those areas, and need to give consideration to every

phase of an operation in terms of overtime.

I should point out to the member that I haven't considered it to

this date and haven't made any recommendations in that area. I do

appreciate the member's bringing it up, and I will take his comments

under advisement. The mining industry and the sawmilling industry, and

areas like that — I guess you could look at those areas and say, yes,

we will institute an overtime ban, but again in an emergency situation

where the mill is down, and there are one or two electricians working

at the plant, you may find that they have already worked their quota in

terms of the hours that need to be worked, and end up having the mill

shut down because they didn't have fast and easy access to permits, and

so on and so forth, to work the extra hours of overtime.

The Ministry of Labour has an active committee that currently is

reviewing the construction industry. Representatives of the industry

are on the committee. In the next short period of time I expect that

the chairman of the committee, Claude Heywood, would be releasing a

report on the state of the construction industry. I have talked to

representatives of the industry about fair wages and so on and so

forth. I recognize too that the industry has gone out and in many cases

waived the provisions of the collective agreement in order to get the

job and get their members working. They are to be commended for that.

They've been able to