1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8575 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 53). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

section 12 (continued) –– 8575

Mr. Cocke

Division

On sections 15 to 17 inclusive –– 8575

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Division

section 23 –– 8577

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. King

Ms. Sanford

section 31 –– 8577

Mr. Levi

Hon. Mr. Hyndman

Ms. Brown

Third reading –– 8581

Employment Development Act (Bill 26). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis.)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8581

Ms. Sanford –– 8581

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 8584

Mr. Howard –– 8587

TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 53, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 53; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 12.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, as we all know,

section 12 amends

section 67 of the

Health Act. In one way I can see the advisability of changing the

section where it says that forest and mining camps and their

facilities, such as water supply and so on, should be inspected every

year in April or May. We can see deleting the April or May from the

act. but to suggest that we eliminate a basic standard of inspection —

in other words, calling for a yearly inspection — and leaving it up to

the medical officer of the area, is a very dangerous precedent.

The

explanatory note tells us that this provides more flexibility, and it

does. It provides a great deal more flexibility — flexibility to

overlook those inspections. The inspections are made for the reason

that we were trying historically, through public health, to protect the

workers from illness. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

should be jumping up on this

section and arguing that we should not in

any way downgrade the inspection service to these camps, and so should

the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. McClelland). Let's examine it this

year. We know, for example, that we are short at least 15 health

inspectors, mostly in the outlying areas in this province. Nine health

districts have reported that they are short 15 health inspectors.

Naturally, if a medical officer is thinking in terms of his priorities,

all he'll be doing is inspections of absolutely critical areas and

reported problems. It's not always the reported problems that bring on

bad situations, such as a number of illnesses as a result of poor

water, poor sanitation or because of poor ways of handling food.

back off the mandatory inspection of at least once a year at this or

any other time for all these facilities is, I think, a very bad mistake.

know that the tax on our whole system of health care is extremely high.

The reason it's high is because of the fact that there is not enough

preventive service.

I once held the Health portfolio; I recognized very quickly how easy it is

for a Minister of Health to spend money only in statutory areas. The money has

to be spent on hospitals, doctors' remuneration and on other statutory areas.

Public health has always been an option, so if you are going to starve any end

of the system, that's the end of the system you starve. I find that is implicit

in this: we're starving that particular end, the preventive end of health

care. It's a mistake.

the first place, it's a mistake that we're running short-staffed in

areas all over the province. Let me tell you what those areas are:

central Fraser Valley, northern interior, Selkirk, Skeena, Peace River,

East Kootenay, central Vancouver Island, upper Island and North

Okanagan. Think about those areas and then think in terms of what we're

doing when we say that there is no need for a mandatory inspection at

least once a year. I'm quite prepared to see the government bring in an

amendment which would say that it need not be done in April or May. I

think that is not necessarily cost effective, because that way you're

concentrating too much of your personnel in one particular job at a

specific time of the year. I think it should be spread throughout the

year.

But having said that, I believe that each and every

facility should be examined and inspected once a year on the basis of

providing the preventive service that I think is so necessary. I think

the government should think that over very clearly. I think the

minister should bring in an amendment now changing it only to alter the

dates, but not altering the once-a-year mandatory inspection. I think

that's just pure logic in the face of the fact that we do have an

increasing number of illnesses and, as a result, an increasing tax on

our hospitals and medicare system. Think in those terms, and then think

in terms of reducing a preventive service. We can't vote for this

section, Mr. Chairman, in this form.

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Richmond

Ritchie

Brummet

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Stupich

Daitly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

section 15.

MRS. DAILLY:

This

section amends the Library Act. I thought I should inform the

House; I'm sure that will wake everyone up. The Library Act amendment

actually makes

[ Page 8576 ]

some rather major changes. The first comment I want to make on these changes is that to my knowledge....

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we can have a little bit of order. I don't think the minister can hear me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. DAILLY:

The major concern I have is that these major changes have been done

without any consultation, to my knowledge, with the two major groups

involved, the B.C. Library Association and the B.C. Library Trustees.

When the minister responds to my comments and questions, I wonder if he

would first comment on why, when major amendments are being made, there

was no consultation through himself or his staff about these major

changes.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not major.

MRS. DAILLY:

Somebody across the floor suggests that they are not major changes. I

hope, as I continue in this debate, that I can point out to the

minister that, as far as the associations involved in libraries in this

province are concerned, they are major changes. If you don't understand

that they're major changes, to the member who keeps interjecting, I

hope you'll just listen quietly for a moment or two and I'll try to

point out why they are.

Firstly, I should say to the

minister that you are to be commended for one of your changes about

which the associations involved are not concerned. It's where you have

now given the right to the municipal council to place an alderman on

the library association board. There is no objection to that, because

the public libraries also have that.

The concern is not with

that; the concern is that for some reason it says that that person may

be removed from his position "with or without cause." I wonder if the

minister could comment on the "without cause." This has brought about

an expression of concern from the association involved. They are

concerned that maybe through some petty rivalries or jealousies that

could happen on any council, somebody who has been doing a good job on

the board of management of the library but does not meet with the

favour of someone else on the council may be removed for no particular

reason. It leaves an aura of uncertainty about the appointment of this

member if the council can remove this person at the whim of a few on

council. There is no objection to putting the alderman on, but why is

this "without cause" put in there?

The other

part I'd like to deal with is in

section 17. Do I have your permission to carry on?

Section

17 is really the source of a major complaint from these two

associations, who, I want to repeat, were not consulted on this. The

major concern here is that this

section has been amended to state that

the sums to be paid for the continuing work of the library association

must be approved by the council. "For its approval" was never in

before. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the people concerned consider this to be

almost insulting. It's not that they don't believe that the government

assists in the funding of these libraries and that the municipal

council has the final approval. They've always known that. But they

suddenly find that through this

section there is an assumption that

these people who voluntarily give up their own time to run for a board

of management of a library association are really being told: "Look,

your work in the past has not been fiscally responsible, so we are now

inserting 'for its approval' after 'municipal council' in this clause."

What

I'm trying to express to the minister on behalf of the association is

that they feel that it is almost insulting to suggest that these

volunteer people.... They already have major controls on these people

through the actual financing

section of the act, through the way they

are elected and through the fact that an alderman is going to be placed

on it anyway. They have always dealt with the councils — the majority

of them; in fact, all of them. They have consulted with them carefully

before the budgets were finally approved. They want to know why this is

put in. They feel that it is almost a slap in the face to all the work

that has been done so well by these people who have given up so many

hours of their own time to work unpaid on library boards.

Basically

what I want to conclude with, Mr. Chairman, is that the associations

involved feel that (1) they were not consulted on these major changes;

and (2) they do not understand why those two major changes were put in

there. I wonder if the minister could comment on this.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, in terms to these two amendments to sections 15 and 16 of

the Library Act, I think the member would realize that most people in

the library field are well acquainted with these changes. In fact,

these amendments are provided on the specific recommendation of the

Library Advisory Council, which advises the ministry on these

questions, as well as by the UBCM, by specific resolution. It

recommended that there be more accountability in terms of libraries'

budgeting in specific cases where the municipality is funding these

organizations — as it is in most of them — to the degree that they do.

might clarify the matter if I just made the following comment with

regard to both sections.

Part 2 of the Library Act provides for the

formation of a public library association for the purpose of

establishing and maintaining a library in the locality. Presently the

only means of obtaining a seat on the board of management of a public

library association is through annual election by the general

membership of the association. At the request of councils requesting

representation on these boards of management, and with the

recommendation of the Library Advisory Council,

section 9 therefore is

amended to provide for appointments to the board of management by the

funding body.

Also,

part 3 of the Library Act provides for

the establishment and operation of municipal public libraries, and it

presently states only that library boards shall lay before the

municipal council a detailed estimate of the sums required for the

ensuing fiscal year. Some boards have interpreted this wording to mean

that the municipal council cannot amend the board's budget. Upon the

urging of the UBCM by resolution, and on a recommendation of the

Library Advisory Council, it is proposed to amend

section 25 to read

that the boards' estimates shall be laid before the municipal council

for approval, and that sums approved by the municipal council "shall be

paid over as required."

This amendment is specific to

municipal public libraries. It does not apply to libraries operated by

regional districts, inasmuch as the regional district already has the

power of approval under the regional district bylaw required to

establish the library system. An example of that is the

Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola regional library system. It does not apply to a

regional library district established under

part 4 of the act, inasmuch

as the power of approval rests with the library

[ Page 8577 ]

board

composed of representatives appointed by the member municipalities and

school districts. Once again, these amendments are on the

recommendation of the Library Advisory Council and by the resolution of

the UBCM, who want a little more accountability in terms of their

supplying the major funds to libraries.

The member for

Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) also asked why the

section includes the

power to dismiss an appointee with or without cause and to appoint

another in his place. I think that's quite a common specific clause in

terms of board appointments so that it's very clear that their

appointee can be placed there or removed at their discretion.

Sections 15, 16 and 17 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 18 to 22 inclusive approved.

MS. BROWN: I was standing, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Was the hon. member standing when

section 23 was called?

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If this is deemed to be standing, she was standing.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, if the hon. member indicates to the Chair

that she was standing when the

section was called, the Chair will

recognize the hon. member. If the hon. member was not standing, then

having passed....

MS. BROWN: Just a minute. Mr.

Chairman, if the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing saw me like

this, then I was standing. Was I? Thank you. I was standing.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The member indicates to the Chair that the member was

standing. The Chair recognizes the member way back on

section 23.

section 23.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I gather that this

section has to do with

the appointment of the new Deputy Minister of Labour responsible for

women, and I'm wondering if he could just tell us very briefly what she

has been doing since June 1.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Since

June 1, the deputy in charge of women's affairs has been busy

developing policy. She has had a number of meetings with people

interested in this particular field. She has also received a number of

concerns and is in the process right now of organizing staff and space

in Victoria and Vancouver. Perhaps I'll have more to say about that

during estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

On this section, it should not go unnoticed that this is the first such

appointment in the government service of a woman responsible for

women's affairs. Whenever I speak or attend public meetings, I am

pleased to find this appointment so well received by the public. In

conjunction with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), I'd like

to congratulate the Labour minister for this move.

MS. BROWN:

I too would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour for recognizing

the need of women, a need eliminated by that Minister of Human

Resources when, as Provincial Secretary, her first act was to fire the

coordinator of women's affairs. So I too would like to congratulate the

Minister of Labour.

MR. KING: This

section provides

for one or more deputy ministers. How many deputy ministers does the

minister have, and what is his ultimate objective in terms of

surrounding himself with support at public expense?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I have one deputy minister now, and this will be the second

appointment. To the best of my knowledge, there are only two deputies

in the Ministry of Labour.

MS. SANFORD: Is the

minister going to continue with that deputy, since his budget has been

cut in half and he presumably has only half as much work as last year?

Sections 23 to 30 inclusive approved.

section 31.

MR. LEVI:

Could I ask the minister what it means to correct a cross-reference?

One day I hope some minister in this House is going to have the

temerity or the guts to come in and write things in plain language. I

spent three days trying to understand this mess in here. Maybe the

minister could tell us what he wants us to pass. Is anybody getting

beaten out of something in here? We're dealing here with amendments

related to a

section of the act which really is commercial tenancies,

more than anything. What's going on here?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

First, to answer the member's question, my clear understanding is that

nobody is getting beaten out of anything. The purpose of this amendment

is to correct a previous cross-reference in the legislation. I'd be

[ Page 8578 ]

very

happy to take the member's concern as notice and in estimates perhaps

we can go through it in more detail. My simple understanding is that a

previous cross-reference was, in effect, a typographical error, and

this provides what should have been the earlier correct cross-reference.

MS. BROWN:

I think the minister is looking at the wrong section, because

section 4

of the act has been struck out and replaced by a

section from the

Commercial Tenancy Act. Something major has happened here. My colleague

has asked for an explanation, and I am very curious to know what really

has happened. A whole

section of one act has been replaced by a

section

from another act — from the Commercial Tenancy Act. What are you doing?

That's really what we're trying to find out.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

The wording of the amendment before us is very straightforward. It

simply refers to one phrase which in turn refers within it to four

section numbers and replaces that phrase with a similar phrase with

four different

section numbers.

MR. LEVI: I would have thought the minister would spend a little time on this. Maybe we'll get the Attorney-General to do the....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a mistake.

MR. LEVI:

It's a mistake? Are we talking about the legislation or the minister?

Come on. I'd like the minister to answer this. It says here: "...is

amended by striking out 'sections 8(2)...."

Section 8(2) says:

"Notwithstanding that a tenant does not take possession of residential

premises, rights under a tenancy agreement are capable of taking effect

at law or in equity from the date specified in the tenancy agreement to

be the commencement of the term of the tenancy agreement." Now I know

that all my non-lawyer friends understand this, but I don't understand

it. What are we doing here? It's no good for the minister to say to us:

"Well, let's pass it and we'll talk about it in my estimates."

AN HON. MEMBER: After it's law?

MR. LEVI:

We'll have the L-G in on Friday and it'll be law and we'll have to wait

until the next session to get it amended. The Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) knows what I mean. I can remember when we

were on that side and he used to ask the same questions, but he got

much more intelligent replies than I'm getting. Give us just one

explanation of one section; make it understandable, because it's not

understandable. You're taking that

section out and you're going to

substitute, for example,

section 11.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Has it got to do with vouchers? I don't think we're in the same

section, are we? My God, there's a lot of stuff in this book. Take it

easy there, Mr. Chairman, I'll be with you in a second. It's just the

way these things are put together.

We're even in worse shape

here. It says here in

section 11(1): "Section 4 of the Lord's Day Act

(Canada) does not apply to the tenancy...." What's that doing in there?

We're not talking about that. Subsection (2) says: "Subject to section

(13)3...." It is not clear what is going on in this bill. It's all very

well for the Attorney-General to say: "We're correcting a mistake."

What is it that you're correcting? It's an extremely confusing way of

doing legislation. Maybe the lawyers understand it, but we don't. I'm

sure the tenants don't. Does the minister want to take a run at it and

explain to us what the impact of taking out

section 8 is? I don't want

to hold up the debate, but I think it's worthwhile to try to understand

it.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Going back to the basic

amendment before us, the act itself in

section 4 refers to four

sections from the Commercial Tenancy Act. The wording of

section 4 in

the Residential Tenancy Act is: "Unless inconsistent with this act,

sections 8(2), 9, 10 and 28 of the Commercial Tenancy Act apply to

residential premises and tenancy agreements under this act." The

purpose of the amendment is to correct those references by providing

sections 11, 12, 13 and 32 as the corrected sections.

If I

further understand the member's question, he's asking what the effect

of all that is, and he refers me to

section 11 of the Commercial

Tenancy Act, which reads as follows:

"Rents

reserved and made payable on any demise or lease of land determinable

on the death of the person making the same (although such person was

not strictly tenant for life thereof) or on the death of the life or

lives for which the person was entitled to the land, shall, so far as

respects the rents reserved by the lease, and the recovery of a

proportion thereof by the person granting the same, his or her personal

representatives, be considered as within the provisions of

section 10."

Section 10 then refers to rents recoverable from an undertenant where tenants for life die before the rent is payable.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

think the simplest answer — and certainly the wording of those two

and tenant law — is to go back to

section 4 of the act, which says that

the intent of the amendment is to provide that unless inconsistent with

the Residential Tenancy Act, the now-referred-to sections in the

amendment, which are 11, 12, 13 and 32, apply.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, all he's done is read the sections to us. We can read. We

read the sections. What does it mean?

Section 4 of the Residential

Tenancy Act has to do with someone dying who owns property for life,

and if they die before they've paid their rent or something.... Would

you please give it to us in absolutely clear, simple language. What are

you trying to do with this amendment?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

To use this particular case of sections 10 and 11 as an example, the

result of the amendment as passed would be that unless they were

interpreted to be inconsistent with the Residential Tenancy Act, for

example, the provisions of sections 10 and 11 of the Commercial Tenancy

Act will apply. Sections 10 and 11, read together, deal with the

question of a tenant enjoying a tenancy for life, and in the course of

that tenancy for life have sublet to an undertenant, and then dies. The

issue is recoverability of rent. In principle, it is deemed to be

recoverable.

[ Page 8579 ]

MR. LEVI:

We're a bilingual Legislature — the language I understand and the

language he speaks, which I don't understand. Did the minister get some

representation about this issue? Is it from the lawyers or from some

irate tenant? Does it relate in any way to 1627 Barclay Street? Is it a

subissue that's suddenly arisen, or is it, as the Attorney-General

says, that somebody messed up or maybe didn't do it quite properly?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I have had no external representations with respect to this amendment.

Officials within the ministry have come forward to say that by virtue

of the intention of the legislation, the earlier cross-references,

those which we are now seeking to correct, were incorrect, and the

proposed references to sections 11, 12, 13 and 32 should be the correct

ones.

MS. BROWN: That's fine, except that I don't

understand why a decision was made to wipe out sections 8(2), 9, 10 and

28. It says quite clearly that this protects a person who is a tenant

for life, or who inherits property from an estate. Why has a decision

been made to eliminate

section 8(2), for example? Don't read them to

me; I have already read them.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Without reading the sections, it is simply on policy grounds. In

determining what sections, if any, of the Commercial Tenancy Act

should, in the Residential Tenancy Act, specifically be stated to be

applicable unless interpreted as being inconsistent, the correct

sections were felt to be sections 11, 12, 13 and 32, as opposed to

sections 8(2), 9, 10 and 28. Put simply, those responsible for the

administration of the Residential Tenancy Act felt that those sections

of the Commercial Tenancy Act which might on occasion have some value,

use or relevance to residential tenants, and therefore should be

considered as applicable unless inconsistent, were the numbers intended

by the amendment, and not the first ones.

MS. BROWN:

Maybe the minister will then tell us what the policy change is. What

has the government decided to do by eliminating sections 8(2), 9 and

10, which tenants enjoyed under the act? What has this government

decided to do in terms of taking that away from them? What policy

changes are we witnessing? These sections have to do with recovering

rent if someone dies before paying their rent. How will tenants be

affected as a result of taking those sections out? No legal jargon,

just the change.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: First of all,

there will be no impairment or prejudice to tenants by the change.

Indeed, the amendment should improve or strengthen the position of

tenants. I would refer the member back to

section 4 of the Residential

Tenancy Act. The structure of that

section is to say that, unless

inconsistent with the thrust of the Residential Tenancy Act, certain

sections of the Commercial Tenancy Act will apply.

Let us

suppose there is no

section 4 of the Residential Tenancy Act. The

Residential Tenancy Act would be sitting there with certain rights and

benefits applicable to tenants. The question might then arise: okay,

what about another existing piece of legislation, the Commercial

Tenancy Act, which might have within it a phrase,

section or clause

that could be deemed to be of relevance and help to tenants? Does any

of that apply? The answer of the Residential Tenancy Act, in putting in

section 4, is to say that certain sections of the Commercial Tenancy

Act, as a matter of policy which might be deemed to be relevant to the

kind of tenancy contemplated by the Residential Tenancy Act, should be

deemed to be applicable unless inconsistent. At an earlier time the

officials of the ministry clearly brought forward four

section numbers,

and on reflection or review they felt those were inappropriate and that

the appropriate

section numbers were the ones now provided.

MR. LEVI:

If you didn't understand when we started, you sure aren't any better

off now. He's a master of obfuscation. Let me ask you something. As I

understand it, we're amending a

section of the Residential Tenancy Act.

One of the things that is implied here by striking out 8(2), 9, 10....

Let's look at

Section 28 in the act deals with the landlord's right

of entry. There was a long series of debates in this House when we

brought in the bill in the original stage: what are the rights of the

tenant? What are rights of the landlord to enter? It's prescribed in

there exactly how he does it. You're taking that out. It "...is amended

by striking out 'sections 8(2), 9, 10, and 28'.... Let me get the

assurance of the minister.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I think

the member raises a good practical example that will let me more simply

explain why this amendment is, if anything, of benefit to tenants.

Section 28, to which he has referred, under the Commercial Tenancy Act,

sets forth a procedure by which a landlord can move to heave out a

tenant. Now that procedure set forth is far more strict and narrow and

harsh in terms of a tenant than under the Residential Tenancy Act.

Therefore one thing this amendment does is to remove any question or

doubt and to make clear that the provisions for the removal or eviction

of a tenant are those clearly to be found only within the pages of the

Residential Tenancy Act. That removes what could be, if not amended, a

very ambiguous point open to argument by a landlord who might choose to

try to proceed under

section 28 of the Commercial Tenancy Act — which,

as I say, is a far harsher and more strict approach to tenants than

under the Residential Tenancy Act.

MR. LEVI: I submit

this to the minister. We've gone through about 15 minutes of this. It's

not easy to understand. He has just arrived at explaining the thrust of

the legislation.

MS. BROWN: Well, he's just figured it out himself.

MR. LEVI:

Maybe the Attorney-General slipped him a note. That's the very point

with this kind of legislation. Obviously everybody's very sensitive

about amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act. I got a couple of

calls about it. You came pretty close to making me understand what the

intent was. If that was the case, why would you come in this way and

amend the Residential Tenancy Act in this section? Why don't you amend

the other one? Amend the Commercial Tenancy Act. That's what's

difficult about understanding. I know

section 4 deals with commercial

tenancies, but it's very confusing because when you remove — as you say

in here —

section 28, I think any reasonable person looking at the act

itself would think that that's gone. So where have we lost our way here

somehow? Really, I'm very serious about this. We're amending the

Residential Tenancy Act and all we keep talking about is the Commercial

Tenancy Act.

[ Page 8580 ]

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

To answer the member, I think he's just stated — in his own words — the

correct answer. There are two categories of tenancy and tenancy

legislation in the broad sense in this province. Dealing with

traditional residential tenancies, you've got the Residential Tenancy

Act. Dealing with so-called commercial tenancies, you've got the

Commercial Tenancy Act. To go back to my comments earlier in the

debate, as a matter of policy.... May I say that much of the Commercial

Tenancy Act embodies principles of landlord and tenant law long

of policy, those charged with framing and administering the Residential

Tenancy Act quite properly said: "Look, we've got the Residential

Tenancy Act; it may be there are some provisions in the Commercial

Tenancy Act which are helpful or relevant to residential tenancies."

Hence

section 4 of the Residential Tenancy Act gets created, which is a

section that seeks to say that unless inconsistent with the Residential

Tenancy Act, certain sections of the Commercial Tenancy Act shall be

deemed to be applicable.

The sections first chosen turned

out not to be appropriate, fair or correct. I'm not, for example,

familiar with any litigation that has ever developed on

section 4 of

the Residential Tenancy Act, but it has been reviewed by officials in

the ministry and it was felt that the first selected

section numbers

from the Commercial Tenancy Act were not appropriate. Using the example

section 28, which we just talked about, there were some appropriate

sections which, if corrected and brought in under

section 4, would be

of some value and help to the Residential Tenancy Act, its purposes

and, in particular, tenants.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman,

let me tell you what's happening here. The sections which are being

eliminated have to do with property owned by a person who has inherited

it and is a tenant for life. These sections really talk about what

would happen if that person who owns the property as a tenant for life

dies before the rent is paid, or something to that effect. What the

minister is doing is changing the rules that presently exist, which say

that if you die as a tenant for life before the rent payable to you

becomes payable, then your executor or whoever has the right to go and

collect the rent and this kind of thing.

He has changed the

rules now and introduced a whole new set of rules, and all we're trying

to find out is why. What are the ramifications of this decision to

change the policy about what happens to the tenant for life? For

example, what happens if there is a bankruptcy and all these other

things? Really, we don't need to be told we've taken out

section 4 and

put in

section 8, or whatever; we don't need that kind of information.

What we want is an explanation of what happens to a tenant for life if

that person should die or whatever before the rent is paid. That's all

we're trying to find out.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Chairman, let me try to answer that in simple terms. The sections of

the Commercial Tenancy Act previously applicable and previously

referred to in

section 4 essentially deal with the mechanisms and

procedures by which a landlord can chase a tenant for rent or eviction.

On review those were felt to be inappropriate to the Residential

Tenancy Act, because the Residential Tenancy Act provides its own

mechanisms for that. They are broader, more flexible and fairer insofar

as tenants are concerned.

So the sections which, in my

language, relate to the procedures and rights of landlords to chase

tenants and collect rents or back-rents are taken out, and what is

replaced essentially are sections that do not deal with the mechanisms,

procedures and rights of landlords chasing and recovering rent, but

rather sections that in certain cases deal with how you would determine

how much of a rent is in fact due in the case of an undertenant from a

tenant for life — perhaps in the case of a bankruptcy situation.

The

new sections brought in by way of reference — in the simplest language

I can put it — tend to deal with quantifying amounts due under a

tenancy,

whereas the sections taken out by way of reference tended to

deal with the mechanisms and procedures for chasing down the rent or

evicting a tenant.

MR. LEVI: I've got some problems

with the elimination of

section 28, and I am still not clear.

Section 4

of the Residential Tenancy Act is amended by striking out sections....

You need a map to get through this thing. The minister, I think, knows

what I'm referring to, Mr. Chairman.

Section 28 is the landlord's right

of entry. Am I wrong in presuming that this

section is in some way

eliminated?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Well, you've got to go

back to the wording of

section 4, particularly the opening phrase.

Section 4 of the Residential Tenancy Act says that, unless inconsistent

with this act, the

section — in this case 28 — applies. So taking that

example that the member has raised, if we look at

section 28 of the

Commercial Tenancy Act, it is a

section that outlines a procedure a

landlord can follow to terminate a tenancy. I think the member would

agree that that

section is harsher, faster, less flexible, and far more

prejudicial to tenants' interests and rights than is the case under the

Residential Tenancy Act. Hence

section 4 of the Residential Tenancy

Act, as it currently reads and before amendment, would appear on its

face to be in error because it's in such contrast to what's in the

Residential Tenancy Act; or, if it's not in error and there is valid

ground for saying it's consistent and applies, it is certainly

prejudicial to tenants. The result of the amendment is, therefore, to

delete any reference to the possible consistency or use of

section 28

of the Commercial Tenancy Act, which is a far harsher remedy in terms

of tenants' rights than what exists under the Residential Tenancy Act.

MS. BROWN:

I just want to say that I am very disappointed that if the minister was

planning on amending the Residential Tenancy Act, he didn't look at

some of the recommendations which have been submitted to him by

tenants' groups about the kinds of amendments they want. Tenants want

amendments that say, for example, landlords can't discriminate against

them because they have children, or that landlords can't discriminate

against them because they are in receipt of income assistance; they are

on welfare. Those are the kinds of amendments that they ask for, and

I'm sorry that the minister decided to amend the Residential Tenancy

Act and not include those kinds of amendments.

The second

thing is that I'm sorry he didn't read the amendments before he came in

here, so that he could have given us a clear explanation of them when

we asked for it earlier.

Sections 31 to 36 inclusive approved.

[ Page 8581 ]

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 53, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS:

My opening remarks will be relatively brief with respect to Bill 26,

which, as I have observed on other occasions, is one part of a broadly

based package introduced by the government this year, commencing on

April 5 insofar as legislation is concerned, to stimulate employment

and activity associated with a number of endeavours in British Columbia

at this particular time.

Through the Employment Development

Act, Bill 26, the government of British Columbia is establishing a new

Cabinet Committee on Employment Development. The committee,

incidentally, is chaired by my colleague the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), with a wide base drawn from cabinet.

The new cabinet committee's responsibilities include a very wide

spectrum of activities which will promote immediate stimulation of new

employment opportunities, consistent with the short-term problems in

which we find ourselves and, more importantly, with building the

long-term economic base of the province of British Columbia.

I indicated a few moments ago, the introduction of this bill, along

with the complementary Housing and Employment Development Financing

Act, reflects this government's determination to provide more jobs for

the people of the province of British Columbia. The Housing and

Employment Development Financing Act has established a new financing

authority to fund job initiatives which will be coordinated in large

measure by the cabinet committee that I've referred to in this context.

Additionally,

the cabinet committee's responsibilities and activities include

coordinating the expenditure of a $132.9 million employment account

appropriated under the act. These funds will be applied over a wide

range of government programs, including apprenticeship training, job

creation, silviculture in the forest sector and vocational

rehabilitation for workers injured on the job. Second, the committee

will channel the province's substantial capital-spending program into

regions of the province hardest hit by unemployment. Third, the

committee will oversee the development of effective manpower planning,

training and forecasting. Fourth, it will coordinate negotiations with

other governments to generate specific job-creation measures and

initiatives. Fifth, it will coordinate and review various ministry

employment programs to ensure an integrated, cost-effective approach to

the development of that policy, and then the implementation of the

programs. Finally, there will be ongoing meetings with various

delegations, representatives of local government, community groups,

employees and trade unions on job creation initiatives and

opportunities.

In

summary, this legislation establishing and

formalizing the new Cabinet Committee on Employment Development is to

play and, in fact, is already playing a key role in the province

achieving its full economic potential in both the short and long term.

Recognizing that the chairman of the committee, the person responsible

for the activities of the committee, will want to speak at significant

length, I therefore move second reading of Bill 26.

MS. SANFORD:

This government is really amazing. The minister stood there with a

straight face.... I didn't see him blush once or look embarrassed for

one moment during the introduction of this bill, which is a bill that

is not at all what it appears to be.

People looking at this

piece of legislation would assume that the government is really going

to do something about the problem of unemployment in this province.

They see a fund established for $132 million, and they see a special

committee of cabinet established in order to come up with job-creation

programs. This legislation is largely deceitful, because it's not much

more than a shuffling around of moneys from existing programs that are

funded year after year in this province. This bill provides virtually

nothing in terms of a new program to create jobs. I'm surprised the the

minister was able to stand there and present this piece of legislation.

It is an attempt to convince the people of the province that this

government is even concerned about the problems of the unemployed.

Over

90 percent of that $132 million that this fund establishes comes from

existing programs in other ministries. For instance, there's the $23

million in the apprenticeship training program which is normally found

in the Ministry of Labour and has now been shuffled over to this fund

in an attempt to try to convince the people of this province that

they're doing something new about employment. How on earth is this an

employment development bill when you've got moneys shuffled around from

other ministries from existing programs? Vocational training out of the

Ministry of Education — $54 million — is now in this fund, which is

trying....

HON. MR. SMITH: This is bookkeeping.

MS. SANFORD:

You are exactly right. I couldn't agree more with the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) on this issue. It is nothing but bookkeeping

in an attempt to deceive the people of this province.

MR. HOWARD: Book juggling.

MS. SANFORD:

That's all it is. That annoys me, because what they are doing is

playing games with the people of this province, people who are losing

their homes and are desperate for work. They're trying to deceive them

into thinking that something is going to come out of this legislation

that is, indeed, going to be of great assistance to them.

The

schedule which accompanies this piece of legislation admits that there is only $25 million in new funds. Why on

[ Page 8582 ]

earth

didn't you bring in a bill which said that you had $25 million designed

to create employment in this province, instead of this kind of

chicanery of presenting a bill that says $132 million? It's deceitful.

The people of this province are suffering enough without having this

government playing games with them with respect to their employment

prospects in this province. People are losing their homes. Families are

breaking up. It's very misleading.

I mentioned earlier that

they should have brought in a bill which presented $25 million in new

funds, but even that would have been inaccurate, because this

government first of all cancelled the youth employment program and then

decided a couple of weeks later that they should really initiate the

youth employment program again. Again, this is a program that has been

in existence for years and years and years in this Province; it was

introduced by the New Democratic Party when they were in office. They

reintroduced it, and they took $10 million out of that $25 million,

which they're calling new funds, to establish the old program again.

That's what they did, Mr. Speaker, so now we're down to $15 million.

Maybe we should have had a program that would have at least introduced

a bill bringing $15 million in new funds; then we'd be getting down

more to the real situation that we are facing. We find it cruel when

the government plays this kind of joke on the people of the province —

$132 million!

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Then

the minister went on to talk about the other program for which this

cabinet committee is going to be responsible, related to housing

construction. This is the program which was contained in another piece

of legislation, Mr. Speaker, but they knew when they brought in that

piece of legislation that there was no way that the federal government

was going to allow the tax deductibility for that program. They knew

that; that program is very similar to this one.

Mr. Speaker,

they're raising the hopes of the unemployed; they're misleading people

who are suffering in this province. What on earth do the people of this

province have to go through before people like Trudeau and this

government are going to do something about the problems of

unemployment, other than bringing in a bill for $132 million when there

is not $132 million in new job creation programs? The best they can

offer is not much more than a shuffling around of existing funds for

existing programs; it's pathetic and it's tragic for all of those

people out there. We have a desperate need for jobs in this province,

and this is the best that they can offer — a bill which misleads the

people.

The unemployment figures, Mr. Speaker, right now in

this province are sitting at 10.9 percent, and they will probably be

higher when the new figures come out again on Friday of this week. The

real total, when you take into account the hidden unemployed, is

220,000 people in this province looking for work. And what does this

government do? They introduce a bill that is over 90 percent misleading.

just received the UIC claimant figures, Mr. Speaker, from the various

Manpower offices in the province, and I think that these are so

shattering that I want to read them into the record today. What has

happened is that in June of this year compared to June of last year....

Now listen carefully to this: in June of last year there were 78,000

UIC claimants at the various offices in this region. In June of '82,

it's gone from 78,000 to 178,000. That is an increase of 227.6 percent

in a year under this government. We're following along, following

Trudeau all over the place, jumping every time Trudeau calls. It was

this Premier who went back to Ottawa to push for higher interest rates.

Do you recall that? Higher interest rates is what he wanted, and

Trudeau listened. He felt that higher interest rates were the solution

to our problems, and look at the mess we are in right now: the

bankruptcies, the rate of unemployment, and the tragic situation that

so many families in this province find themselves in.

would like to read the percentage increases for each of the manpower

offices listed for this province. I'm going to read those percentage

increases into the record so that people will know what has happened in

the past year under the direction of Trudeau and this government. In

the Abbotsford office there was a 235 percent increase; in Coquitlam, a

254 percent increase this June over last June in the number of UIC

claimants. The percentages are higher than that, because now so many

people are laid off for such a long period of time that they are no

longer eligible for UIC and wouldn't be registered at these manpower

offices. In Mission, there was a 219 percent increase; 210 in

Chilliwack; 205 in Hope; 281 percent increase in Burnaby; 307 percent

increase this year over last year at this time in Langley. I don't

think the people of Langley are going to be very happy about

expenditures on Broadway shows when they have a percentage increase

like that. They're not going to be very happy with their MLA and his

kind of activities when we have increases of 307 percent in one year.

Surrey, 292; New Westminster, 251; Maple Ridge, 244.

We have

yet to come down under the 200 percent increase in the number of

claimants at UIC offices in one year. There is not one on this list

that is under 100 percent. Fraser Street, 268; 10th Avenue, 240;

Richmond, 257; East Hastings, 243; Hornby Street, 203; West Broadway,

220; North Vancouver, 273; Sechelt, 223; Duncan, 146; Squamish, 247;

Victoria, 206; Courtenay, 196; Campbell River, 185; Port Hardy, 178;

Powell River, 209; Port Alberni, 337 percent increase this June over

last June. My colleague the MLA for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has been

fighting on behalf of his constituents trying to get Ottawa and

Victoria to do something about the desperate situation that those

people are in. Nanaimo, 196; Kamloops, 225; Revelstoke, 225; Vernon,

195; Salmon Arm, 218; Princeton, 248; Penticton, 205; Kelowna, 223;

Cranbrook, 186; Creston, 212; Nelson, 219; Trail, 219; Grand Forks,

150; Fernie, 279; 100 Mile House, 256; Merritt, 201; Dawson Creek, 198;

Houston.... Omineca, what are you doing up in Houston? The increase

there is 334 percent for UIC claims. All of the speeches he makes in

this House are on wolves, and he has an increase in the unemployment

insurance claims of 334 percent in a year.

I certainly hope

the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will get up and propose some

solutions today to that government. The government doesn't have many of

its own. The have a lot of juggling of figures and bookkeeping, as the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) points out.

Houston,

178 percent; Vanderhoof, 234; Mackenzie, 214; Fort Nelson, 227;

Quesnel, 170; Fort St. John, 209; Prince George, 232; Kitimat, 187;

Smithers, 251; Terrace, 282; Prince Rupert, 191 percent increase.

The

situation is critical — it's desperate. They bring in a bill in which

90 percent of the money is shuffled from other departments for existing

programs, trying to pretend to the people of the province that they are

indeed doing something about employment. The situation is so serious,

Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 8583 ]

that

we have mountains of clippings that have come from various newspapers

throughout the province pointing out what the situation is. This

article, for instance, from the Province

of June 15 has a big headline which says: "In Kamloops They Say Their

Prayers — Unemployment is Hotdogs, Beans and Constant Worry." Is the

government not aware of the problems that are created by those levels

of unemployment, and those kinds of increases?

This one is from my own Comox District Free Press .

"Two Hundred Seek Few Jobs — New Restaurant Took an Application Every

Minute." They were open to take applications for a few jobs, and 200

people applied in two hours. They had 20 jobs available at the minimum

wage. A similar restaurant opened earlier in the year in Kelowna, where

they had 700 people apply for the few jobs available. Again, I assume

it was at the minimum wage.

Here we have an

article

concerning a Vancouver personnel consulting firm. It says that times

are so tough that not one of 5,000 companies took advantage of its free

student placement offer — not one of them made an inquiry. Layoffs

sweep mining, and we all know what's happened in the forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, we have an epidemic of layoffs. There are more layoffs in

a month than this government is proposing to create in all of its

job-creation programs. They're so bereft of any new direction or any

new ideas, but they're so keen to follow Ottawa and Trudeau that we

have this incredible situation.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. I'll ask the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King)

and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) to come to order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the stress that these levels of unemployment

cause in our society is commented upon in the latest edition of the M-B Journal .

This came out in June. There's an

article on the front page of their journal

with respect to what's happening to the people in British Columbias. I'd

like to quote a couple of paragraphs from this article:

"Sign of Hard Times; Stress Sickness Increases.

"How

are you feeling these days? Headaches, inexplicable aches and pains,

tired all the time, not sleeping as you used to, finding it hard to

concentrate, yelling at the kids? If the answer is yes to any of these

questions, chances are your job is getting you down, or worse still,

you're worrying whether you'll even have a job.

"But

if it's any consolation, you're not alone. According to Dr. Linton

Kulak, director of Mac-Blo's occupational health centre, there has been

a 'noticeable increase in stress-related sickness during the last six

months or so.' It's showing up in its divisional operations, as well as

head office, and can affect anyone from top executives to the guys on

the greenchain — women as well as men — and cuts across all age groups.

Even employees whose jobs are relatively secure have wage cuts and

freezes to contend with.

"How do you cope when

your monthly take home pay drops dramatically? You've got a growing

family and perhaps the mortgage is up for renewal at 20 percent instead

of 10 percent. It causes stress. It causes sickness. It causes

wife-battering. It causes alcoholism. It causes vandalism."

It's

very interesting that the person in charge of Mac-Blo's occupational

health centre, Dr. Linton Kulak, has noted this increase in

stress-related diseases as a result of the lack of job opportunities

and the costs that people have to face these days.

People

look to Ottawa. They saw the new budget come down and found little

consolation in what Ottawa had to offer. They look to Victoria and see

this bill for $132 million, 90 percent of which is money out of

existing programs. The government must be desperate to try to convince

the public that they're doing something about this major problem. What

else would account for the deceit that's contained in this legislation?

Interest

rates are up again. I see Victoria shuffling around these various bits

of money. As the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) said,

"bookkeeping" is what it is. They cancelled the youth employment

program and then reintroduced it using seven separate press releases to

re-establish the program at $10 million. Way back in 1975, when we also

had a difficult economic time in this province, there was $30 million

in the fund to try to help young people who were out of work. The

unemployment rate for young people is around 20 percent. They don't

want press releases; they want jobs.

This government is so

lacking in planning that they were completely unprepared for this

downturn in the economy. Now they're scrambling desperately and putting

together funds out of existing programs to try to convince us that they

in fact have a job-creation program.

Why isn't the

government more honest about what it's doing? Why doesn't it say it has

$15 million, and that it's going to be using that $15 million to get in

on the federal government bridging program in order to do something

about housing? We don't know vet what they're going to do about housing

under this particular program because the funding, which is contained

in

schedule B of the estimates, says that there is a total of $25

million being made available for job creation initiatives. That really

is incorrect; it's only $15 million. Emphasizing housing and forestry,

these initiatives are to make use of available federal unemployment

insurance funds, with additional provincial funding, to provide needed

employment opportunities. We've been told that $10 million of the

remaining $15 million is going to be used in this bridging program, and

we'll support this. If it creates even one job in this province, we'll

support it.

But where is the housing money, and how is it

going to be spent? Is it going to be the remaining $5 million? It

probably isn't, because they are also using dribs and drabs of this

existing new fund in order to spend $75,000 here, $50,000 there and

$25,000 somewhere else. They continue to make announcements on things

like dyking and ditching programs, using money which should be coming

out of other existing funds. Mr. Chairman, why don't they get involved

in creating some employment that's meaningful and immediate? We as a

caucus presented some time ago a "Let's Get to Work" program where we

had 26 special suggestions in all kinds of fields, including housing,

forestry and tourism. That government has not utilized one of those

suggestions. They prefer to shuffle money around from other ministries

into this job creation fund.

What's the matter with the B.C. Savings and Trust Corporation that was approved unanimously in his House all those

[ Page 8584 ]

years

ago? Why have we never seen the report that came in about initiating

that program? Why is the government not willing at this stage to

proclaim that legislation, to give people in this province some relief

in their mortgages? My colleague suggests they haven't done it because

it might work. Why don't they quit selling out our resources? Why don't

they quit selling raw logs and shipping them out of here when they

should be processed here in this province? Why not? Why don't they get

involved in more secondary processing and manufacturing? They closed

down the Railwest plant.

Every action this government takes

creates more unemployment. The restraint program has caused layoffs in

the hospitals; there are unemployed nurses, hospital workers,

homemakers and teachers all over the place. They're being led around by

the nose by Trudeau. That's why they're not getting anything done. They

jump whenever Trudeau calls; in fact they make proposals, such as high

interest rates, that Trudeau accepts. Why don't they expand their

training programs? Now is an excellent time to expand that training

program. There is less money in the apprenticeship program this year

than there was last year. When people are out of work, the least the

government can do is to make sure that they are trained so that when

the economy does turn around we will at least have skilled people who

are ready to go to work instead of having to import skilled people, as

has been the practice for so long.

This legislation is a pathetic performance on the part of this government.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I was interested in listening to the remarks of the member who has just

taken her place, and I'm always in awe of the tremendous amount of

negativism that can be exuded by the socialist opposition in this

House. They continue to talk negatively about everything that comes

before them in a positive program, and when they are talking to people

they continue to give that kind of negative point of view. The glass is

never half full; the glass is always half empty, in the eyes of the

opposition in this House. In this particular bill we see not only an

attempt but a very effective tool to assist the very things that that

member has said are the ills and the problems that exist within the

province today.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

would like, first of all, to give a reaction to the amount of money....

This is a new committee. This bill sets up a new committee, and the

dollars that are involved — as the member who has just taken her place

has said — are a small amount. She used the word "deceitful." I would

say that the only deception is in the words of the official opposition,

as portrayed by that member when she tries to make out that this

committee will not be effective and will not do a job. Already it has

actually had an effect and has done some very effective things. The

amount of money that she mentions — the $132 million.... She talks

about it being $132.9 million, giving the impression that that is not a

lot of money and that it is just a token.

First of all, let

me assure the House and that member that this is the beginning of a

program which will, in the future and through the rest of the eighties,

be an effective program and which will, in years to come, be built

upon. The $25 million that she isolated from that $132.9 million, which

we in turn have said is for the greatest number of new initiatives that

we can bring, is joined by other moneys from other ministries, which in

turn is new money in this year of 1982. This House is debating new

money. There is no such thing as old money.

The greatest

threat, I would suggest, to those people whom she talks about with

emotionalism — and rightly so.... We are all concerned about those

people who are out of jobs in this province. There are approximately 4

percent more unemployed today than there were a year ago today. The

greatest threat to their job security and their future opportunities is

the negativism espoused by the official opposition in this House,

because it gives them no hope. It gives them no opportunity ahead of

them. We have heard her talk about the need for retraining, and we

would agree with that. That is one of the things that this committee

can take on.

First of all, let me describe the committee.

The committee is made up of members of cabinet. We have the authority

to call on other members of cabinet, and have done so, for expertise

and help in many areas in these few weeks that we have been meeting. It

ensures a combination of natural and human resources in the province;

it sets priorities. It can attack and resolve problems which we meet

each and every day. We can coordinate programs and we can redirect

investment toward new priorities, and we can do all of those things,

Mr. Speaker, without delay. I think that the goal is economic

well-being in the eighties, preparing for an upturn, which this

province will have — and in the next few months, I suggest but also

helping during this downturn in the economy.

The changes

that this province and this nation are undergoing at the present time,

as certainly portrayed so well with the discussion on the budget from

the federal government this past week.... This nation is undergoing

massive changes in job creation and in economic planning. We have

higher energy prices and accelerating technology, increased job-skill

needs, tougher international competition and a need, above all, for

better productivity in this country. That has been seen so very

realistically through the presentation of the Trudeau budget this past

week. If that member can in any way combine the desires and the

motivation of this government with the Trudeau government's

motivations.... I fail to see how there can be any connection at all.

surprises me greatly that that same party, who will get on their feet

and will fight the restraint program which was introduced by this

government — the first government in Canada to come to grips with what

was truly happening in this country — is also stating today that we

need to have changes in our programs. Yet it stands to fight those

changes on the floor of this House this morning. You can't have it both

ways. You can't have economic health in this province and ignore the

restraint program. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that Bill 26, which sets

up the employment development program and committee.... It is a

committee which is addressing itself to just the very things that the

member brought to the House this morning.

I'd just like to

correct a couple of things. First of all, the student job-creation

initiative has been a very worthwhile initiative in this province.

Contrary to what the member has said, the committee took a look at that

program, changed some of the old kinds of initiatives taken under that

program, and in a concerted way and very quickly — within a very few

days — had the 1982 student job-creation program on its way. I'm

pleased to tell you that some 1,100 students are on the job today

because of that program. That's hardly a small amount

[ Page

8585 ]

initiative taken by this committee. That's a very useful and

exceptionally good initiative — 1,100 students and youths from

universities and colleges are at work in the province today.

also have within that group people who are a particularly active group

in the province today. Thanks to the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), there is a future for those who

are going into high-technology positions, and we have a special job

creation area for young people in that particular area which is working

and supported by the Science Council of British Columbia.

the Ministry of Tourism there are tourist kiosks that are manned by

young people, and information centres and museums throughout the

province which are being looked after by the young people of our

province. Our Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who administers

the program, has again done a tremendous job of getting those young

people to work. The member who has just taken her place seems to

downgrade that program, but I have to tell you that the 1,100 students

who are involved are very pleased indeed that they're working today.

I'd

also like to tell you just a bit about what the committee has done in

terms of the forestry bridging program. I believe that program will

have a very good acceptance throughout the province. Already, some 20

projects are underway. People in the forestry industry, those who are

going to have an opportunity to have a job today instead of being at

home collecting unemployment insurance, are investing time in making

the forest resource a better resource for when they get back to working

full-time.

I'd like to say a word or two about the housing

situation in the province, because I do believe it is during a downturn

in our economy that we should be building an inventory of homes. I

don't think it has gone unnoticed that in the last few months the

crisis in housing, in those areas in which rentals were such a need,

has diminished. We now have a different side of the coin entirely.

Instead of having a nil vacancy rate in the cities of Victoria and

Vancouver, we have For Rent signs going up everywhere. That situation

prevails today and has been brought on by an economic situation where

people who would not ordinarily have been taking places in their

parents' homes are now going back to those homes and creating those

vacancies.

There is no question that in the next two years

there will be a great need for housing, and that position will change

just as dramatically as this year has brought a change in the housing

situation in the province. I suggest that this is a very exciting time,

with housing creating such a spinoff in other resources in other areas,

to be planning housing in the province. Our committee is hoping that

with the other bill that is before the House we will have the

responsibility and opportunity to do that. The Housing and Employment

Development Financing Act which is before this House will grant the

authority to spend some $250 million on housing.

I would like to say that from my point of view, I would think that the housing

needed in the province is the kind that has been long forgotten. Young people

who want to have a first start in a home and now live in a suite, perhaps of

600 square feet, would perhaps like to have a small starter home which they

could build onto. I am told by housing authorities that these can be built for

$26, $28, and $30 a square foot. I see that as a tremendous capability for our

committee in order to bring a lot of jobs onstream. I think of housing as creating

landscaping, creating retail sales and creating the kinds of purchases which

are now going unbought and unexpressed because people have that aura of uncertainty

around them even when they have cash in the bank, which all of our savings accounts

attest to today. I would just like to say that that housing program will

initiate a tremendous number of jobs, and our committee will be very close

to that housing initiative.

also would like to pay tribute to the capital spending program of the

government. We talk in this bill of $132.9 million, but a lot of the

programs which are going on in building and job creation in the

province today.... Many of those jobs are created by building by

government. These are the necessary hospitals and schools that are

being built at the present time. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when

one has some $1.26 billion being expended in 1982-83 in capital

spending programs, this kind of program is in itself job creating. Our

committee is also addressing those kinds of job initiatives, because

translated into jobs, this expenditure will result in a continued

construction employment totalling some 7,000 person-years as well as

3,800 person-years of new jobs over the next several years. These cover

construction trades such as carpenters, electricians, plumbers,

labourers, and trade helpers. That expenditure alone, Mr. Speaker, will

increase a gross output of about $2.7 billion after all the indirect

and induced economic impacts are taken into account. It can hardly be

called a small initiative. It can hardly he called a token, and is very

much a part of the economic program of the province.

I would

like to share that the committee's responsibility is, of course, to

create new jobs by working with labour and management and with the

long-term plans of the government. Coordinating the $132.9 million

employment development account is very much part of its mandate. It

also has responsibility for recommending methods for generating new

jobs and stimulating industries with funds derived from the Housing and

Employment Development Financing Act, as I have just portrayed, and

overseeing the development of effective manpower planning, training and

forecasting.

It would seem to me that the member's

suggestion about wanting to have more training is simply saying that

she agrees with the things this committee is taking on. The Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Smith) are both on the committee. The committee is looking at the

long-term program for training and at getting our people ready for the

upturn in the economy, which will be here in British Columbia. Just as

quickly as we saw the downturn in the economy overtake the province and

this nation, so we will be coming out of it. By effective manpower

planning and training, we will be ready for it.

To me it seems intolerable that we have the conundrum of needing

skilled workers in this province and this nation and are now having to

import some skilled workers because we have not had the opportunity to

train them ourselves. In these last few years there has been a very

aggressive attempt to put together a very good training program in this

province. But in light of the new type of economy which we have in this

country today, there is very much more to do. The type of planning and

program which our committee is addressing is going to be most effective.

As it happens, there is a lot of waste at the present time. It has escaped

governments in all jurisdictions throughout this country, not least this province.

To have a proper job-training

[ Page 8586 ]

program in this province which would give opportunities to young people is so very important.

would like to see the day when a young person could go to one place in

the community, without being jockeyed around to a whole series of

places, and say what he would like to learn, and get that kind of

action immediately. I think that's the kind of thing our committee

would like to see done. That has the concurrence of the Minister of

Labour and the Minister of Education, who want to coordinate in a much

more effective way to greet the 1980 needs for job training and

programs for young people, and for all ages.

There is going

to be another phenomenon, one which is with us even now; that is, the

retraining of those who leave a job because either the position closes

out or the plant closes down. That's going to be one of the largest

jobs for people of all ages, not just for those who are coming out of

school. That, of course, has to be addressed in a meaningful way,

particularly in this economy. So these next two years are very

important ones. I'd suggest that the next 18 months are very important

for this committee inasmuch as the training aspect alone is one we

should be looking into and grasping, and doing a particularly effective

job on. In the next 18 months we can be training people to take

advantage of the upturn in the economy when it comes.

Another

mandate of the committee is to coordinate negotiations with other

governments to generate specific job-creation measures and initiatives.

We did that very effectively with the federal government on the

forestry bridging program. With our $10 million we initiated $37

million worth of job-creation forestry work. It should be noted here

that it's not just for forestry; we are also exploring areas in the

mining industry which can take advantage of that bridging program with

UIC. I think that's a very important thing, because many governments at

all levels throughout the province, and also the national government,

have that mandate and should be working with all governments in the

country. We also will review and coordinate job creation for the future

as well as for jobs now.

Another mandate is to meet and work

with representatives of other levels of government, community groups,

employees and trade unions to promote job-creation opportunities. All

those groups have a special need and interest in coming forward with

ideas and suggestions, and I know they will. Already we have had the

opportunity to meet with some groups, and we will be doing so more

aggressively as time goes on. I do think there is a great need in the

discussion on this bill to understand that although we have had a very

good coordination of committees within the ministries of positions and

programs that we could put forward for job creation, this particular

committee has an opportunity to act very quickly. With all of the

ministers that serve on this committee, we are able to have the quick

action that is needed.

I would like to name a couple of

projects which I think are particularly interesting to all members of

the House in terms of women's non-traditional employment opportunities.

In our committee we have looked at opportunities for women to apply for

the higher-paid occupations from which they have been traditionally

excluded, and I think that the appointment of a deputy minister

responsible for women's programs is an example of a positive response

to these expectations. In addition, the employment opportunities

program of the Ministry of Labour has established a women's

non-traditional employment program. It seems to me that these

initiatives by the Ministry of Labour, endorsed and supported by the

committee, are very important to the future of women's opportunities in

this province.

I would also like to mention that all of the

bodies that are associated with employment opportunities for skills

training and employment preparation.... In reference to such large

projects as northeast coal, there will be thousands of new jobs

available for appropriately trained British Columbians. I can look at

some of the economic initiatives that are going on today in the

province, all initiated by the government of British Columbia, which,

interestingly enough, have not been mentioned in this House in

conjunction with the new committee. That new committee can have a great

influence on all of those programs — such as the northeast coat —

inasmuch as there will be new positions for those people trained for

those positions.

Manpower planning and forecasting is going

to be a very large part of not only the northeast coal project but

others as well. I can think of those that will take place right in the

city of Vancouver and that are going on at the present time; they are

going to be needing all kinds of people in the months and the years

ahead, and some of those people are going to need particular training

in their field. I would think that the training programs offered by

public institutions are both timely and appropriate. In this cabinet

committee we can improve forecasting functions, like the critical

trades study, which has already produced forecasts of requirements for

some 28 trades.

I would not take the criticism that this has

been a deceptive program as a valid criticism, and I don't think the

member would expect that I would. But I would like to say that if we

are to be considering what is deceptive in terms of serving the people

of British Columbia, I would think that we could not on the one hand

have criticism that we have cancelled old programs, which we have not

done, and then say that we want to have new programs.

Before

us today in this House is a new initiative which has the capability of

acting quickly and which has built into it job creation cooperation

with industry and labour — the capability to do a tremendous amount to

change the economic climate in the province. We start at a time which

is the province's lowest ebb in terms of its economic downturn, and

that is not the fault of either this committee, this House or this

government. But since we are dealing with reality, Mr. Speaker, we also

have to suggest that this committee will have the capability to provide

— and already has provided — initiatives which have seen people in the

northern and southern part of this province and in east, west and

central B.C. have jobs, and we will have more jobs in the future. I do

not look at those initiatives that we've already taken as either old

hat or small; they have done a tremendous amount in the past in giving

job creation. What is important is that this committee will be able to

coordinate and will be able to act quickly to bring about a better

coordination and climate in the province because of the mandate that

has been given to them.

I see this as a very important

committee for the future of our young people in the province and for

those who are among the unemployed at the present time, and who will be

retrained for other work in the future. With housing initiatives,

transportation initiatives, the programs we have in our natural

resources and the people we have to work with in this province, this

program can be an initiative for good, for job creation and for job

retraining. It is an initiative which can only augur well for the

people of British Columbia.

[ Page

8587 ]

So I support this bill. On this kind of initiative, surely the

socialist opposition in this House can see its way clear to throwing

away some of the negativism that is the hallmark of that party's

program. If there is any program at all, it is a negative one; it is

that things will not work. This is a time in the history of our

province and our country when we all have to make it work. We have to

get together and make sure these initiatives and things do work. I hope

members opposite will put aside their partisan views in order to serve

those people whom we wish to serve, in order to give opportunities to

those who will be coming out of high school, university and colleges

next year and this year, and to give help to those who are out of work

this year and next year, instead of short-term programs to give them

unemployment insurance and, down the line, perhaps income assistance.

That

is not what we want for our people. For a short time yes, but not for

the long term. What we want for them is stability and opportunity. We

have that opportunity in the act before the House today. Bill 26 gives

all the people in this House the opportunity to rally for the good of

the people of this province. I put it to them, as I put it to this

House today. Bill 26 is an initiative which all members of this House

should support. If they do not, then they are just talking when they

speak about the plight of the unemployed. This is an initiative which

can assist the unemployed. This is an initiative which can assist those

in our province today who want some hope for the future. This is a

start to a committee which will, in the future, be meaningful, active

and very quick in its decision-making. They have been in the past and

will be in the future. I very much ask the support of all members of

this House for something that truly means something to those

generations of young people who we in this House are all hoping to

serve.

The unemployment that we have in the province is

about 4 percent greater than it was a year ago. At the same time, in

many cases we have retail sales in different areas of the province

which are some 30 percent below those of last year. All of that can

only be created by the fact that there has been the kind of negativism

that we have heard in the last few minutes in the House. There is no

question that part of the problem that faces our province and nation

today is insecurity caused by the kind of talk that we've heard from

the member opposite. Although I don't place that solely on her

shoulders, I do say that the self-fulfilling prophecy of doom and gloom

is very real in the nation today. If we would have those people lift up

their sights and thoughts, take away the negative feeling they have and

support such an initiative, I would suggest that we would be going a

long way toward giving the hope and security that we need for our

people in British Columbia.

I very much support the creation

of this committee and the motivation behind it, because I believe that

it will give that hope to those people whom we all serve. I would

challenge the socialist opposition of this House to do something

positive for a change for the people whom they claim to represent.

MR. HOWARD:

I don't know why it is that the chairman of the cabinet committee to be

established under this bill always looks on the gloomy side of things

and always takes the darkest view of whatever is facing her. I wish she

would be open and positive once in a while — give some indication that

everything isn't as bleak as she perceives it to be and give some hope

to the unemployed in this province instead of always knocking

everything that comes along as an alternative suggestion. She spoke of

"the glass being half-empty." In reality, Mr. Speaker, what the bill

reflects is a half-hearted commitment on the part of the government to

the unemployed in this province; a half-empty attitude about what she

would do with respect to job creation in this province; a half-hearted

approach to the problems that we're facing — problems that were brought

into being because the Premier of this province went back to Ottawa in

1978 and urged the federal government to embark upon a high interest

rate program. The Premier of this province went to his buddy, Prime

Minister Trudeau, and urged him, pleaded with him, to carry on with a

program of higher interest rates because that, said the Premier, was

what was necessary to get this country going again. Well, it got it

going all right: it got it going downhill at such a clip that we may

end up in a disaster, all because the Premier of this province

foolishly and ignorantly thought that high interest rates were the

solution. The chickens are coming home to roost. Unfortunately, it's

the people of the province who are suffering as a result of that

foolish and ignorant policy of the Premier of this province in 1978,

which he and this government still support.

It’s also an

invariable situation that whenever that minister, the chairman of this

cabinet committee, speaks it's always necessary to put the record

straight, to clear up the obfuscation that she spreads over everything.

It was not the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) who isolated that $25

million; it was the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) who isolated

it.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The

Minister of Human Resources is now correcting what she said. The record

will show what she said. Look at the the estimates book,

schedule B,

part A, new funds, $25 million; part B, existing programs. That's in

the estimate book. It isn't imagination on the part of the member for

Comox, who did an excellent job, incidentally, in analyzing the impact

of this bill. The Minister of Finance and the government brought in the

estimates and

schedule B and said: "Here it is. Old money — that's

existing programs — so much money: new funds, $25 million." As the

member for Comox pointed out, $10 million of the new funds came from

some other place; it’s not new at all.

Secondly, just in

passing, the chairman of this Cabinet Committee on Employment

Development was gloriously extolling the situation that 1,100 jobs have

been created this year under the student employment program. She

thought that was a hallmark of attainment in providing jobs for

students. When one has a narrow vision — like this government has — of

what the potential of this province is, when one has a selected tunnel

approach to the employment possibilities in this province and when one

does not care about student employment, they might think that 1,100

jobs created is really something to gloat about.

Let's put

it in contrast, Mr. Speaker, because that same student employment

program existed in 1975. The government in 1975 was an NDP government

led at that time by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barrett)

and the Minister of Labour then was the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King). In that year the student employment program created 13,000

jobs.

MR. BRUMMET: Why didn't you win the next election?

[ Page 8588 ]

MR. HOWARD: We hear that voice crying in the wilderness from the other end of the room. He'll have an opportunity to speak.

think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith)

identified this piece of legislation precisely and accurately when he

called across the floor at the earlier stages of the debate when the

member for Comox was giving her analytical view of the bill. He

indicated that it was bookkeeping. That's precisely the identification

of this piece of legislation — bookkeeping, or, more appropriately,

book juggling.

I have some other remarks to make following

along in another direction and I wonder if I might, therefore, move

adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada