2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Port Metro Vancouver Container Trucking Services Continuation Act (continued)

H. Bains

Hon. T. Stone

S. Fraser

D. Barnett

S. Chandra Herbert

S. Hamilton

N. Macdonald

G. Kyllo

L. Krog

Standing Order 81

Bill 25 to proceed through two or more stages in one day

Hon. M. de Jong

B. Ralston

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Port Metro Vancouver Container Trucking Services Continuation Act (continued)

J. Tegart

C. Trevena

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (continued)

S. Robinson

Hon. C. Oakes

N. Macdonald

A. Weaver

G. Heyman

L. Popham

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

Hon. J. Rustad

D. Donaldson

[ Page 2355 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

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

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

[1335]

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

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

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

Orders of the Day

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

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — PORT METRO VANCOUVER

CONTAINER TRUCKING SERVICES

CONTINUATION ACT

(continued)

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

[D. Horne in the chair.]

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

In order to continue with this debate, I'd like to draw members of the chamber, and those who may be listening, to some of the background, some

summary of what has been happening at the Port Metro Vancouver operations and what brought us to this turmoil that we are in right now. We talked about how this government knew, not months but years leading up to this dispute finally coming to a head; how this government did not take it seriously; how Port Metro Vancouver ignored the plights of the owner-operators, the unions and the warning from the previous Minister of Labour.

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

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

[1340]

This was around the time when the Minister of Transportation announced that the government would introduce back-to-work legislation for approximately 250 Unifor–Vancouver Container Truckers Association truckers that have been on strike at Port Metro Vancouver

[ Page 2356 ]

since March 10, 2014. This was the time when Unifor and their trucking companies that they're certified to were in negotiations. As a result of that announcement, they all walked away, and we are in a crisis situation right now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1345]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Coell, the previous Minister of Labour, wrote to the port and said that they were really concerned after they'd seen the audit conducted by the province, that

[ Page 2357 ]

issues were serious and they'd better start to do the enforcement. Nothing happened, just the letter. Nothing happened.

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

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

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

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

[1350]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1355]

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

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

[ Page 2358 ]

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

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

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

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

Then I go to this area where it says: "Sensitivity of the Model to Changes in Productivity." There's exhibit 9 in here, page 28. It goes like this. It "illustrates the impact of improving truck productivity on owner-operators’ returns. In the base case scenario, the owner-operator makes three revenue trips per day and has to travel 20 kilometres to the terminal to pick up the container as well as another ten kilometres from the delivery terminal to position for the next revenue load.

This results in a total of 30 kilometres of unpaid driving"— unpaid driving; they're burning gas, they have $150,000 invested in their truck, and they're working without pay for 30 kilometres — "and limits the number of paid container moves that can be handled in the day. Under this scenario, the net return to the driver is $20.30 an hour."

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

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

[1400]

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you look at the revenue, under (

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

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

a) minus (

b) minus (c): $68.11.

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

These are your citizens; these are our citizens. These are your neighbours. These are the people who actually are the backbone of our economy. They move products that we need every day to put on the table to eat. They move all the products for our business people to do their

[ Page 2359 ]

business. Without them, nothing moves. But this is the situation they're in financially, and government completely ignored it.

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

[1405]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1410]

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

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

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

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

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

I'm going to read you…. This is what a trucker does on a daily basis. This is a real story, and I hope the min-

[ Page 2360 ]

isters and everyone on the other side is paying attention.

This driver says:

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

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

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

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

[1415]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Thank you.

"Sincerely,

"Kelly Dhaliwal"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1420]

They're saying:

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

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

They have plenty of time to deal with these issues, but

[ Page 2361 ]

they ignored that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1425]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1430]

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

[ Page 2362 ]

issues facing container truck drivers in British Columbia Lower Mainland ports."

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

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

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

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

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

They went on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

[1435]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2363 ]

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

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

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

[1440]

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

"Dear Sarah Morgan-Silvester:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He went on to say:

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

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

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

[1445]

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

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

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

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

I just want to talk about the working people. If they're listening right now…. Working people here or all across the world always have to fight for everything they have. They continue to fight for what they have now, despite

[ Page 2364 ]

the fact that there are forces, there are governments that are trying to take away the very basic rights that they have — the basic right to earn a decent living, the basic right to improve their working conditions, the basic right to collective bargaining, enshrined in our constitution. They have to fight for it every day. That's what they're doing today.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

[1450]

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

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

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

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[ Page 2365 ]

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

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

[1455]

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. S. Bond: Two offers already.

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

H. Bains: Whatever. I could check that.

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

[1500]

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

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

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

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

If you leave them alone, they would easily have a col-

[ Page 2366 ]

lective agreement negotiated. They were that close, until this government decided to pull the rug out from under them by telling the companies that we will send them back to work.

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

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

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

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

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

[1505]

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

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

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

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

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This information has also led to a charge at terminals,

[ Page 2367 ]

in terms of who must now pay, of $30 for reservations missed by more than two hours. Two hours is the industry benchmark.

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

[1510]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1515]

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

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

[ Page 2368 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1520]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2369 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1525]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We view this legislation as a last resort, and while we have moved forward with it, again, as I said a moment ago, we do so reluctantly, but we do so because our econ-

[ Page 2370 ]

omy cannot withstand this disruption continuing for a day longer.

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

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

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

[1530]

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

Interjection.

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

I would note, just in response to some of the statements the minister made, that a letter that came from Unifor, one of the unions involved here, is calling…. This is a

summary of a letter that went out. It went to the minister, went to the feds, went to Port Metro on November 7, 2013, well before the strike.

In the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1535]

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

[ Page 2371 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1540]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The issue at the heart of the current dispute has been brought to the government's attention repeatedly, as I

[ Page 2372 ]

have stated, before the strike vote was held in March of this year and stem largely from the failure of the port — it's not the container truckers' failure; it's largely the failure of the port — to uphold the agreement reached to end the 2005 dispute negotiated by Vince Ready.

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

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

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

[1545]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1550]

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

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

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

On March 19, 2014, a joint statement issued by both the provincial minister and the federal minister indicated that the province would introduce back-to-work legislation for unionized truckers as soon as yesterday. That was March 24, for those watching this recorded. Today

[ Page 2373 ]

is March 25. The port will begin to cancel the licences of non-union truckers represented at the UTA if they do not return to work. This is not an amicable decision. This is very heavy-handed.

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

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

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

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

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

[1555]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1600]

D. Barnett: It was very interesting listening to my col-

[ Page 2374 ]

league across the way, from the Alberni–Pacific Rim area, talk about the past. But we're talking about today. We're talking about important issues in the province of British Columbia today and the need to move forward, as we always have to, to provide jobs and economic well-being for the people of this province.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[D. Horne in the chair.]

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

[1605]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2375 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1610]

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

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

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

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

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

They dev