1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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)

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 11, Number 23

[ Page 10137 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

The Speaker: Hon. members, just before we begin introductions, I have the honour to present a different kind of message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, which I received today:

"This coming Saturday, July 18, at Government House, we will be hosting our third celebration of the anniversary of British Columbia joining Canada in 1871. Once more, hundreds of volunteers are donating their time and effort to make it fun for everyone. Open to the public and free of charge, there will be pipe bands, the military, an R.C.A.F. fly-past, musical performances, house and garden tours, an antique car show and a super food fair. The gates will be open at 10:30 a.m.

Proceedings will be from 11 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., in conjunction with nearby Victoria Art Gallery's Moss Street Paint-In, plus functions at Craigdarroch Castle. It will be fun for young and old, and we most cordially invite all members of the Legislative Assembly and their families.

"Garde B. Gardom, QC

"Lieutenant-Governor"

I pass that on, and highly commend all of that to all of you for weekend activities.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to introduce to the members of the House today a delegation from the select committee on native title rights in Western Australia. They are meeting with people in British Columbia to get some sense of how we do things in this part of the world. I would ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming the following people: the Hons. Tom Stephens, Barry House, Murray Criddle, Giz Watson, Murray Nixon and Helen Hodgson. They are joined by their staff, Mr. Marcus Priest and Mr. Jason Agar. Would the House please join me in extending these people a warm welcome.

While we are on the subject of down under, Madam Speaker, I note that we are also joined in the House today by Mr. Malcolm Kerr. He is a Member of Parliament for the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales in Australia. Clearly, this is the day for down under. I would ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming this gentleman also.

T. Nebbeling: In the same

section where the guests just introduced are sitting is Rick Wozney, the mayor of Kitimat, still in search of an aluminum smelter. I hope he is successful today. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For what I believe is her annual visit down here, I'd like to introduce a teacher from Quesnel who is a friend and neighbour of mine, Eileen Chan.

H. Giesbrecht: Visiting us in the gallery today are four constituents of Skeena. One of them has already been introduced: Rick Wozney, the mayor of Kitimat. I want to introduce the other three, who are also from the community of Kitimat, which probably puts more per capita into the economy of British Columbia than any other community.

Interjection.

H. Giesbrecht: And that's even in this particular time. Would the House please join me in welcoming Mayor Rick Wozney, Councillor Graham Anderson and Councillor Ray Brady, who is accompanied by his wife Ruth Brady.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Visiting today in the House we have a distinguished journalist from the Port Coquitlam tri-cities area, Lisa Morry. She's accompanied by her sons, Eli and Nial. Would the House please make them welcome,

Hon. D. Streifel: On behalf of one our Pages, Stephanie, I would like to introduce to the House her mother Sharon Priseman. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to introduce three visitors from Sutton Coldfield, England, who are here to visit their brother and uncle. Chris Haynes is an ADM in my ministry. Would the House please help me make very welcome Michael and Kathleen Haynes and their son Richard, who are with us today.

W. Hartley: It's my great pleasure to introduce some people who are in the gallery today with my spouse Alice and our daughter Wallis. Marlene Hancock, who has been my wife's teacher and good friend, is a professor of political science at Douglas College. Her niece Kate Hancock is visiting from Somerset, England. They're accompanied by Marie Ann Leblanc, who is the coordinator of ambulatory care at the Royal Columbian Hospital. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

S. Orcherton: I actually have three introductions to make today. Joining us in the gallery is Ms. Tarjanna Ball, a constituent of mine from Victoria-Hillside and a strong community activist in Victoria. Accompanying her is her granddaughter Charest Collet, who is visiting from Fort McMurray, Alberta. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

Also joining us in the gallery are Isabel Clark and May Ching, activists who work very hard on behalf of the Association of Consumer Empowerment in Victoria. They operate an activity centre for folks who are mental health consumers. I would ask the House to make them welcome to this assembly as well.

Finally, joining us in the gallery are Mr. Dwayne Martin, Ms. Sheila Knight and Ms. Sandi McLean, all of whom are from the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. I want to note to the members that Ms. McLean is also president of the Victoria Labour Council. They're joining us to listen to question period and the ongoing debate on Bill 26. I'd ask the House to make them welcome as well.

[2:15]

E. Walsh: Today I have three people visiting in the precinct from my constituency and, more specifically, from my home, Cranbrook. We have Donna Lomas, an instructor in history and political science at the College of the Rockies; Bob Matters, who is the president of IWA Local 1405; and Tom Quirk, who is also a director of the B.C. Christmas Tree Council. I would ask the House to please give them all a Victoria and parliamentary welcome.

R. Kasper: Today in the gallery we have a young visitor, Angela Spooner. She is from sunny Sooke, and she is joined by her mother Patti. Could the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery this afternoon are three people I want the House to acknowledge. They are my mom and two of her guests, Diane Schoub and Pauline Watkins. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

[ Page 10138 ]

The Speaker: I have an introduction as well, from the Chair. Mr. Douglas Allen is a special guest, longtime family friend and retired federal civil servant who had major responsibility for our Canada Pension Plan. Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

BUILDERS LIEN AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm pleased to introduce the Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1998, made up of four housekeeping amendments to the Builders Lien Act. The Builders Lien Act was revised last year and became law on February 1, 1998. Revising the Builders Lien Act had been a major priority for the construction industry and other stakeholders for a number of years.

The proposed amendments are to address issues identified by stakeholders, including my colleague across the way. Acting to address these issues is part of an ongoing effort to reduce red tape in one of the province's most important economic industries. The Builders Lien Amendment Act has the support of both government and industry. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This act makes a number of amendments to the School Act and to the Municipal Act. The main purpose of the act is twofold. The first is to firmly establish free adult basic education as the norm in British Columbia, and the second is to help school boards acquire the sites necessary to build new schools.

Firstly, the act amends the School Act to ensure that it reflects the current practice of funding various groups of students. The amendments clarify which students are entitled to provincial funding, specify which categories of students are only funded through special grants, establish that adult high school graduation programs are now free, and set an upper limit on the number of funded adults in the K-to-12 system. These amendments, along with the recent changes to college adult basic education programs, ensure that all ABE programs in British Columbia will now be provided free of charge.

Secondly, the act provides school boards with the means to collect funds for the purchase of new school sites and help build needed schools faster. The act repeals the current

section 942 of the Municipal Act, which authorized school boards and local governments to enter into voluntary agreements for school site acquisition, and replaces it with a mandatory requirement. The change requires all school boards that identify the need for a school site, based on projected future residential development in the school district, to adopt a bylaw to collect a small school site acquisition charge on residential development to help school boards pay for acquiring land for new school facilities.

The act includes a consultation process to encourage local governments and school boards to work together on school site planning and an inexpensive way to resolve disputes where necessary. It also amends

section 101 of the School Act to ensure that school boards keep the funds collected under a school site acquisition bylaw in a separate land capital reserve fund which may only be used for school site purposes. I move that Bill 35 be placed on the orders of the day at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BC ONLINE ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled BC OnLine Act.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to introduce the BC OnLine Act, which authorizes financial transactions that will permit the sale of B.C. OnLine to proceed. The BC OnLine Act is an enabling statute to facilitate any contemplated sale of B.C. OnLine. The act will permit terms of the sale to include allowing the purchaser to retain some or all of the revenue generated from the operation of the B.C. OnLine system. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

COST OF NISGA'A TREATY AGREEMENT

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, yesterday we heard the announcement of the Nisga'a treaty agreement. My question is to the Minister of Forests. Can the minister tell us how much forest revenue the province has given up as part of B.C.'s cash contribution to the proposed Nisga'a deal?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, that depends on the market. What was negotiated was the same economic position -- and

[ Page 10139 ]

I would leave the details of that to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs . . . . We tried to negotiate a fair way of determining what the value of those revenues was, recognizing that they go up and down with the markets. Depending on what the market is, it's more or less, but it was calculated according to an agreed formula with the federal government.

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

G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. According to the government's own document -- and it is a document dated February of 1996 -- lost forest revenue given up in terms of the Nisga'a deal will be at least $36 million.

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Can the minister confirm for us that cash costs of the proposed Nisga'a deal will include the following: $36 million in lost forest revenues, $11.5 million to purchase fishing vessels and licences, $10 million for the Lisims Fisheries Conservation Trust, $190 million in cash, $40 million to pave the highway and $30 million for the Nisga'as' legal costs?

Hon. D. Lovick: I could confirm some parts of the points made in the member's question. Alas, I am not in a position to confirm all of those things with any certainty. The reason is simply that I have not yet seen the final chapters, nor have I had an opportunity to be briefed. I think that members in this House will know why and will recognize that one can't, indeed, be in two places at the same time. I wasn't at the table; I wasn't part of that final agreement.

Moreover, I would point out that the protocol that exists between the parties to the agreement is that the details of the final agreement are not in fact going to be released until August 3 or August 4 -- somewhere in there -- at which time all members will have all the details. Then we can have a reasonable debate, based on information that all of us are aware of.

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

G. Campbell: The numbers that I have come forward with are obviously not based on the final agreement, which was raised yesterday. In fact, what I heard from the Premier yesterday is that costs continued to increase as of yesterday. They are costed from the costings of the agreement-in-principle and have been publicly identified by the government in the past. The total cash cost is at least $317.5 million. That doesn't include the dollar value of the land, compensation for third parties, ongoing annual funding for the Nisga'a government, enrolment and implementation costs, or FRBC funding to Nisga'a, which won't be offset by any stumpage charges.

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is: how much does the government estimate the total cost will be for this Nisga'a agreement -- for this one Nisga'a settlement that's been brought forward?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think I've already made the point that I'm very reluctant to give definitive answers to those kinds of very specific questions, because I have not yet seen that final agreement. What I do know is that the $190 million that is being talked about is essentially the federal government's contribution. I also know that the $40 million that is being talked about for legal costs is coming, essentially, from the federal government.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, $30 million. Thank you, member.

I would emphasize that all of the calculations we have carried out thus far tell us that there is still roughly a ratio of a 3-to-1 net benefit accruing to the province. It is true that there is a significant cost up front. Nobody should have any illusions about that; indeed, I don't think anybody, since the AIP was published, has ever suggested anything otherwise. But for me to give the member what he's asking for now -- a specific costing on things like Forest Renewal . . . . I'm sorry, member. With all due deference, I have no wish to duck, but I simply can't answer. I will, however, undertake to get that information and make it available as soon as I possibly can.

M. de Jong: The Premier described this as a template for the future, and the people that are going to pay those future agreements are interested in knowing what the price tag is going to be. I think they understand that the more band members there are, the more land and cash the band will expect to receive. So the question to the minister with respect to this deal is: can he tell us how many Nisga'a members will be covered by the proposed treaty we heard about yesterday?

Hon. D. Lovick: The precise figures obviously can change from day to day. But the calculus is somewhere, I think, around 5,500. Those are the people who have an entitlement to vote. Significant numbers of those people are living outside Nisga'a traditional territory settlement lands at the moment, but the hope in the Nisga'a ratification process is that all of those people will be given an opportunity to participate in the ratification. But I will try and get those specific numbers for the member as soon as I possibly can.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: That's partially helpful. We've just heard from the Leader of the Opposition, and he set out how the known cash costs of the Nisga'a deal will be at least $317.5 million. The figure the minister has indicated about the number of people involved falls within the range identified in '95 by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and what the standing committee was told last year by the Nisga'a themselves -- about 5,600. Armed with that information, will the minister confirm that, based on the population range, the identified cash costs for this deal will be somewhere between $56,000 and $66,000 per Nisga'a member?

[2:30]

Hon. D. Lovick: By one form of calculus -- you know, simple arithmetical calculus -- the member is probably right. I want to point out, however, that the nature of aboriginal title and the notion of a collective interest in the land and the collective welfare of the Nisga'a nation is such that that money is not going to be divvied up by individuals who are going to go on a spending binge or something like that.

What Chief Gosnell has said -- eloquently and very effectively, I think -- is that this will perhaps provide us with the economic opportunity to build a society that will be self-sufficient, that will be mature, that will thrive and prosper, and from which all of us, I think, will benefit.

COST OF FEDERAL GUN CONTROL PROGRAM

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Attorney General. The federal government has now admitted that their Bill C-68

[ Page 10140 ]

-- the gun legislation -- is way, way over budget. New estimates peg it at about $133 million, much higher than the $85 million originally promised Canadians by Allan Rock. The true cost, I expect, will be much more than $133 million. This government fully supported Bill C-68, naïvely believing that the federal government was going to pick up all of the costs. Can the minister confirm that British Columbia is today attempting to negotiate a cost-sharing arrangement with Ottawa with respect to Bill C-68?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First of all, let me clarify the province's position on Bill C-68. We said right from the beginning that we support the anti-smuggling provisions and higher penalties for offences committed with guns -- those provisions. We were very, very concerned about the cumbersome provisions that deal with registration.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, we have been. We have been working with the federal government to make sure that the registration process is as convenient as it can be, and we continue to work on that.

On the issue of costs, it is news to me that we are negotiating a cost-sharing arrangement. It is my conviction and understanding that the federal government is absolutely and completely responsible for the costs of this scheme.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: Well, British Columbia carried the cost of the 1992 gun registration program for three years and was never reimbursed for the municipal or the police costs associated with that piece of legislation. Now the Attorney General is hiring as many as 40 new staff members to implement Bill C-68. Can he tell us, if he's not negotiating with Ottawa, who's going to pay the cost of those 40 extra people?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am aware that this bill is going to be implemented effective October 1. I would be remiss as the Attorney General to not make preparations for the enforcement of federal legislation that's in the nature of criminal law. But it is important for us to recognize that all of the costs with respect to implementation -- from the moment the negotiations started -- are going to be borne by the federal government, including the ones for those that are going to be hired to implement this legislation.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: The federal government promised that gun owners were going to pay the full cost of implementing Bill C-68. They promised Canadians that it was going to cost about $10 a gun to register their weapons -- significantly less than the $83 it costs the province and the RCMP to register restricted weapons today. The federal Justice department has indeed indicated that this cost is going to be $10, but it costs us $83. Will the Attorney General advise gun owners in British Columbia whether or not they're going to be stuck with the full cost of this bureaucratic nightmare?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It has never been my understanding that this registration system was going to be self-supporting in terms of the costs to the consumers. My understanding has been that whatever the cost is, the federal government is going to pay that cost to implement this system. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.

COST OF TREATY AGREEMENTS AFTER NISGA'A

R. Neufeld: My question is also to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The amount of cash versus the amount of land for treaty settlements will increase in urban areas. The Nisga'a area is about the most remote area in British Columbia, so we can expect that bands in the south will be asking for considerably more cash per capita, because there is less land available. Can the minister tell us how much he projects the cash costs of treaties will be, based on the Nisga'a template?

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is no, the minister cannot do that -- or at least at this point I certainly can't. What I would remind the member of, though . . . . There is no guarantee that there is some easy formula whereby you say, "We have agreement X at this point in time, and we can extrapolate therefrom," to be able to say with any certainty what will happen at the end of the road in the negotiation process.

What I want to emphasize to the member, however, is that with the formula, the cost-sharing agreement we have with the federal government, however the land and cash is adjudicated and divided, it is ultimately a 50-50 spread. It's a matter of evaluating how much the land component is, costing that and then having an offset of a comparable amount of cash from the federal government. That's the way the system works. So whether it's the Burrard, the Musqueam or the Nisga'a negotiating, frankly, it doesn't matter -- the same construct obtains.

The second point, very briefly, is to simply put on the table, if I might, the cost of not having a treaty. Think about it. Surely nobody in this province believes that the status quo is in any way desirable.

The Speaker: Minister, finish your remarks, please.

Hon. D. Lovick: I will finish my remarks by simply saying that I hope the member asks me another question, so I can elaborate on that point.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Well, the government may find it amusing that we ask these questions, but these are questions that are in people's minds in British Columbia -- and rightly so. But to stand up and nonchalantly say no is, I think, unacceptable to British Columbians. The cash . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, please. The member has the floor.

R. Neufeld: The projected cost that we and other British Columbians have heard is about $10 billion. That is cash, and whether it's from the federal government or the province, it is the taxpayers of British Columbia that have to pay these costs.

[ Page 10141 ]

When you look at the $64,000 per capita in the Nisga'a agreement, you must look at the rest of the province, knowing that you're going to pay more in the south. As a responsible government, you should have some figure in mind, some projection that you're trying to work to, for settling treaty agreements.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I thought I had made the point about how the formula works and what the cost-sharing agreement that we have with the federal government is. I simply want to remind the member that yes indeed, there is a cost. Nobody has any illusions, and anybody who tries to pretend that you can settle land claims without a cost is clearly defying all credibility. The point, however, is: consider the payback. For the first time in recent B.C. history, we're going to have a federal on-load instead of a federal off-load.

Seeing that the red light is on, Madam Speaker, I shall quit while I'm ahead.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to table reports of the Ministry of Women's Equality for 1996-97 and for 1997-98.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole House to debate Bill 26.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 26; W. Hartley in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 2,

section 55.14 (continued).

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to begin by dealing with those sections we stood down and for which there were particular amendments. The first of those, I believe, was

section 55.14. I believe the member for Vancouver-Quilchena tabled an amendment. I want to be sure I have the right one. I'm sorry, I'm looking for that amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I appreciate that. After considerable weighing and considering, I am happy to say that we are persuaded by the case that was presented by the member, and therefore we are willing to accept that amendment. I would therefore suggest that the question on the amendment would be appropriate now.

Amendment approved.

Section 2,

section 55.14 as amended approved.

section 2,

section 55.16.

Hon. D. Lovick: On this particular section, again after some discussion, we have heard the member's concerns. I would like to share with him a proposed amendment standing in my name that we think will address those concerns. If I may, there is the signed version and another version for the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Mr. Chairman, I simply need to look quickly and see where that particular amendment is.

The Chair: Minister, perhaps I should just read out the amendment:

[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed

section 55.16(6) and substituting the following:

(6) A trade union must not establish picket lines or engage in a strike because of the employer's or umpire's assignment of work or for jurisdictional purposes.]

Hon. D. Lovick: We believe that this clarifies the intent, and I think it also effectively removes the concerns that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena registered. I hope that he will agree with me that the amendment does what it ought to do and that he will support it.

Amendment approved.

Section 2,

section 55.16 as amended approved.

section 2,

section 55.2 (continued).

C. Hansen: After all this jumping back and forth between sections, I've got to figure out exactly where we are here again. I didn't expect, hon. Chair, that we would wind up breezing through that quite as quickly as we did.

We are on

section 55.2, which is the establishing of the CLRA as the bargaining agent. As the minister knows, there is some concern by other trade organizations and employer organizations which are going to be affected by this. One of the questions that have been raised is why government is basically running roughshod over those trade organizations -- and I don't think that's too harsh a word to use. What we are doing in essence is taking organizations that have been serving their members very ably in the area of collective bargaining over the years and saying to them that they're now totally out of the picture.

You've got organizations that predate the CLRA; they go back to long before the CLRA was even established. I'd like to ask the minister if there was any consideration given to including those particular trade organizations that had taken on a collective bargaining responsibility -- including them in this process. What we set up here under this

section is the forced membership of the individual companies in the CLRA. Certainly it strikes me that there is an opportunity for those associations to continue to have a role in this process, without completely bypassing them. I wonder if the minister could advise us if any consideration was given to that.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, for the record, I must say that I do not believe that it's a case of riding roughshod, as the member suggests. I just want to establish that we have a disagreement on that.

Second, I would emphasize that the legislation does not demand that people become members of the CLRA. That is not required. It does, however, require that they pay their share in terms of the contract administration process -- the cost of negotiating contracts. Essentially, that is simply to ensure that we get around the problem of what in economic terms is usually called the free-rider issue. The fact is that many independent union contractors currently pick up the

[ Page 10142 ]

current CLRA industry standards, but they don't contribute to the bargaining process or accept any of the incumbent risks. We think it's quite legitimate that they do.

The final point I would make is just that those independent contractors, of course, have every right in the world to join the CLRA and use their own strength and their own arguments with a view to changing and indeed perhaps at some point to becoming the leadership of the CLRA. It's a democratic organization, and they have every right to do that.

All the other arguments in terms of why the CLRA was chosen, I think, stand. I don't think I need to repeat them here. It seems to me we've probably canvassed this

section at sufficient length -- but that's the member's call.

C. Hansen: I know the minister was in receipt of a letter from the Mechanical Industrial Relations Association -- just to use one organization as a case in point. They sent a letter to the minister on May 11, and I was copied with that letter. They note that their organization was actually incorporated in February of 1960, well before the CLRA was even established -- by about ten years, I gather. But I think the point they make is a valid one.

If an argument can be made that all parties must "at least contribute financially," then the contribution ought to be made to the trade association, which in turn may elect to contribute to the umbrella bargaining unit -- namely, the likes of the CLRA. They go on to say that the ICI mechanical contractors are secure within the broadly based bargaining unit, but not captive.

This is an area that could become quite disruptive in an industry that has some very established collective bargaining routines, and the mechanical engineers being one of several of those organizations. Now what you're saying is that we are totally turning our back on the process that's been there and that we're bringing in this whole new element of instability, as a new bargaining relationship has to be determined under the CLRA, which is not a voluntary process but a forced process. I'm just wondering again where the minister sees these organizations fitting into this new process.

Hon. D. Lovick: Where the members will fit into the new process will obviously be determined largely by themselves. A point I would simply make is that we are . . . . When we talk about ICI construction, it's very much an integrated industry. In fact, that became the principal reason why Kelleher and Lanyon made the recommendation they did.

Let me also refer the member to appendix B in the report, which I think may provide some comfort or at least some information. Appendix B, as the member will recall, is the principles respecting the CLRA constitution and bylaws. Item 2 in that makes it very clear, as follows: "Trade divisions should be established within CLRA, and the decision-making authority within each trade division should reflect the shared responsibility of CLRA and the majority of contractors within that trade division." I think that will probably address the concern of the mechanical contractors in this instance.

C. Hansen: If I can pick up on that point, it does not say here that the trade divisions have the right of self-determination when it comes to the functioning. The way this reads is that it still gives enormous power to the CLRA to dictate from the top down the kinds of trade divisions there would be. If the minister is saying that it's his expectation that these trade divisions should be largely driven by the CLRA members within those trades, and if that's the intent, then I think that might give a little bit of added comfort.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the point, rather, is that surely the notion of shared responsibility means that both sides have some stake in making this thing work. It's not a question of one side or one body dictating to the other from the top down. Rather, it's saying: "How do we sort out this mechanism, this structure, so it works well to represent both our interests?" It's a democratic structure. Those individual contractors can obviously make common cause with other contractors who have similar apprehensions and misgivings of their own and then produce a policy and a constitution which will work for all of them.

I don't think it's too huge a stretch to suggest that responsible men and women will do that in terms of making their industry function somewhat better.

Section 2,

section 55.2 approved on division.

section 2,

section 55.21.

C. Hansen: This is a fairly short

section that says: "All employers whose bargaining rights are affected by the operation of

section 55.2" -- which we just talked about -- "have the right to join and participate in CLRA." My question to the minister is: what does that mean? Does it mean, for example, the right to be part of the newly redesigned constitution that is required as a result of the previous section?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member's specific question, I understand, concerns subsection (2), effectively asking for an explanation of that -- perfectly legitimate. On the one hand, the first

section says that the

section ensures that any employer whose rights are affected by the provision has the right to join and participate in decision-making within the CLRA -- a point I have made on a number of occasions now. But -- and here is what sub (2) is about -- it also ensures that those employers are not required to delegate other rights to the CLRA, rights for negotiating collective agreements for, let's say, residential work. Let's suppose a contractor also has some work in that sector. We're not saying that because you are a signatory to this, you therefore have to delegate those rights to another.

C. Hansen: As I went through this bill the first time I saw it, writing little notes in the margins as I went, the note that I had written to myself beside this

section was: "Yeah, but in the real world . . . . " In the real world, hon. Chair, it's not practical or realistic that you're going to have employers that are going to be dealing with a multitude of collective agreements and a multitude of bargaining processes. Needless to say, I think it's difficult enough for an organization to have to cope with one collective bargaining process and one collective agreement, never mind two.

I would like to ask the minister if any consideration has been given to the difficulty that would be involved with a construction company trying to operate under two different collective agreements, with the same workforce, doing both ICI and non-ICI projects on the same day.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that there are indeed examples of this provision operating out there. The section, as we know, deals with the issue -- conceivably or potentially -- of a residential contractor who might become organized and might become involved in ICI work. Fair enough. For the ICI work, that contractor would obviously have to operate under the terms of the CLRA-bargaining council standard agreements. It needs to be emphasized, however, that the contractor could retain his or her right to negotiate a separate and dis-

[ Page 10143 ]

tinctive residential agreement, if one wanted to do so. That happens now. It may not be the pattern; it may not be the norm. It may not be the predominant or pre-eminent arrangement, but it is an arrangement that can be negotiated.

The member says it isn't the real world. Well, I think we'd have to tell that to those who are actually working in the real world and doing that. Again, I'm not suggesting that that becomes the pattern or the template, but it certainly is doable. That's what the legislation is designed to address.

[3:00]

C. Hansen: One other assurance that I would like to get from the minister is that this provision does not in any way affect employers other than their craft bargaining-collective bargaining relationships within the ICI sector -- that it's not going to reach into any wall-to-wall certs with unions that are also craft unions or anything of that nature.

Hon. D. Lovick: I was just confirming that three of us all heard the same question. Now that we have established that, I am happy to provide the member with an answer, and the answer is yes.

Section 2,

section 55.21 approved on division.

section 55.22.

C. Hansen: In this section, the establishment of employer bargaining agency . . . . It states: "All of the collective bargaining rights, duties and obligations of building trades employers with respect to ICI construction vest in CLRA." If you come down to subsection (3), I think we have much the same difficulty as we had in the other

section that we amended just at the start of this section. It says: "

(3) Subject to

section 55.15," -- which I believe is just the major project collective agreements -- "on or after the date on which this

section comes into force, a collective agreement that is entered into by a trade union representing craft bargaining units respecting a building trades employer is void if it is made with any person or organization other than CLRA."

Again, I think we have the same problem. What would in fact happen is that as soon as this

section is proclaimed, you're going to wind up with a whole bunch of workers being unprotected from the existing collective agreements they now have. I'm going to move an amendment that is very much similar to the one we discussed before with one exception, and that's to address the issue we raised earlier about the problem that the CLRA may have in establishing its collective bargaining rights until such time as they have amended their constitution in accordance with the previous provisions.

What I would like to move is:

[To delete the words "on or after the date on which this

section comes into force," and to substitute: "as of the date on which the constitution and bylaws of CLRA are approved by the board."]

On the amendment.

C. Hansen: I think this would, in much the same way as the previous one, address the problem that we'd have of collective agreements becoming void. I think the ramifications for this one are actually even broader than for the earlier one we talked about. I'll give the minister a chance to respond to that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm going to begin by asking the member to clarify for me what other amendment he is referring to. Which

section was he talking about? It wasn't one of the two amendments we accepted, as I recall -- or was it?

This is a very substantive amendment that, quite frankly, goes beyond the amendments we normally consider as acceptable. The entire point of our existing legislation as written is to talk about when this

section comes into force -- in other words, by the proclamation process and the legislation process. The member's amendment is effectively connecting it much more directly to an internal process of approving a constitution and bylaws. In that respect, it seems to me to be a substantive amendment, and I don't think it is technically in order. As well, as I read it, we don't need it, and I don't think it is acceptable. It's not acceptable.

The Chair: The Chair would agree with the minister's

interpretation.

C. Hansen: It's just that the process of amending the constitution is in the legislation, of course. It's in

section 55.2, which actually sets out the requirement for . . . . Sorry, it's

section 55.2(2), which says that the constitution and bylaws of the CLRA are to be approved by the board. Then it sets out the provisions for the time lines for amending it, so I think it is very much a part of the act. I'll tell you the concern I've got. It's in the same spirit as the one we talked about in

section 55.14. In that regard, the way

section 55.22(3) currently reads is: " . . . on or after the date on which this

section comes into force" -- which, of course, is proclamation -- "a collective agreement that is entered into by a trade union representing craft bargaining units respecting a building trades employer is void if it is made with any person or organization other than CLRA."

The problem I think we have harkens back to

section . . . . It basically says that the bargaining rights . . . . Sorry, it's

section 55.2, setting out the bargaining rights -- the CLRA's right to bargain . . . . It basically says that the constitution of the CLRA must first of all be approved by the board. I believe that what would happen, given the wording as it currently exists, is that any collective agreement that is currently out there respecting building trades employers and their craft bargaining units is going to be void. So there are the examples I already gave -- of the mechanical engineers, for example -- or the sheet metal workers.

There's a slew of collective agreements in place for those various organizations, but they were not negotiated by the CLRA. They were negotiated by those other organizations.

What's going to happen is that the minute you proclaim this section, you're going to be declaring those collective agreements void. You're going to be leaving those workers unprotected -- and, for that matter, the employers unprotected. You're going to leave that whole workplace without an effective collective agreement -- certainly not one that could . . . . I think the minister mentioned earlier that what it means when it says "void" is that it would have no effect at the LRB. But if you have no effect at the LRB, then what's the mechanism by which you enforce a collective agreement? I believe you're leaving these workers unprotected.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't believe we need an amendment to solve the problem that the member refers to or outlines for us. I appreciate the point he's making. I think it's well thought out. I would just remind him that in this legislation, as in most other pieces of legislation, there is a transitional provision. The transitional provision here, which essentially enables the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations to deal

[ Page 10144 ]

with particular problems, would be sufficient. I say that because I am mindful of the fact that if we are to respond to this very particular circumstance by a very particular solution, whether we are in fact changing the nature of making statutes . . . . The normal practice and procedure, as I say, is a transitional provision, which we have attached here and which I think will do the job.

I hope the member will appreciate that it is not for a moment to minimize his concerns. I think they're legitimate ones, but we have a mechanism in place to do that. We don't require anything further, frankly. Therefore I am reluctant to accept the amendment he proposes.

The Chair: The Chair has already ruled the amendment out of order, so if we could go to the motion on

section 2,

section 55.22 . . . .

C. Hansen: Perhaps I should ask the minister if he feels there would be merit in including language here that would be consistent with the language we used in

section 55.14. Actually, when I started to look at this particular

section and the problems I have outlined, what I initially looked at was amending it in exactly the same way we had amended

section 55.14. It would say: "Subject to

section 55.15, a collective agreement that is entered into on or after the date on which this

section comes into force, etc., is void."

If the concern about my amendment and its validity was with regard to including this requirement that, first of all, the CLRA have its constitution finalized by the board, I just thought that would solve a problem that we had talked about before. But in essence, the main focus of my amendment was not that; rather, it was to provide for particular agreements not to be declared void, which is the intent of where I was coming from. So if it was the reference I included in it to the constitution and bylaws of the CLRA, then I wonder if the minister would entertain an amendment that would be consistent with what we implemented in

section 55.14, which had identical wording prior to our amending it.

Hon. D. Lovick: I realize that the discussion is indeed out of order, but I will simply say to the member -- and I think I owe him this -- that we share his concerns, certainly, that the agreement not become null and void because of some kind of inadvertent error on our part. But as I say, I think we have solved the problem. The solution is already in the legislation, it seems to me.

C. Hansen: I know the minister talked about the transition section, which we haven't come to yet. The transition

section basically says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations considered necessary or advisable for the purpose of more effectively bringing into the operation

Part 4.1 of the Labour Relations Code and to remedy any transitional difficulties encountered in so doing." It's my understanding that this particular power, which we have not yet got to, can come down to the

interpretation of legislation. But I don't see how that particular power is going to allow the minister or government to override the provisions as they're set out in this section. This section, I think, reads quite clearly that once this

section comes into place, we're going to have a whole bunch that . . . . These collective agreements will be void. I don't know how you can use transitional regulations to reword a

section of the legislation.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised, Mr. Chairman, that drafting a regulation to address this problem is not hugely difficult. It's not something that we need to worry about. It's done frequently and it's a relatively straightforward matter.

C. Hansen: I learned many years ago that when somebody says, "Don't worry," it's usually the time when you start to worry. Hon. Chair, perhaps the minister could explain the kind of regulation that would be used to address this, because I am looking for some comfort level here, and I don't have it.

[3:15]

Hon. D. Lovick: I've been given two examples of the kinds of things one could do by way of regulation or approaches one could take. On the one hand, one could simply assert the validity of collective agreements now in place and say that collective agreements now in place will not be affected by . . . etc. That's one simple declaration. Another way would be to take the

section which we perceive to be perhaps causing the problem and simply not proclaim it until such time as the constitution, and so forth, is in place. Those are two ways in which a regulation could be drafted to solve this problem.

C. Hansen: I guess I would be interested in knowing if the minister has any thoughts as to which route . . . . Those are two very different routes that could be pursued. I don't know if the minister could share with us his sentiments as to which of those two routes might be preferable.

Hon. D. Lovick: The first point is that we need to talk to the parties and determine if there is indeed a problem here, and as I have said, I think that point is moot at the moment. Based on those discussions, based on the conclusion that there is indeed a problem, then obviously one is going to look to the speediest and, dare I say, easiest way. Beyond that, no, I have no idea which of those two routes might be the preferred one. I think there are too many other variables for me to give that answer.

C. Hansen: Subsection (1), if I can just read it, says: "All of the collective bargaining rights, duties and obligations of building trades employers with respect to ICI construction vest in CLRA." I'm assuming that the intent of this is to capture only the craft unions, and yet that's not what it says. I was wondering if the minister could enlighten me on this. If you go back to the definition

section as to what the definition of a building trades employer is, it's very broad. It says: " 'building trades employer' means a unionized construction employer that has a bargaining relationship with a trade union representing employers in craft bargaining units in ICI construction." So what it's saying is that a building trades employer could have a variety of employees, of which some may be employees in a craft bargaining unit in ICI.

It's certainly not exclusive, because it is quite broad, and it includes companies that may have only a small minority of their employees in craft bargaining units in ICI construction. Yet that definition of building trades employers basically encompasses the entire organization, not just the

section that's in ICI craft construction. I wonder if the minister could explain the intent of that first

section in that regard, when it says that all of the collective bargaining rights of building trades employers with respect to ICI construction are vested with the CLRA. It seems to be very broad in the way it's worded.

Hon. D. Lovick: I disagree. It seems to me that the definition of building trades employer is very narrowly tied to craft bargaining units in ICI construction. That's what it's

[ Page 10145 ]

defined in terms of. That seems to me to remove precisely the concern that rests with the member. A building trades employer, as defined . . . . If we were to simply take that definition and print it into

section 55.2 (1), I think the member would see that it indeed answers his question. It removes the concern, it seems to me, unless I'm missing something in his explanation and he wants to try again.

C. Hansen: I think the minister is missing something. If you had an organization that had 100 workers that were working in aspects of ICI construction and only, say, ten of them were actually in a craft bargaining unit, that would be a building trades employer. It doesn't say that you have to have all of your workers in a craft bargaining unit. What it says is that you simply have an employer that has a bargaining relationship with a trade union. It certainly presents the possibility of companies that have a craft bargaining unit, yes, but the majority of their employees could be outside. Yet if you read this

section that we have before us, what it says is that that company has to turn over all of its collective bargaining rights for ICI construction to the CLRA. It doesn't say that it's just for craft bargaining units; it says for everything. Maybe the minister could explain.

Hon. D. Lovick: I must leap out of my chair to correct that, simply because I noticed that the reference in

section 55.22(1) is "with respect to ICI construction," and ICI construction by definition, in this part, refers to craft units. So I think that solves the problem, or it's certainly our reading that that solves the problem. There isn't an ambiguity there.

C. Hansen: But that's not what it says. Maybe if we can get beyond this, what I would ask the minister is to give me some assurance that subsection (1), when it says "all of the collective bargaining rights" is intended to refer to the bargaining rights as they pertain to craft bargaining units.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.

Section 2,

section 55.22 approved on division.

section 2,

section 55.23.

C. Hansen: This is the

section that I think causes a lot of concern for a lot of people who are looking at this. Basically, what it does is provide for newly unionized employees to be subject to the master collective agreement. It then allows the parties to the collective agreement to make special arrangements as transitional arrangements.

I guess the concern, in terms of the way it is worded, is that it really doesn't give much protection at all for the company that has bid on a project, is in the process of building a project, and then in the middle of that process, becomes unionized under a craft bargaining unit, and they are then subject to the master collective agreement. What it says is that the parties can agree to arrangements that they consider reasonable for newly unionized employees, for the purposes of accommodating existing projects of those employers.

Probably the best way to start with this is if we can deal with some of the

definitions as to what certain terms mean here -- first of all, what a "newly unionized employer" means in this context. If the minister could assist us with that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I'm working on the assumption that the member's question, when he talks about "newly unionized," has to do with who those people typically are. Is that . . . ?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, okay. I think what we anticipate here, what is envisaged here, is a group of workers who do not have a union contract -- they are non-union workers . . . . Obviously somebody goes in and persuades the majority of those people to join a union. They sign the appropriate cards or whatever the process may be. The majority decides, indeed, to join, and they get their certification. They go through the normal legal process of certification, which I know the member knows about. They would be newly unionized employees. I think that sounds suspiciously self-evident, so I'm wondering if there's actually something more that the member was asking me.

C. Hansen: I've got a bunch of questions. There's no particular hidden motive behind any one of them. They're all part and parcel of trying to get a better sense of what this

section means.

Under subsection (1) it says: "Section 55.2" -- which establishes the CLRA as the bargaining organization -- "applies to (

a) an employer who subsequently becomes a building trades employer." That could include a newly unionized employer, and it could also include an employer who is unionized to another union. For example, we could wind up, as a result of a raid, with an employer who would subsequently become a building trades employer, but they would not be a newly unionized employer.

Secondly, it says: " . . . (

b) to the extent necessary to give effect to this Part" -- which I want to come back to, because I'm not sure what that means -- "a unionized construction employer whose employees are represented by a trade union representing craft bargaining units who subsequently becomes engaged in ICI construction." In both cases we have either newly unionized employers or unionized employers who change bargaining agents, who either become subject to a craft certification or come into ICI construction -- either way.

If you read this section, those existing unionized employers, whether they are raided or they become engaged in ICI work, are not entitled to any form of accommodation here. If you look at subsection (2), it only applies to newly unionized employers.

The problem we've got with subsection (1) is that you've got an organization that has an existing collective agreement and that has projects underway, and they are raided by a building trades union. What this says here is that there is no provision for accommodation in that case. It's the same with an employer who subsequently becomes engaged in ICI. If they are already a unionized employer and they become engaged in ICI work, there's no provision in here for accommodation. I just wonder why the minister would be dealing with those existing unionized employers in such an unbending way.

Why don't we have this provision in subsection (2) apply to all employers who become subject to this master collective agreement? Why is it only the newly unionized employers?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think the circumstance is quite as dramatic as one might conclude at first blush, simply because what we're talking about here is people who are already unionized, and somebody else comes in and gets that certification, another certification. It isn't as if we're going from nothing -- no transportation at all -- to the Cadillac. It is, rather, a much more incremental kind of shift.

[ Page 10146 ]

The member is quite right: there isn't a specific requirement for . . . . But we believe that the code and these amendments to the code could certainly accommodate the particular circumstance that he outlines.

[3:30]

C. Hansen: In here it talks about an employer whose employees are represented by a trade union representing craft bargaining units, which subsequently becomes engaged in ICI construction. I wonder if the minister sees . . . . Is that in terms of any work that company is doing that has an ICI component to it? I'm wondering if there's any kind of a threshold. I'll give an example, just to explain where I'm coming from on this.

If you had a project that the project manager or developer, or whoever was behind it, felt was not an ICI project, that this was totally separate . . . . To go back to some things we were talking about before, let's say it's the construction of building, but he contracts separately for the services of a landscaper. The landscaper comes in. Perhaps that particular landscaper is unionized under the labourers' union or one of the other craft unions, and the union decides that the master collective agreement should apply to this work, because the landscaping is connected to a hospital, and that it should have been part and parcel of one tendered contract as opposed to two separate contracts.

My question is: what if that goes to the LRB, and the LRB agrees with the union that brought it forward and says: "Yes, in retrospect this should have been ICI work." You suddenly have a small landscaping company that, in the words that are here in this section, finds itself subsequently engaged in ICI construction -- almost in a retroactive case in that sense. Would that mean that they are now brought into that whole CLRA circle, and even if they don't want to become members of the CLRA, they're de facto members and are going to have to pay dues and all that kind of thing? Where do we draw the line on this?

Where's the threshold for what constitutes an employer in ICI work? Just to complete that thought, I think that once this is passed, there are many employers who are going to be very carefully avoiding ICI work in any way, shape or form. For them to find out retroactively that they've been engaged in ICI work could have very major consequences to their ability to manage their own companies.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm afraid that the member's case is too hypothetical for me to deal with in an elaborate way. Suffice it to say that the case he presented, the hypothesis he presented, when he was working to set something up effectively denied the argument he was presenting about ambiguity, because the example he finally gave us was a hospital, which by definition would be ICI.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, the better example, I am advised, would be something like roadbuilding contractors, who frequently will have a whole number of things but then will get one small ICI project or something like that. The reality is that they tend to do that project, but they are still roadbuilders and therefore don't take

part in the standard master agreement. Those kinds of aberrations or unique circumstances probably happen all the time.

I think the cautionary note we got from Lanyon and Kelleher in terms of their report -- what the intention of the legislation was, you know, to make sure . . . . I'm referring, of course, to page 18 and the recommendation following from the text -- namely, that special arrangements must be made to accommodate existing projects.

When something new comes along to change the circumstance, you don't stick the existing contractor, with the better contract that he's negotiated, and expect that person who has bid on the contract with one set of information to suddenly have to fulfil the obligations of another contract that came in the middle of the operation. I think the guidelines suggested by the Lanyon and Kelleher report will probably be sufficient to guide the board and protect against the kind of circumstance the member is fearful of.

C. Hansen: We'll leave that one there. I think that is an area where some work may need to be done by the LRB in the future. I can certainly see it surfacing.

I would like to turn to the next clause where they talk about "the parties to the collective agreement must make special collective agreement arrangements . . . . " It's not "may" -- they're compelled to. What I'd like to ask the minister is: when we say that they must make arrangements to accommodate an existing project, the meaning of some of these individual words could be quite important. If I can expand on that, the parties to the collective agreement are going to be the two bargaining agents. The parties to the agreement are going to be the CLRA on one hand and the Building Trades Council on the other hand.

When the word "must" is in here, it compels them to come up with special arrangements. It says: these special arrangements are "for the purposes of accommodating . . . . " It would be my reading of that language to say that accommodating a project means you've got to ensure the financial viability of the project. If they come up with special arrangements which basically destroy the viability of the project, then they are not fulfilling the intent of this section. I would just like to get the minister's confirmation.

Hon. D. Lovick: I was about to answer the member by saying yes, absolutely -- no question. But I am advised that I have to be cautious, because I understand that in the construction biz there are a number of contractors who have been known to build things on such a narrow margin that it is debatable whether they're in fact viable. So clearly one has to approach it with some caution. But I think I can give the member the assurance, assuming that we're dealing with the anonymous presentation of a bid, that what he concludes is absolutely legitimate and right.

C. Hansen: I think that when you talk about construction firms that are operating on a very narrow margin, you're describing the entire construction industry today. There are probably very few companies that are making any kind of significant margin on any of their work. My understanding is that in the construction industry generally, they're working on margins of about 2 or 3 percent, which is pretty narrow. Anyway, I appreciate the minister's assurance that the

interpretation of that was right.

I would like to focus in on existing projects and again get a sense of what that means. A project can have all kinds of different components to it. Basically, I guess my concern would be that if you have a project that is halfway built -- you know, 12 of the 24 floors are completed on a building -- clearly that's an existing project. You could also have a situation where a project has been bid but has not yet started construction. But the bid is a binding bid, and I think the same things would apply. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us how we would define an existing project in that context.

[ Page 10147 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to establish, Mr. Chairman, the fact that I think we need to differentiate clearly between a bid for a project and a successful bid -- something that has been accepted versus something that is merely a bid. I think we need to do that first of all. Having said that, I want to note that the intention is to provide reasonable accommodation for existing projects for employers who, as we've been saying, might become unionized. The intention would be to allow a contractor to finish off existing work and to do so on the basis on which the work was bid in the first place.

Given that that is the intention, if there is a signed contract by a contractor saying, "I am going to bid or I am going to build building X, and I have signed, sealed and delivered that, and we're due to start that in two weeks' time," it seems to me that that is the same as the construction actually starting -- to answer the member's question.

I note, however, that it strikes me as perhaps a little counterintuitive that if the work hasn't begun on a project, if it's merely a bid . . . . I'm struggling a bit to find out how, then, it would become unionized. It would seem to me that the process of unionizing it would only happen once there is a worksite and there are workers there. I may be wrong on that, but as I say, it feels counterintuitive to me -- unless this is all about paper campaigns.

C. Hansen: I think it would only be counterintuitive for someone who was living in a closed-shop world. If you're looking at a union-shop world, or if you're looking at construction firms that have long-term employees who are attached to the employer and the employer basically takes on the responsibility of finding construction work to keep his workforce busy, then it certainly does make sense. But if you're looking at the concept of construction being done out of hiring halls, then, yes, it may be counterintuitive.

With regard to these bridging provisions, what we are doing is giving the power for these bridging agreements to the parties to the collective agreement. I'd like to ask the minister: why would we not, in a situation like this, give the power to develop bridging agreements to the workers who are affected? I would suggest that in many cases workers who may agree to take out membership in the building trades unions or sign evidence of fresh membership support for the purpose of joining a craft union are going to do so based on the master collective agreement that they're going to see.

Then, after they have that certification in place, they're suddenly going to realize: "Wait a second. There's got to be this accommodation to make sure that the project is viable." I just question why the workers directly affected by this would not have the right to determine those bridging provisions through a collective bargaining process.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify that I do indeed understand the question. Is the member saying he's concerned that the hierarchy of the union or the bargaining council, or whatever, is making the decisions rather than the workers themselves on a particular site?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Okay, I thought that was indeed the basis of the question. I think that simply takes us into the nature of a structure and bargaining system or, for that matter,

definitions of democracy and involvement. When people join a union -- whether they sign cards, vote or whatever they do to indicate it -- the moment they say, "I, Joe Blotts or Jane Blotts, want to join a union," they're effectively saying: "I am empowering an executive or bargaining council of some kind or other to make decisions on my behalf to represent my interests."

In the same way, our constituents send us here to the Legislature and say: "Your job is to spend hours and hours learning the finer points of legislation, so we don't have to worry about that. Your job is essentially to give us a nice, simplified and straightforward version of what the issues are, so we can make our choices." It's called representative or delegated democracy. The trade union, in that sense, is not much different from any legislature, frankly. It's a tried-and-true model, it seems to me, within our society. I don't think the fact that it isn't so-defined or so-called direct democracy necessarily makes it any less effective or useful.

[3:45]

C. Hansen: The minister made reference to the process by which somebody shows support for the union. There's no one clause in this bill that talks about the evidence of fresh membership support. I think this is probably the

section that comes closest to dealing with that, if we can deal with it at this point.

The other day the minister gave me the reassurance that in fact this recommendation of Kelleher and Lanyon would be followed through on; it would be required that there be fresh evidence of support. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us how he sees this being implemented. For example, will there be a time period which this evidence of fresh support would be valid for? Secondly, would this be in respect of a particular workplace?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm struggling, Mr. Chairman, because, as the member well knows, it isn't clearly enunciated in this part of the legislation. However, the member is quite right that it isn't in a

section you can point to anywhere, so I think it's quite legitimate for him to raise the question. I'll just make the point that I think I made earlier on this matter -- namely, that the recommendation is very clear in Kelleher and Lanyon. I have said we are committed to doing that.

To answer the specifics in terms of what constitutes fresh support, again, that's a pretty subjective judgment. I think that what the Labour Relations Board would in all probability be guided by is a simple calculus -- namely: "If we get X number of cards out of X number of workers claiming they want to be represented by union Y, do we have comfort that these are current, present desires rather than people who perhaps have signed a card or something a month, six months or two years before?" That's the determination for the board to make.

I think a rational calculus would be to recognize the difficulty of contacting the workers who are going to be directly affected and asking: "Is it a reasonable amount of time before you assembled the necessary numbers that you did to show evidence of that fresh support for certification?"

The whole purpose of this -- and I again commend the authors of the report for doing it -- is that if we want to claim that trade unions are indeed an accurate reflection of the wishes of the majority of workers at any given point, we have an obligation thereby to demonstrate that the support is fresh. That's a step forward, it seems to me, and it's one that I welcome. I don't think there are grounds for suggesting that it would be anything other than the most rigorously defined definition of fresh support.

C. Hansen: The other aspect of my question is whether or not this evidence of fresh support would be vis-à-vis a particular employer.

[ Page 10148 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I just want to say to the member, to deal with that, that I'm sorry I didn't address that second question. The short answer, again, is simply to refer the member to the recommended amendment in the report. As you'll see, the recommended wording there is effectively silent on that subject. There are people in the industry who are affected by this, or likely to be, who will want to make representation to the board and say: "If you're considering implementing all of this, maybe you ought to consider rejigging that form.

We see it as deficient." I don't propose to make any formal recommendation or anything like that. Instead, I assume that the board will simply be guided by that and will provide the necessary and careful analysis and evaluation of what is in fact most desirable.

Section 2,

section 55.23 approved on division.

section 2,

section 55.24.

C. Hansen: This is the

section pertaining to fees. Subsection (1) says: "Every building trades employer referred to . . . must pay to CLRA contract administration fees that may be set out by the CLRA." I would like to ask the minister why we use the term "contract administration fee." I know that when we were dealing with the

definitions section, I asked why we didn't have a definition for it. He indicated that it was a commonly acceptable term, at which point I didn't pursue it but suggested that I'd pursue it when the time came. The time is now.

I wonder if the minister could explain to us why we use the term "contract administration fees," as opposed to "collective bargaining fees." Contract administration strikes me as a term that is much broader than the service that the CLRA is being mandated to deliver. I'm wondering if the minister could give us some parameters.

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that the reason for that particular nomenclature is just that the CLRA is mandated here not just to negotiate a contract but also to administer the contract. In some cases, that means making appearances before the board. It may in fact occasion making presentations -- well, any number of things we normally put under the heading of administration of a particular contract or a particular operation. That's the reason for the terminology, as near as I can make out.

C. Hansen: Under subsection (3), it states: "To facilitate collection of contract administration fees, every building trades employer must provide CLRA with any information that is necessary, in the opinion of CLRA, for the calculation of" this fee. I find the wording of this one particularly overbearing. It seems to go much further than necessary. I'm wondering if the minister could give us some

interpretation that would allow those employers to appreciate that they're not going to have the CLRA poring through their books in areas that aren't relevant to the contract administration fee.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, let me just say that intuitively I have some sympathy for the point the member makes. When I read those words I think: yeah, that does sound a little draconian, as it were. But I don't think it is. The reason I say that is that it's the nature of the construction industry and ICI. The reality is that certain contractors may only work part-time in that -- short-term projects, all kinds of different projects. Therefore to assess those individuals -- you know, what they ought to pay for their fair share of the total cost -- will be a difficult and complex proposition.

What will inevitably be required, then, will be some kind of formula. I think we know by all experience that formulae tend to generate considerable debate. There will be some who say: "I am being penalized; I'm not being treated fairly" -- you know, the old arguments -- "Why me? Why am I getting stuck for so much, and you, you lazy devil, are getting nothing?" You know the lines. In any event, I think the assumption here is that given that rather difficult structure to manage, at some point one has to rely on the judgment of the CLRA organization and give them the power to impose those kinds of agreements. I think that's the basis for it.

Again, I would offer the comfort to the member that it is a democratic organization and that those people who feel the formula or other decisions are perhaps unfair and not being applied equitably, then obviously they will be in some . . . . I'm sorry, I lost my sentence, so I'll start over.

I was going to make the point that as a democratic organization, obviously if the CLRA is perceived to be not doing a fair and equitable job of administering contracts, then what will happen inevitably is that the people who are the members of the organization will say: "We demand something better, thank you very much." In a word, if they carry on doing what they do without proper consultation and consideration of the legitimate interests of their members, they will do so at their peril and probably won't be around very long -- or at least the existing leadership wouldn't be around very long.

So I think that's the answer to that question.

C. Hansen: As is the case with most other sections of the Labour Relations Code that do not specify that there is an appeal to the board, I believe there are a lot of the other sections that de facto have an appeal to the board, in terms of

interpretation in this. If there was an ultimate dispute in this area, could these fees be appealed to the Labour Relations Board, given the wording that we have here?

Hon. D. Lovick: It must be getting late, Mr. Chairman. I was a little slow to pick up subsection (2) in this section. That makes it very clear that "CLRA must not charge a fee under subsection (1) that is in the board's opinion unreasonable or discriminating." I think that's one protection, and that's pretty specific.

The other one, it seems to me, is this: remember that the CLRA has to submit a constitution that needs to be approved by the board. I think it is pretty likely, if not inevitable, that the board's constitution will say something about contract administration fees. Again, given that the approval rests with the board, I would therefore think that if there is some perceived injustice, the appeal mechanism would of necessity be available to the board, given that they are the guardians of the constitution.

C. Hansen: In other words, in terms of subsection (3), where we're talking about access to information, if the CLRA was to make demands for access to information that the company felt was inappropriate, they would ultimately have that recourse to the Labour Relations Board. Is that a fair assessment?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the short answer to the question is yes. The only caveat, the only cautionary note, I think, is that the board would likely evaluate that largely on the basis of whether one employer was being singled out for special treatment or was unfairly treated as opposed to other employers, rather than an absolute notion that the fees were unfair. Rather, I think that in all likelihood the concern would be:

[ Page 10149 ]

"Well, why am I having to do this when the contractor down the street is not having to do that?" Again, I'm speculating a little bit. I want to make very clear that in terms of their right to appeal, I don't know if it would be simply "We don't like paying fees," or "We think the fees are too high." In all probability, there would need to be something more substantive before the board would want to get involved. But again, I don't know that.

[4:00]

C. Hansen: If I can just change to a more general question -- perhaps it should have been the question I started out with, with regard to this

section -- that's questioning the need for this

section at all. There is an argument that what is set out in this

section is something that largely belongs in their constitution. I wonder if the minister could explain why we have this embedded in our Labour Relations Code, rather than asking that these provisions be embedded in the constitution of the CLRA.

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the member's question is that this is a significant and important enough issue -- indeed, perhaps a make-or-break issue -- that it probably requires a legal or statutory support rather than simply an agreement in terms of their constitution. That is the logic that stands behind having this in the bill. I understand, moreover, that this is essentially the standard practice in most jurisdictions, so it isn't as if there's something new here.

C. Hansen: Given that logic, why is that we do not have a similar provision with respect to the building trades unions, requiring them to pay into their bargaining council?

Hon. D. Lovick: I believe that

section 10 of the existing code addresses that problem. I think the member is as familiar as I am with the basic rule for trade unions, membership and payment of dues and all of that. That's Justice Ivan Rand's formula from the 1960s or something, as I recall. My labour history background deserts me at this point, but as I recall, it's been around that long.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: It is imaginable. I want to tell the member for Peace River North that I have not got it all at my fingertips. I'm embarrassed indeed to report that. But in any event, I believe it is covered in the code. Yes, I see that it is apparently in

section 15 of the code.

Section 2,

section 55.24 approved on division.

section 2,

section 55.25.

C. Hansen: This is a

section entitled "Strikes and lockouts." It reads: "Unless a lawful lockout has occurred that has not been discontinued for a period of 72 hours, the bargaining council must not declare or authorize a strike without the support of the majority of affected employees and a majority of affected trade unions."

First of all, I think there's some difficulty with the drafting here. If you read it in the context of what happens if you have an unlawful lockout . . . . In other words, you could have a . . . . It says that if it is a lawful lockout that has not been discontinued for a period of 72 hours . . . . I guess it begs the question about what happens in the case of an unlawful lockout, which I don't believe was the intention. I wonder if the minister, for the benefit of Hansard , could give us some clarification in terms of what the true intent is.

Hon. D. Lovick: We don't talk about unlawful lockouts and unlawful strikes, simply because we have a whole Labour Code that addresses those kinds of concerns. Rather, we're only addressing here those parts that we think are absolutely requisite to deal with this particular -- may I use my old language? -- subset of a subset of a subset in terms of the code.

C. Hansen: I want to get a clarification as to whether this requires a double majority to action. It talks about a strike requiring "the support of the majority of affected employees and a majority of affected trade unions." From that language, I assume that it requires a double majority, and I would just like to get clarification.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is quite right. There is indeed in effect here something that most of us would refer to as a double majority -- a majority of the trades and also a majority of the people employed. This is to prevent, of course, one small union or a number of small unions, which may perhaps represent the majority of the trades, from forcing everybody else out on strike, including the two largest unions, which are outvoted on the trade basis but in terms of numbers would clearly represent the majority. Thus it is the double majority system, which I think is fair and appropriate.

Section 2,

section 55.25 approved on division.

section 2,

section 55.26.

C. Hansen: In this

section we talk about the requirement that collective agreements negotiated between the bargaining council and the CLRA must be for a term of three years, calculated from May 1 of each year. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us why it is deemed that a three-year contract is appropriate in the craft construction side, yet in the non-craft construction side we have a provision for agreements of up to three years. Also, while he's explaining that, he could explain to us why May 1 would be chosen for the start date of these contracts.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think we canvassed this at some length last night, so I will endeavour to be reasonably succinct. A little background, though, if I might. As the member knows, we looked at a number of different models here, and one of them was Ontario. Let me just give that experience, because I think it is instructive for us.

The Ontario legislation on ICI bargaining had mandated a two-year-agreement time frame. A review of that legislation by an academic, I think it was, in 1991 suggested that stability might be enhanced with a move toward a longer-term agreement. As a result, the Ontario provision was subsequently changed to three years. At the time that was done, the consultant commented that a term of longer than three years might lead to the construction agreements becoming too far removed from the economic realities of the marketplace.

That was the point I think I was making last night in terms of the danger of trying to impose something; to fix in time, if you will, what is after all a fluid and dynamic set of circumstances. That's the Ontario experience worth noting.

The three-year term was intended by the construction panel, as they tell us, to achieve some symmetry between the

[ Page 10150 ]

terms within the ICI and elsewhere in construction. What the panel was really concerned about was the potential mischief of allowing some very long-term agreements outside of ICI. In these areas, long-term agreements might, as they saw it, act as a potential bar to the bargaining unit members changing their representation, simply because the raiding union, as the member knows, would have to continue operating under whatever agreement they picked up when they raided.

Three years, as I said last night, is ultimately a compromise, a judgment call. We think it's probably the best of the possible options.

C. Hansen: The question I have is with regard to the term. It could be greater than three years, or it could be less than three years, basically, depending on where May 1 falls. I just want to get this clarified. If you have an agreement that is concluded and signed in January of 1999, I gather that that would wind up being an agreement for a period of three years and three months. It would be three years starting the following May 1, but the term of the contract would actually be for more than three years. Is that a fair

interpretation?

Hon. D. Lovick: I have always been calendar-challenged, Mr. Chairman. If something starts in May and goes to April, when does it really begin and end and all that? The short answer and, I think, the answer the member is seeking is simply yes, the paramount issue is a three-year term, and that will obtain across the board. It's a three-year term, regardless of when it starts, essentially.

C. Hansen: I'm sorry, I must confess that I'm now more confused. It is a three-year term, regardless as to where it starts, but if it . . . . The effect of that is not that an agreement signed in January does not take effect until May 1. I would hope that's not the case -- that an agreement that's concluded in January, being the first year of the contract . . . . The date at which the three years starts to be counted is May 1. Is that . . . ? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the minister's comments, but I thought they were a little bit ambiguous.

Hon. D. Lovick: I am still calendar-challenged, after listening to some advice here. Just as I answered another question earlier, I think the issue is that there could very well be a difficulty getting the first one in place, in terms of how it kicks in. Once that first one is in place, then the renewal on three-year terms would just kick in. It's an upfront problem. Again, an answer I've already given is that if indeed this is problematic, this too can be addressed by the transitional provision within the legislation, which I think will effectively accommodate it.

I don't think this would be terribly difficult in terms of clarifying the point the member makes about just when it does start or end.

Section 2,

section 55.26 approved.

Section 2 as amended approved on division.

section 3.

C. Hansen: This is in terms of transition to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to make regulations necessary to bring this

section into power. We talked earlier about one possible use for this transitional section. I'm wondering if the minister could enlighten us on any other areas where this transitional power may be required.

Hon. D. Lovick: It seems to me that thanks to the good questioning by the opposition members, we have indeed identified the two areas where I think it's most likely that a transitional provision might be invoked. Beyond that, I don't see any others.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

C. Hansen: There are a lot of issues that we've discussed during the course of committee stage regarding proclamation. I'm wondering if the minister could advise us as to when he anticipates sections of this act being proclaimed. Will the whole act be proclaimed at the same time, or are various sections likely to be proclaimed at different times? If he could just share with us what his intentions may be at this point.

[4:15]

Hon. D. Lovick: Again, I think that in our discussions on the bill, we have identified a couple of particular provisions that may indeed be problematic. There may be some ambiguities that need to be sorted out. For example, there's the CLRA-bargaining council discussion we had, and at the end I said that this may well be something where we want to perhaps even stand down a particular

section and proclaim everything but that until such time as we get the constitutional arrangements established. Beyond those kinds of things, which I think the record of the debate would indicate, I would simply say that our intention would be to proceed in the normal course of things -- neither expediting nor delaying but rather simply carrying on in the normal course of things to get this legislation into force by regulation.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved on division.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Lovick: With that, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS

On vote 47: minister's office, $469,000.

Hon. P. Priddy: I am very pleased, hon. Chair, to introduce the 1998-99 budget estimates for the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors. I'd like to take a minute to introduce the ministry staff members who are here today to help respond to questions -- and there will be different ones, of course, and I'll try and introduce them as we move through. To my right is David Kelly, the deputy minister; to my left, Leah Hollins, the assistant deputy minister for hospital pro-

[ Page 10151 ]

grams and emergency services; and behind me, Janet McGregor, who is the assistant deputy minister of corporate programs.

In introducing this debate, I want to start by acknowledging the outstanding work that's being done across this province by health service providers. Nurses, physicians, other health professionals, workers in health facilities, volunteers, family members and other unpaid care providers have much to be proud of, and we have much to thank them for. Our health care system is widely considered to be among the best in the world, and most of the credit for this has to go to the people who provide that care. I also want to acknowledge the contribution of the staff of the Ministry of Health.

In addition to providing me with great support during my early months in the ministry, these women and men have been working hard through challenging times and through a great deal of change to provide consistent leadership and support to the broader health system. I also want to acknowledge the people our health system is here to serve: British Columbians.

In the months I've been minister, I've become even more convinced than before that the key to success in our health system is to stay focused on the needs of patients and other health consumers. If we never lose sight of the real needs of real people, then we're going to make the right choices, and we're going to have a responsive health system that puts its resources where they're going to make the biggest differences to people.

There is a lot of change going on, and making the right choices is especially important during a time of profound change. Today our health care system is experiencing that kind of change, due to rapid advances in technology and treatment; due to the diverse needs of an aging population; due to the health challenges we've experienced, such as AIDS and other conditions that were unknown to us 20 or 30 years ago; and due to increasing health care costs and decreasing federal funding support for medicare.

These are major changes, but at its most basic level, the human side of health care is the same as it's always been. We still need to know that health services will be there when we need them. We still need to be treated as individuals, each as unique as our own personality. Each of us counts on receiving care that's accessible, respectful, responsive and appropriate to our needs.

During a time of change, meeting these expectations can be a challenge. One way we will meet that challenge is with innovation. The sooner we recognize and utilize more fully the resources in our health system -- technology, using the extended skills of nurses and other health professionals -- I think the richer our health care system will be. We will move forward on employing the skills of nurses and initiatives like RN First Call, which is already an important service in Ashcroft, where nurses are on the front line with patients' urgent health concerns. Nurses are on the front lines everywhere with patients' health concerns, but this is a unique project.

I've watched our health care system over the last 25 or 30 years, partly as a nurse in at least two provinces in this country, partly as a patient who relied on the system as a health care consumer and as a parent and a grandparent -- all of you knew I couldn't get through even the first five pages without mentioning my grandchild -- who has the same stake in the future of health care for my family as all other British Columbians.

Now, as Health minister, I'm drawing on all of those experiences. Health care is a very personal issue for me and for most people I meet. When illness or trauma touches our lives, we're vulnerable; we're very, very vulnerable. We need to be assured that when we need help it will be there, and that it will be the kind of help we really need. We need to know that our health system will look at us as whole people, not just as a collection of symptoms or complaints. We need to know that the system is flexible and integrated so we aren't starting from scratch each time we're required to see a new caregiver.

We need to know the system is efficient, with every possible resource devoted directly to the services British Columbians depend upon. This is the kind of health system that people in our province have quite rightly come to expect.

While we still have challenges and we're in the midst of change, there are also accomplishments to celebrate. I'm proud to say that this government has worked hard with people in every part of the province, in every area of our health system, to make that vision a reality. We have made progress. We've established a coordinated network of community and regional health authorities. When I look at the difference between now and a year ago, I see tremendous change in how they're working together. They're focused on matching health care resources with the needs and priorities of people in their own local communities.

We've built an unmatched record of health care funding support, with nearly $2 billion in new provincial funding over the last six or seven years to expand services and keep up with growing and changing needs. We've made improved access to care and reduced waiting times, a top priority. We carried out 11,000 more surgical procedures last year than we did three or four years ago. We've proudly supported and funded Canada's most comprehensive range of health benefits, from core medical services to the Pharmacare drug plan and ambulance services.

We've moved forward with innovative health promotion and prevention initiatives, many focused, as they should be, on the health of our children, such as our internationally recognized -- and it truly is that -- tobacco reduction strategy. These initiatives are long-term investments, designed to help British Columbians, including our children, make the best choices for their own future health.

We've accomplished a great deal. There's a recent Maclean's magazine

article on health care across Canada which placed our province squarely at the top of the list. We're number one in the country in per-capita health funding -- and this was done independently by Maclean's ; it was independently validated. We have the largest number of general practitioners and family physicians per capita of all of the provinces, and we rank well in almost every other measure that I could talk about that was used by Maclean's .

We're coming through this time of dramatic health care change successfully. Yes, there are still lots of challenges, some real concerns. But they are concerns that we can and will address. The reality is that every day in British Columbia, thousands of people enter emergency rooms, hospice facilities, rehab clinics and hospital wards across this province and get the high-quality care they need. They are well served by the health system, and they go home healthier. These are the stories we don't ever get to hear. These are the success stories.

We do hear about the exceptions, and there are exceptions; there's no question about that. We do hear the stories of people who've had less positive experiences, and those are the stories and that's the information we need to work on. But we do need to celebrate the tens of thousands of healthy, successful experiences people have with the health care system.

[4:30]

[ Page 10152 ]

In terms of our vision and our priorities, just to accept the picture of our health care system as a healthy one is important. But one of the things that I worry about in our universal health system is that we are beginning to hear now about the need for people to have access to a different system, a system more like the United States, where if you can buy the service, then you should be able to have the service.

If we went down that road, I think that would be a one-way ticket to what is very much two-tier, American-style health care. That's a trip we simply can't afford to take. There are 40 million American women, men and children who go without health care because they don't have the money to buy health insurance -- 40 million. There are thousands more: people with AIDS, diabetes and many other conditions are rejected by insurance companies because they aren't healthy enough to have medical coverage.

In an American-style health system, the care you get is the care you can afford, and those who can't afford it do without. That's not a vision of health care I want my grandchild to inherit -- or any other child, for that matter.

There is a more positive vision we can work towards. We can protect the principles of medicare and find better and more innovative ways to meet patients' needs now and in the future. We can build on our long record of health care excellence. But to do this, we need to maintain the high-quality health care services we have today, to address the needs of people who could be better served by our health system and to make sure that every dollar possible goes directly to the services people depend on. This government's vision of health care is based on meeting those challenges.

It's a vision of health services that are there when each of us and our families need them, provided by the best-qualified people in the right way, in the right setting and in a reasonable amount of time.

We have work to do on that, hon. Chair. There are concerns and there are challenges, but that is the vision we have to work towards. It's also a vision of society that gives each of us the tools to make healthier choices for ourselves. We all have a responsibility to do that. It's what our public health system can and should provide. If we're going to do this, if we're going to fulfil this more positive vision, then we need to start with the core of the system, the front line of health care in our hospitals and our community health services.

We need to make sure that we have a strong team of talented people on the front line, providing skilled and compassionate care when we need it most. We need to create new and innovative ways of delivering health care in British Columbia to improve patients' access to health services, such as the new community health centre that will be built to serve the Renfrew-Collingwood neighbourhood in East Vancouver -- an announcement I had the pleasure of attending with the Premier and the Vancouver-Richmond health board earlier this week.

We need to carefully allocate our limited resources both to supporting the system and to compensating the people who work in it. When there are limited tax dollars to go around, we need to find a careful balance between the needs of all of those people who work in our health care system and, most importantly, a balance with the needs of B.C. patients.

We've also got to make sure we're meeting the needs of those people who could be better served by our existing health care system. This includes seniors, who need a range of care options as they -- or we -- age. I'm pleased to serve as Minister Responsible for Seniors, especially since next year, 1999, has been designated as the International Year of Older Persons. We'll be designating people here who will be eligible to apply to be a part of such a year, to be acknowledged.

I look forward to the completion of this government's continuing care review, which will make recommendations that I expect will lead to a more flexible, responsive and client-focused approach to caring for elderly British Columbians -- our respected elders.

We also need to improve care for people who require mental health services. In the past, too many people with mental health illnesses have had to turn to acute-care hospitals rather than to more appropriate care. We've made major progress in the last few months by developing a seven-year mental health plan to make sure that every person disabled by a serious mental illness will be connected with the services they need. The key to that principle is flexibility and appropriate care to meet individual needs, particularly through increased housing and improved access to care at the right place and at the right time.

The first 200 units of new housing will be in place by the end of this summer. Another 2,600 supported-housing units will be added over the next seven years. The mental health plan will provide more outreach programs, more caseworkers and more emergency and 24-hour care. It will better serve people with mental illnesses, and it will relieve pressures on our hospital and emergency services.

In terms of the 1998-99 budget, I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Health's budget will help us make progress with the mental health plan and the other key areas I've mentioned. The ministry's budget for 1998-99 is increased by $228.5 million over last year, marking the seventh straight year that the budget has increased and making us the only province in the country that has increased its health budget every year for the last seven years. It will ensure that B.C. will continue to have the best-funded health care system in Canada.

This 3.3 percent increase allows our health system to keep up with growing and changing health care needs. B.C. health authorities will receive $63 million more in operating funds for hospitals. We have taken extra steps beyond that to make sure that waiting times for surgery and treatment in the hospitals are kept at reasonable levels. We know that they are not always so at this time, but there are additional steps I've talked about and more I will talk about, which show that work is underway.

That's why we've added $141 million to our annual health budget over the last seven years, targeted specifically at reducing wait times for key procedures. That's why earlier this year I introduced a new provincial advisory committee on health care access to look at ways of reducing waiting times and improving the management of waiting lists. That's why I announced $8.5 million in new funding specifically to provide additional cardiac care procedures. Our commitment to keeping waiting times reasonable is absolute. If problems emerge in the future, we will respond to them.

Of course, our health system includes more than B.C.'s hospitals, and the budget recognizes that. The budget provides major increases in other areas that help take pressure off of our hospitals, allowing them to focus their resources on the acute care services they're designed to provide. The budget provides $37 million in new funding, which is a 12.5 percent increase for adult mental health, including $10 million to begin implementing the new seven-year mental health plan that will create a better safety net of affordable housing and access to care for people with mental illness.

It provides an increase of more than $9 million, or 7 percent, for emergency health services to improve the ability of our provincial ambulance fleet to respond effectively to urgent health needs.

[ Page 10153 ]

The budget includes an increase of more than $10 million, which is 7 percent, for public and preventive health services to expand early intervention and prevention activities. It includes $66 million, or a 16 percent increase, for Pharmacare to make sure that British Columbians can continue to afford the prescription drugs they need. In addition, the Medical Services Plan premium assistance program has expanded to include 10,000 more people. As well, the 90,000 people who are already receiving premium assistance have had their premiums either reduced or eliminated. That's a total of 100,000 people in this province who receive premium health care assistance.

Total spending for the year will be $7.4 billion, an increase of nearly $2 billion or one-third in the entire health budget since 1992. All of this adds up to a continued strong commitment to health care in British Columbia. We invest more per person in health care than any other province. Doctors' fee schedules are higher in British Columbia than in any other province. We've increased health funding substantially for seven straight years, and we've come a very long way. This budget is another step forward. It's a step toward fulfilling our vision for British Columbia's health system.

We've recognized for a long time that by itself, increasing the budget isn't going to meet the challenges that are out there. We also need to make better use of the resources that are already in the system. That's why health care decision-making and delivery are now largely in the hands of community and regional health authorities. We're working closely with them to make sure that existing resources are well used and that new resources are devoted directly to patient care in the areas where they are needed most.

Since the Better Teamwork, Better Care approach was introduced in 1996, the ministry and the health regions have jointly eliminated from our health system a total of more than 500 administrative positions. This has freed up approximately $40 million, which has been redirected to the patient services that British Columbians depend on. So we're not just spending more -- although we are spending more -- we're also spending it smarter.

Just before I conclude my remarks, I do want to say just a bit more about the regionalization of health care decision-making and service delivery. Moving local health care delivery and decision-making to British Columbia's regions and communities has been a large and important . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . and yes, sometimes bumpy task. We knew it wouldn't be easy, and that's why we promised to listen to people in the regions and make adjustments along the way to make sure that the change was going to be a change for the better. We've done just that. I'm pleased to report that this transition is almost complete. Together we've created a coordinated network of community and regional health authorities, and they are doing a superb job. These people know their communities, and they are in a strong position to make sure that local and regional health services fit with local needs and priorities.

The Better Teamwork, Better Care approach is working, and it's going to make it easier to respond to the needs of groups which could be better served by our health system.

This year marks a significant change in the way we approach the health care budgeting process. Local health authorities now have an opportunity to match allocation decisions to the health care priorities of the communities they serve. We in government still have a responsibility to ensure that our health dollars are being spent in a way that ensures the best possible care.

The health authorities have been asked to submit detailed budgets to the ministry, outlining how this year's funding allocations will be utilized. Once those budgets are received -- and there are still some to be received -- they'll be analyzed by ministry staff to ensure that appropriate services are in place to meet health care needs. We'll work closely with the health authorities throughout this year to help them address areas of pressure within their budgets -- and we know that those are there -- and to ensure that existing funding is being put to best use.

People in the regions are driving the effort to be innovative and to find cost-effective solutions that minimize administrative costs and put resources where they're needed most, which is in patient care.

Introducing this new way of health decision-making and service delivery has been a big job and, as I said earlier, sometimes a bumpy one for everyone. But the benefits will be long-lasting and will be felt by people in each of our communities, who will encounter a more responsible local health system in the future. When I look just at my own health authority, the ownership that people in my community are beginning to feel for the health services in our community is quite extraordinary. So the progress even over a year has made a huge difference in the community's investment in that health care.

In conclusion, hon. Chair, the budget allows us to move forward toward that future, while maintaining the quality health system that we have today. It allows us to make progress in meeting the needs of those people who could be better served by our health system and those whose unique needs require special attention, including seniors, people with mental illnesses, members of minority cultural groups, people living in remote and rural areas, aboriginal people and children. This budget will help us to spend smarter to make sure that precious health dollars are going directly to patient services. There is no doubt that our health system faces challenges and is experiencing great change.

Our responsibility isn't to resist the change or to give up on our public health system. Our responsibility is to adapt and change, so that we can protect the system and maintain the principles of medicare which we embraced as a country in 1965. Our government accepts this responsibility, and we've been making what are sometimes difficult choices that are necessary to make sure we succeed.

As I look to the future, I'm confident that our vision will be fulfilled, that we will meet the diverse health needs of British Columbians and that we will maintain and improve our health system for our children and our grandchildren. This budget will help us to fulfil that vision.

S. Hawkins: I want to say that we are fortunate indeed that the front-line health care workers in this province are as committed as they are to our public health care system and to patients. That includes nurses, doctors, community health workers, hospital workers, volunteers and administrators. I thank them, too, for their commitment to patients in the province.

But as I travel across the province, the message has been clear to me. In the last couple of years and this year -- because I've been travelling the last few months -- front-line workers are telling me that they're having to do more and more with less and less. That message seems to be clear to patients across the province too.

[ Page 10154 ]

There was an interesting Angus Reid poll done in the summer of 1998. They asked a bunch of health questions, and almost 50 percent of people polled thought that the quality of health care in B.C. was quite poor or just satisfactory. Now, if the health care is as great as this minister is saying it is, that perception isn't there among patients and people across the province. Almost 50 percent -- 46 percent -- felt that the quality of health care across the province was quite poor or just satisfactory.

The people who were polled were asked: "Over the past five years, do you think the health care of B.C. is -- what?" Well, about 60 percent -- two-thirds -- felt that the quality of health care had deteriorated in the last five years. When asked, "Who do you think is most responsible for the decline in the quality of health care?" -- big surprise -- over 40 percent thought it was the provincial government.

I can listen to the minister's wonderful words, but I think we also have to be cognizant of perceptions out there, of what patients and people across the province think the health care system is doing for them and what they think about the quality of health care in the province. I can honestly tell you that in the last couple of years that I've been the Health critic and have been following health care in the province, I'm finding that the Minister of Health's response to health care issues, frankly, has been based on a crisis management style. I think that's wrong.

I think that the only time the ministry responds to an issue is when it's slapped on the front page of the paper. We've seen that over and over again. It's been evident in various services across the province.

[4:45]

If we look at the B.C. Ambulance Service, we've heard members in the House raising the issue of ambulance service being gutted in rural areas and of patients not getting the service when they need it. We've seen some examples of that in the north, with air ambulances not getting to patients in a timely manner or not getting to them at the right place. That is a huge concern. We've heard all kinds of ambulance stories, where there have been inadequate response times and where there have been delays. That is a huge concern.

The minister talked about waiting lists. I can tell you that that is one of the biggest issues I deal with as a critic. I get letters and calls from family members, from patients, from providers and from front-line workers across the province. Waiting lists are a huge issue. I don't care how much money this minister or this ministry says they've put into waiting lists. If you don't have a plan, you're never going to be able to manage those waiting lists -- never -- and there is no plan.

The money keeps going in, and they can stand up every year and tell me they're putting more money into waiting lists, but this year I hope they stand up and tell me what their plan is for those waiting lists. You can appoint as many commissions, as many committees and as many consultants as you want, but unless you actually put that plan into place, you are not going to manage waiting lists.

In the last few years, they've been telling us how much money they've been adding into cardiac wait-lists and orthopedic wait-lists, but no one tells us how many patients are actually benefiting from that and how much we've reduced it because they've put in the money. Now we find that the lists are growing every year. How come they're growing every year? Is the need that great, or is it because there's no provincial registry or plan that's actually looking at it in a global way and trying to attack it that way? The waiting lists for all kinds of tests, surgery treatment and cardiac surgery are going to be issues that we'll raise in these estimates.

Mental health has to be one of the saddest legacies of this ministry. For the last seven years, this ministry was involved in downsizing Riverview and saying they were going to put those resources back into the community. We never saw any evidence of that, and this minister -- this is the second minister I've dealt with -- stands up and says that this ministry listens. They certainly didn't listen to the patients, advocates and families who spoke about the horrendous trials they went through with family members and loved ones with respect to mental health services and resources.

Now we're told that there's a mental health plan. It was announced with big fanfare, as the ministry often tends to do. We've heard of all kinds of plans in the last seven years. We've heard of three-year plans, seven-year plans, 20-year plans -- whatever. Anyway, now there's another plan, and we'll get into that in these estimates as well. Frankly, we heard that there was a plan, and it was way back in February or March, I believe, that it was unveiled. But do you know what? We still don't have an implementation framework.

We hope that by the time these estimates are done, there will be something in writing, on the record, about where this money -- there's supposed to be $10 million -- is supposed to be spent this year. We are now in the second quarter of this year, and we still don't have any idea of where that $10 million is going to be spent.

HIV/AIDS is an appalling, appalling issue in downtown east side Vancouver. We are known as the AIDS capital of the world, if you can imagine that, in downtown east side Vancouver. We have asked this ministry for an AIDS strategy. We have asked them for some kind of provincial plan, but we still don't have that in place. We know, again, that there was a committee struck . . . . This has got to be the ministry of committees and reviews. All of that is done, but we still don't have a strategy. A few weeks ago, or maybe it was a month or so ago, I did see an ad for a provincial AIDS strategist in the ministry.

We'll have to find out if that person was hired. There are huge funding issues involved in that.

This minister can stand up and say how much they're helping patients, but I can tell you that patients weren't very happy when their Pharmacare fees went up. Working families got hit with that raise on their Pharmacare deductibles, and there are all kinds of fees that went up this year. The budget was brought in with fanfare, and they were saying how they were helping everybody. Then we started hearing how patients and families were going to get hit with other fees, and we'll talk about those.

Regionalization, again, is still an issue. We saw the auditor general do a report on regionalization, and certainly we're going to discuss that. It's interesting, because Children and Families just went through a contract and program restructuring process. The review that came out from that ministry was that it was not viable. It was not good for that ministry, and they abandoned it. I can tell you that a lot of the issues that that reviewer used on Children and Families, I'm sure