1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7819 ]

CONTENTS

Petroleum And Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands) Act

(Bill 18). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading — 7819

Engineers Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading — 7819

Ministerial Statement

Social housing. Hon. Mr. Kempf — 7820

Mr. Blencoe

Tabling Documents — 7820

Oral Questions

Regal Place housing project. Mr. Blencoe — 7821

Premier's principal secretary. Mr. Stupich — 7821

Alleged union intimidation. Mr. Parks — 7821

BCRIC shares. Mr. Williams — 7821

New paper plant for Canada. Mr. Williams — 7822

Advertising of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Macdonald — 7822

Vancouver municipal finances. Mr. Mowat — 7822

Expo passes. Mr. MacWilliam — 7822

Cypress Park. Mr. Macdonald — 7822

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

On vote 54: minister's office — 7823

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Gabelmann Mr. Howard Ms. Brown Mr. Skelly Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Richmond

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1986

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like the members of the House to join me

today in welcoming a dear good friend of mine from Terrace who is the

business representative of the Tunnel and Rock Workers' Union. He has

done a tremendous amount to advance the cause of working families in

that area. So would the House join me in welcoming Mr. Bruce Ferguson.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to

welcome two very good friends and excellent citizens of Richmond, Olga

and Milan Ilich.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to

introduce a longtime friend from Powell River, Mrs. Edith Jones, and

her friend from Victoria, Mrs. Beth Taggart. I hope the House will join

me in welcoming them.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join with

me in welcoming three members from the University of British Columbia

Alma Mater Society — three young people who, I'm sure, will be the

leaders of the future: Glenna Chestnutt, Rebecca Nevraumont and Nancy

Bradshaw. Would the House join with me in welcoming them.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a group of

students from John Barsby Junior Secondary School in Nanaimo, with

their teacher Mr. Samborski. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming

them.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome

two members from the interior: Mr. John Madsen, industrial relations

manager for Hiram Walker in the Winfield-Kelowna area; and Mr. Bill

Adams, president of the UAW and representative for the 160 workers at

the Winfield distillery plant.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome Mr.

Jonathan Higdon, legislative assistant to Bob Wenman, Member of

Parliament from Langley.

Introduction of Bills

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

(VANCOUVER ISLAND RAILWAY LANDS) ACT

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands)

Act.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be

introduced and read a first time now, and with that I'd like to make

just a few explanatory remarks. The Petroleum and Natural Gas

(Vancouver Island Railway Lands) Act is an important piece of

legislation designed to allow exploration for oil and gas on Vancouver

Island to proceed, while at the same time protecting the interests of

the Island property owners. In some cases the ownership of the oil and

gas rights cannot be determined in advance with any degree of

certainty. The reason for this uncertainty is the vague and complicated

nature of the grant of land for the creation of the Esquimalt and

Nanaimo Railway in 1884. Although the land changed hands many times

over the years, the E&N always reserved the subsurface and mineral

rights. In the 1970s it surrendered those rights to the province.

However, in some cases the question arises whether the petroleum and

natural gas rights also reverted to the province at that time. There is

no single clear

interpretation and the situation may be different for

each parcel of land. Therefore we have brought forward this bill to

remove the legal uncertainties so that exploration can proceed in the

normal way.

This legislation will protect the interests of all those who may

have a possible claim to oil and natural gas rights, while giving

security of title to those companies granted drilling rights. The bill

confirms title to the province, but provides a system of compensation

for landowners where appropriate.

With this legislation in place, I'm confident that we'll see an early start of gas exploration in the Nanaimo area.

Bill 18 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.

ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Engineers Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. SMITH: In speaking to introduction of the bill, this

is a bill that will amend the engineering act, one of the professional

acts that has had a good deal of review with the profession. This will

enable the B.C. Association of Professional Engineers to effectively

regulate admission, competence and discipline among its membership.

There are presently 12,000 registered professional engineers in

British Columbia who are overseen by this association. Their

legislation has not been effectively amended during the past 26 years,

and yet their activities have changed dramatically, just as the

lawyers. In meeting current requirements, the bill will give them more

flexibility in structuring their internal committee system and in

discharging their responsibilities in the public interest.

There are a number of changes that allow them to keep apace with

changes in practice. There's a new provision which clarifies that where

a corporation practises engineering, the individual engineers are

accountable. There's provision for committees to conduct investigation

and disciplinary procedure, and it introduces the concept of a civil

remedy for offences under the act. The offences of fraudulent

registration and practising without registration are replaced with a

statutory tort which empowers the association to take civil action and

claim exemplary damages against a person practising engineering without

registration.

I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its speedy passage.

Bill 19 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.

[2:15]

[ Page 7820 ]

SOCIAL HOUSING

HON. MR. KEMPF: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Mr.

Speaker, I am greatly distressed, in fact fed up, with the untiring

efforts of certain elements to manipulate the media, in presenting

sensationalized distortions of social housing in this province. Without

doubt, in my mind, their motives are not pure but politically

motivated. We continue to hear of the downtown east side problem, but I

want to go on record in this House as stating most emphatically that if

any evicted individual in need of housing assistance will contact the

B.C. Housing Management Commission in Vancouver, we will ensure that

those needs are met.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the members of this House that to date

only 13 people have approached the Housing Management Commission for

assistance; none has been turned away. Of that number, six have refused

available accommodation, four have been housed, and three are in the

process of being dealt with right today.

Statements that have been communicated through the media have been

greatly exaggerated. I am certain it has not been accidental; purely

purposely done, Mr. Speaker. I do invite those who know of such people

in distress — and have been on the radio as late as this morning

talking about it — to take their housing needs to the B.C. Housing

Management Commission; and my commitment is that they will be looked

after.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has recognized the second member for Victoria in response to the ministerial statement.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't take much time, Mr. Speaker. This

government continues to try to draw the heat away from what's happening

in Vancouver. They know that the country is watching this scandal and

this human misery that's happening in Vancouver, and they are

attempting by falsehoods to cover up their incompetence, their lack of

caring and a Premier that has indicated that there is no problem. But

the people of British Columbia know there is a problem, and they want

action.

Six hundred people have so far been evicted, and it is going to get

worse, and this government has taken no action. The city of Vancouver

is the only level of government — the provincial government refuses —

that is trying some resources to try to deal with the problem in this

area. British Columbians every day continue to be offended by the

actions or the lack of action by this government. They are offended by

this Premier and by this government.

Expo, yes; evictions, no. That should be the motto: Expo, yes;

evictions, no. This new Minister of Housing has appointed a commission,

the trash and thrash commission, to try to cover up his inadequacies

and his inability to take any action for the people of this province.

The record is there, and the people want action. They believe those

British Columbians — the elderly, the seniors and the handicapped —

require legislation for protection; otherwise this government continues

on its course. It does not care about ordinary British Columbians.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the

second report of the Special Committee of Selection. I move the report

be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. MOWAT: I move that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted.

MR. HOWARD: On the motion to adopt the report, Mr. Speaker, I

think we need to express some discontent at the structure of the

committees, the ratio of membership on those committees, as between the

government side and the opposition side. The ratio is two to one: on

every committee, for every one member that comes from the opposition,

there are two from the government, completely out of whack with the

ratio of membership in this House.

Obviously, the purpose is, even if the committees were to meet, and

most of them haven't met since this Premier became the Premier of the

province… Even if they were permitted to meet, it is a guarantee that

the government wants to control every aspect of political life,

including the committees. The Premier can look with a smirk on his face

about it, but that's exactly what it reflects, Mr. Speaker: the

determination of this Premier to run roughshod over everybody's rights

regardless of who they are.

The ratio is wrong. Two to one is an inappropriate structure for

these committees. We fought this in the committee itself. We want to

express that now as well. What should occur, if there is any element of

decency at all on the other side of the House in considering these

matters, is to have the ratio reflect the membership of parties in this

House, or government and opposition in this House, to the whole of the

membership of the House.

I would therefore move, seconded by my colleague the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke), that the motion be amended by deleting the

word "adopted" and the following substituted therefor: "...recommitted to the said special committee with instructions that each

said select standing committee of this House be restructured so

membership thereon from the government side and the opposition side

bears the same ratio to the whole of the said membership of each

committee as is the case in the House."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Nicolson

Gabelmann

Williams

Lea

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 24

Brummet

Waterland

Segarty

Kempf

Veitch

Richmond

Fraser, R.

Schroeder

Passarell

Michael

Davis

Mowat

Fraser, A.

Nielsen

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Ritchie

Rogers

Reid

Parks

Strachan

Ree

Reynolds

Motion approved.

[ Page 7821 ]

Oral Questions

REGAL PLACE HOUSING PROJECT

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing. The provincial government has poured $600,000 of

public money into a housing project at Regal Place on Hastings Street

in Vancouver. The private owner of that project has evicted 18 needy

residents so that he can cash in on Expo. Will the minister explain why

the government is sinking all that public money into a project which is

throwing the needy onto the streets, and why this government has now

become a partner in the Expo evictions?

[2:30]

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'm glad that member asked me that question

today. I'd like to answer it in detail. The rental conversion act

allows for the issuance of a general mortgage and does not provide

government with the capability of preventing the borrower from making

the units available for rental purposes on a daily basis. We agree that

this leasehold and rental conversion act may have been better-drafted

when it was established by government. However, there was little the

present government could do about that, as the act was implemented by

the NDP on June 20, 1974, when they were in power. Next question.

MR. BLENCOE: How long has this government been in office? How

long have they had a chance to change this? Six hundred thousand

dollars; 1982. Where is the competency in government? You could have

changed this legislation.

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to ensure that

the requirement of providing this money for housing is met? If not, is

he prepared to recommend that that mortgage be cancelled?

HON. MR. KEMPF: There are hundreds and hundreds of vacant

housing units in the greater Vancouver area. The problem is not supply;

the problem is affordability. Yes, the government is doing something,

through the SAFER program, the GAIN program. Now, right at this very

moment, a new rent supplement program is in the final stages of

negotiation with the federal government. Yes, this government is very

concerned and is doing something, Mr. Member.

PREMIER'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

MR. STUPICH: I have a question for the Premier. During the

Premier's absence, the Minister of Finance took as notice questions

pertaining to the appointment of Jerry Lampert in the office at a

salary of more than seven times what the average worker on unemployment

insurance would receive. Can the Premier confirm that Mr. Lampert's

primary experience with the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario,

the Social Credit Party of B.C. and the Progressive Conservative Party

of Canada is as a campaign manager?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes. That is not what Mr. Lampert's job is.

It's to be principal secretary of the Premier's office, the same

position that has been held by two other occupants, and it is a

political position within the Premier's office, counter to the

professional position of Deputy Minister, and has always been so.

MR. STUPICH: Not always, but it has been for some time.

I'm advised that Mr. Lampert's salary is $77,000 a year. Will the

taxpayers also be paying for a government car for Mr. Lampert, and

travel expenses?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member's research is incorrect as to

the salary amount. I suggest you go back to the researchers in your

office, who continually provide material for the member for Vancouver

East, who is always wrong. But I do suggest the position takes with it

the same expenses as that of a deputy minister, and the position was

created so.... as well as vehicle.

MR. STUPICH: So the answer is yes to all the questions. On the research, is it not true that Public Accounts was correct in stating that the salary for the previous holder of that office was $77,000, or is Public Accounts wrong?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The position is paid as a deputy minister 6.

MR. STUPICH: Is it not true that that position went out of fashion some

six months ago and ceased to exist?

ALLEGED UNION INTIMIDATION

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour — I trust a question illustrative of a little better research than the

former questions.

There have been allegations that union members of East Indian

descent were coerced by their union leaders into supporting the

nomination of Glen Clark over Margaret Birrell during the Vancouver

East NDP nominating meeting in December 1985. One Renee Rodin of

Vancouver stated in a letter to the editor in a recent issue of Out of Line :

"Who vindicates the Indo-Canadian workers who were intimidated by their

unions into voting for Clark?" Has the Minister of Labour received any

information regarding the alleged union intimidation during the

nomination meeting, and if so, have you initiated an investigation into

this matter?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I don't know anything about what the member

is asking. I haven't received any complaints to my office about it, so

I would be glad for the member to provide me whatever information and

detail he's got. As I understand it from the member's question, it's

something that happened within the framework of the New Democratic

Party, and I don't see that I've any jurisdiction to interfere in that

particular area. But if the member wants to give me the information,

there may be a case for the human rights council or something like that

in this matter.

BCRIC SHARES

MR. WILLIAMS: My question is for the Premier. Can the Premier

advise the House what the shares of B.C. Resources Investment Corp. are

trading for today?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a matter of public record, hon. member.

[ Page 7822 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: It was $1.49, but they're $1.35 today; they've

moved down so fast. I thought I could ask the question on $1.49 day.

They're now $1.35 — the experiment in people's capitalism.

NEW PAPER PLANT FOR CANADA

MR. WILLIAMS: A further question to the Premier. A week ago

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) indicated that he would be more diligent in the future,

since he had not concerned himself with the major expansion of the

Weyerhaeuser company in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan to the tune of $250

million for a new paper plant. Could the Premier advise me or the House

if his Minister of Industry has concerned himself about the Saugbrugs

corporation, which is planning a major new super-calendered paper plant

in Canada?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the member is afraid to ask a question

directly to the Minister of Industry, I'll be pleased to ask it for him

to bring the answer back, if that is a problem that he has.

ADVERTISING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. The liquor regulations were changed for transit shelters

to carry liquor advertising — no restriction to wine. Why was that done

and at whose behest? Where did the suggestion come from? Did it come from Jim

Pattison and Seaboard Advertising, who immediately got the contract?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask a question. Never mind your allegations.

MR. MACDONALD: I asked a question: where did it come from?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Again, Mr. Speaker, the member's information

is partially correct. He's half right. I hope he's.... The

regulations were changed to allow for the advertising of a British

Columbia product at the gates of Expo. That's British Columbia wine.

We'll do everything we possibly can during Expo for the millions of

people who are coming here to see this fair, hon. member, to ensure

that we sell British Columbia products to the world and that we employ

British Columbia people.

VANCOUVER MUNICIPAL FINANCES

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs. In light of the recent press reports

that the hard-pressed taxpayers of Vancouver city would be subject to

increased property taxes as a result of a proposed $13 million deficit

of the Vancouver School Board and a proposed $11.5 million deficit of

the Vancouver city council, which does not include the $10.4 million

transferred from interest earned from the property endowment fund, I

ask the minister what steps he is considering to help the homeowners,

particularly in Vancouver–Little Mountain, faced with these property

tax increases caused by the deficits, which could range from $150 to

$500 per household.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's

question, of course this ministry has no jurisdiction in the setting of

municipal tax rates. However, through the revenue-sharing program our

government does give direct assistance to the cost of operating

municipalities. Within revenue-sharing there is that component known as

the unconditional grants, and the unconditional component of the

program this year has been increased from $90 million to $95 million

for the province. The portion of that going to the city of Vancouver is

in excess of $16 million, which is increased by approximately $500,000

or $600,000 over last year. Mr. Speaker, we do not attach any strings

as to how that is spent, but we can only hope that they will take the

lead of this government in holding down taxes, and use that money to do

so: follow the lead of other municipalities throughout the province.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. Due to the fact that the city of Vancouver is

continuing to dig very deeply into the property endowment fund, is

there anything that the minister could do to stop the erosion of this

fund so there will be something left for the youth of tomorrow in the

city of Vancouver?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of anything

that this minister or government could do in that regard. However, I

will be very pleased to look into the matter and report back to the

member.

EXPO PASSES

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Tourism. Holders of Expo passes are apparently required to write their

signature on the application form, onto which is later superimposed a

liability waiver. I assume this is sort of the opposite of the

disappearing ink act.

I would like to ask the minister to explain the reasons for this

unorthodox procedure and whether such action may constitute a change in

the conditions of contract without authorization or knowledge of the

purchaser.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To the member, we are aware that this has

happened, and I am told by counsel for Expo that this will not

constitute any breach of contract and that the conditions will also be

clearly posted at every entrance to the world's fair. So it is not

foreseen that there will be any problem, Mr. Speaker.

CYPRESS PARK

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I

have a question about Cypress Park, which is a class A park. You have a

Cypress Trails Co. In there with a contract, and they're allowed to

charge skiers who use the groomed ski trails, but only that. Yet you've

been chasing anybody off that park, which is a class A park,

threatening to prosecute them through this private company. I would

like the minister to come back and give the House an explanation of

what the rights of this private company are in that park and how

limited those rights are and why they try to chase out of the whole

park everybody with skis.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member didn't ask me this question two months ago when it

[ Page 7823 ]

was a news item in the Vancouver Province and Sun newspapers.

However, I want to tell that member, as he is not aware, that there

are literally hundreds and hundreds of satisfied Vancouverites who use

Cypress Bowl — have done so all winter. But there is a very small

minority that are not happy with the present situation. If you'd done

your homework, you would have found out from those people that this

ministry is sitting down with them and trying to find a way by which

their wishes can be met as well. That's what we're here for: to meet

the needs of all British Columbians — and we will continue to do so.

[2:45]

HON. MR. SMITH: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Here in the gallery today are a number of

representatives of the provincial fire chiefs' association: Mr. Ted

Lorenz, Mr. Bill Dawson, Mr. Gerry Waddell, Mr. Fred Leeke and Mr. Al

Lequesne. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 54: minister's office, $205,714.

MR. MacWILLIAM: We've watched this minister sit here in

blissful ignorance of many of the problems that have been going on

around him, problems throughout the province of British Columbia, and

continuing to ignore the plight of those 195,000 individuals in the

province who continue to be unemployed. Thinking back to the earlier

part of the session and the Minister of Finance's budget speech, a lot

of that rhetoric was boasting about the success of the job creation

program of this government. In fact, they were boasting about it so

much that the Minister of Finance mentioned they would be cutting about

$11 million from the income assistance program, the reason given being

that that reflected the success of the job creation program in the

province of British Columbia. I want to remind the Minister of Labour

that there are still 195,000 unemployed people out there. There are

still, in this province, 223,000 people — men, women and children — who

are on income assistance. Those are families whose breadwinner has

exhausted the unemployment insurance program and can no longer collect

because they haven't worked for so darned long that they no longer

qualify under the regulations. Those individuals have had to go on

welfare: 223,000 men, women and children on income assistance in this

province.

Job creation. That is the biggest misleading statement that I've

heard in this House at this point. It's an absolute lie. You guys

haven't created jobs. There are no jobs for the interior regions of

this province. There have been jobs created in the Vancouver area, I

grant you that; but overall, the interior regions of this province have

had no job creation whatsoever — zero, zilch, nil. All the employment

creation has occurred within the metropolitan Vancouver area. Mr.

Chairman, it isn't me who makes that allegation. Look to the records of

the Employment and Immigration Canada, February 1986, report.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. I'll ask the committee to

please come to order. It's understandable that from time to time we may

have conflicting opinions about an item; that's why in committee we can

rise and speak to the estimates before us and state our opinion, but we

do it one at a time. If the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) wishes to enter the debate, he'll have every opportunity to

do so.

The member for Okanagan North continues.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, that is most kind of you.

Let me cite a statement made in the February 1986 report of

Employment and Immigration Canada. The minister seems to take issue

with the statement. The statement said that it's important to note that

all the employment growth in British Columbia — I'm paraphrasing — has

occurred in the metropolitan Vancouver area. In the outlying

communities there was zero job growth. This government has turned its

back on the people of the interior of this province. The interior

regions of this province have become regions of sacrifice. There has

been no job creation out there. You've got men and women in the

interior areas of this province who haven't worked for months, and even

years. You've done nothing about it, Mr. Minister. You've ignored their

problems. You've ignored their plight. And you sit there with your

arrogance, and pretend that everything is rosy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! One moment, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I withdraw the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Arrogance" — thank you.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Unemployment in the west Kootenays is at 21

percent. The Minister of Labour should recognize that fact, because he

represents a portion of that area. Twenty-one percent unemployment in

the west Kootenays. In the Okanagan and in the southern interior areas

unemployment sits at 17.5 percent. What was it before the restraint

program? This government's restraint program was brought in in 1982.

Unemployment in the interior areas of this province was at less than 8

percent. We've gone from 7.7 percent in 1981 to over 17.5 percent in

1986. If you call that job creation, Mr. Minister, then there's

something seriously wrong. In Kamloops and in the central interior

they're sitting at 14.5 percent. Job creation hasn't occurred in the

interior regions of this province. In Kamloops 3,000 more people are

unemployed in March 1986 than in June 1981. In the west Kootenays 7,000

more people were unemployed in March 1986 than in June 1981. In the

east Kootenays, Mr. Minister, there were 8,000 fewer people working in

June 1981 compared to March 1986. Mr. Chairman, those figures put the

lie to the statement of job creation; that has been a misleading

[ Page 7824 ]

statement that this government has tried to sell out there in the real world.

Provincially unemployment has increased over 130 percent since this

government's restraint program was introduced in February 1982; 195,000

British Columbians remain unemployed; in 1981 the number was 92,000. A

93 percent increase in welfare since 1982. Business bankruptcies — read

the figures, Mr. Minister — 124 percent increase throughout the

province.

I want to read some figures specific to the region where I come

from, the Okanagan. In the construction occupations in the greater

Vernon area, in the north Okanagan, unemployment in that occupational

level alone is at 19 percent. In Revelstoke — the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) will verify, because he has never

argued these figures when I've presented them before — unemployment in

the construction sector is at 32 percent, Mr. Minister, and in Salmon

Arm, 17 percent. Ninety-three percent of the carpenters in local 1346

of the carpenters' union throughout the Okanagan are unemployed. And

you guys call yourselves the friend of the construction industry! What

a joke! You have done nothing for the interior, you have done nothing

for the Kootenays, you have done nothing for the province of British

Columbia.

I want to see your program for job creation. Show it to me and I'll

sit down and shut up. Show it to me. Because you haven't got one —

that's the problem. You never had one and you never will have.

In 1983, when I first ran for election, this government ran on a

program of "leave it up to the private sector." The private sector

would be the engine for job creation throughout the province. Leave it

up to them. They can do the job. All we have to do is sit back, get out

of the way, give them the right incentives and we'll be all right. That

was 1983. It's now 1986, and we still have almost 200,000 people

unemployed in this province. Your program hasn't worked.

Besides that, the whole idea that you tried to sell back then was

completely misleading, because you guys over there are the biggest

interventionists in the economy that I've ever seen. Your northeast

coal project has been an unmitigated disaster. All you did in northeast

coal was put over 9,000 people in the southeast out of work, because

you were competing with them. You guys have been the biggest

interventionists in the economy. You keep putting all the

responsibility on the private sector — on the small business sector —

and yet they've been down on their knees in this province. They haven't

been able to create jobs because the rest of the economy is faltering.

What about regional job creation? I would seriously like to hear

some long-range programs from this minister in terms of what he's going

to do to address the very high unemployment in his area, in my area, in

the area of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), in virtually

every area in this province outside of the lower mainland. What are you

going to do? I want to tell you that these grand-style projects such as

northeast coal and the other major projects that you've had — many of

them in the Vancouver area — may be good for those areas, but they act

as gigantic tax siphons taking money from people in the interior areas,

and displacing that money into other projects doesn't create many jobs

for people in my area. If people in my area want to go to work, they

have to move. Many of them are moving, Mr. Chairman. They're moving out

of British Columbia and to places like Ontario and Manitoba and other

provinces where they do have jobs. People right now are already voting

with their feet in this province, because they can no longer tolerate

the lack of direction that has been the hallmark of this government in

the last decade that it's been in power.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What are your plans for regional economic development — region by

region, community by community? I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that

this government has no plans, it has no strategy. It's been a failure

at job creation. It has broken the promise that it made to the people

in 1983 — the promise that British Columbia would lead Canada out of

the recession. What an absolute joke! Ever since the Premier made that

promise we've been pulling up the rear. This government has been a

failure, this minister has been a failure, and I want to tell you,

people out there no longer believe your story, because you haven't

delivered. You haven't delivered in job creation.

There are too many people still out there who are having to subsist

on a level of income assistance and welfare that is half the poverty

level. That's just not good enough. We need some action, we need some

direction and we need some hope in the future. Neither your ministry

nor this government has delivered.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, that was quite a performance

from the member for Okanagan North, who came to the Legislature a

couple of years ago holding out the promise of a bright future. He

talked about sitting here during the debate this morning listening to

the Minister of Labour talk about the policies of the government of

British Columbia — but you weren't here, Mr. Member, this morning.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I was listening.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: That's different than being here, hon. member. Just for the record, you weren't in here.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I was listening.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: That's different.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Labour has the

floor. Other members will have their opportunity to stand in the debate

under the estimates.

[3:00]

MS. BROWN: Are you trying to break our record?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: No, trying to catch up. I could never break it.

Hon. member, this morning we talked about tax reductions over a

three-year period in the amount of a million dollars. We talked about

the partnership program, we talked about the economic development

strategy program of the government of British Columbia. In the

meantime, when you talk about your own constituency.... Each

member, whether they're on the opposite side or government, has an

opportunity during the debate of each ministry's spending estimates to

put forward priorities and projects for their constituency that would

put people to work in their ridings. If

[ Page 7825 ]

you would spend your time in the House putting

forward those objectives on behalf of your constituency in the way that

Don Campbell, the former MLA for Okanagan North, did, perhaps the

people of Okanagan North would be better served and there would be less

unemployment in your particular constituency.

Yes, it's unfortunate that there are so many people out of work,

both in your constituency and across British Columbia and across the

country. But all I can say is that all of the signs and indicators that

we have show that the projects and the policies of the government of

British Columbia are having an effect...

AN HON. MEMBER: They sure are.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: ...a positive effect on decreasing the rate of unemployment in this province.

This province of British Columbia had the best record in job

creation of any other government across our country over the course of

the past year. That's no credit to the opposition party in this

Legislature, who have spent the last three years hiding their heads in

the sand, criticizing the government of British Columbia for their

policy initiatives and every effort that the government tried in order

to reduce the size and the cost of government, and to take the monkey

off the back of the taxpayers of this province. Propose, don't continue

to oppose.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, decorum in the

House is parliamentary. If members would allow the member who has been

recognized by the Chair to make his comments without interruption,

members would not be obligated to raise their voices above the din. I

would direct the hon. Minister of Labour that comments should be

addressed through the Chair, if you would, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: As the criticism was just levelled, I always

end up on a positive note. I never leave things hanging, and I want to

tell that minister that his concern about me bringing up positive

proposals for job creation for my area was addressed last December 3

when I presented a detailed policy statement for economic recovery in

the North Okanagan to your cabinet committee, which consisted of six

ministers, in the Vernon area. Those ministers refused to let me

present that policy paper on behalf of my own constituents. They

refused to let me. Regardless of that fact, I persisted. I persisted,

Mr. Minister, because I felt that job creation proposals — positive,

solid proposals — were worth fighting for.

I gave that paper to the minister in charge, who is not in the House

at the moment, and every committee member has that paper. The paper

should have been given to you. Obviously you haven't had time to read

it, but that program was a positive proposal for getting the community

of the North Okanagan to work, to involve the citizens of that

community at every level and to move forward with a job creation

program structured for the North Okanagan. Rather than listen to any

more silly rhetoric in the House, I already proposed that. Now if the

minister wants to criticize me on that, then I'm afraid you're

whistling up the wrong tree.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I remember the former MLA for Okanagan

North talking about all the projects and priorities for his

constituency, Lord rest his soul. He would talk to members of cabinet

and to the economic development committee about the projects and

priorities for his constituency, and he wouldn't call this House silly

rhetoric, because he would get up and participate in the same debate,

putting forward those same priorities and projects and programs for his

constituency in this Legislature time and time and time again.

But the guy wasn't in his grave when you had taken credit for some

of the projects that are taking place in that riding. I felt sad during

that period of time, because the guy devoted a great deal of time and

effort on behalf of his constituency. So I resent your comments with

respect to what you have said about silly debate in the Legislature and

about sitting here, as though it were a waste of time. If you feel that

way about it, perhaps there's another arena where you can participate.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, I resent the minister's statement, and

I also resent the fact that he's trying to utilize the memory of a

member who is no longer with us as a last defence for his position. I

think that that is a very distasteful type of defence, and I fully

respect the memory of that member, as well as I respected him in life.

However be that the point, the point that I want to make is that debate

in this House is only rational, reasonable and productive when there

are people — members and ministers — on the other side who have the

integrity and the open honesty to listen. I have not seen any evidence

of that minister's willingness to listen to positive and constructive

comments.

I have mentioned to the member — through you, Mr. Chairman — that I

have put forward a fairly detailed proposal on economic recovery in the

North Okanagan. If the member doesn't wish to recognize that as a

positive contribution, be that as it may; however, the contribution is

on record. I stand on record as defending the needs and the priorities

of the people of the North Okanagan, regardless of what that member

says.

MR. GABELMANN: The winner of that debate no doubt will emerge

following the next election when we welcome back the member for

Okanagan North and welcome back to the sawmill the Minister of Labour.

Sometimes it is necessary to put some of these rhetorical arguments

into a more manageable size. As I listened to the member for North

Okanagan and the minister's response, I thought about Campbell River.

Let's just see what has happened there in the last few years in terms

of government strategies for job creation.

Two things have happened in Campbell River, one community-based and

one an initiative of the government. The initiative of the government

had two parts. First was the establishment of an industrial park which

the community is forced to pay taxes to maintain although it is largely

empty and continues to remain empty for the most part. The next

initiative of the government was the so-called Partners in Enterprise

program which the district of Campbell River signed. Not a single

identifiable job has emerged in Campbell River as a result of that

program. Not one. Additional jobs are being created in Campbell River

by federal government participation with Crown Forest, in terms of

modernization of its plant, and additional jobs are being created in

[ Page 7826 ]

Campbell River as a result of the successful discovery of another ore body at the Westmin minesite.

The number of new jobs created in those two enterprises do not come

anywhere near to matching the number of jobs that have been lost as a

result of direct government activity in the last three years, including

the closing of offices, the centralization of ministry offices, the

cutting back of the public service and, more than that, the destruction

that has been wreaked on the forest industry by the policies of the

government. We've lost more jobs than we've gained on that balance, but

not a single job has been created as a result of the partnership

program. Not one.

But you know, there is a group in the community — and this is the

other side — comprised half of chamber of commerce representatives,

half local labour council representatives, the mayor and myself. We

have....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I was reading something here; I was laughing at it. Sorry.

MR. GABELMANN: I thought you were reacting to me. Because I

am making a serious point, one that a lot of people might want to

emulate. We in this committee of active trade unionists, active chamber

of commerce people, the mayor and myself have managed, with the help of

a lot of other people and of the federal government — not the

provincial government — now by last count to create 14 jobs, by

developing local initiatives and by helping to establish what's called

the SEEDS corporation up there, which provides additional money for

ventures who are unable to get the sufficient amount of capital from

the regular institutions. That's not very many jobs; it's only 14 so

far, and it may only add up to a few dozen over the course of a few

years. Hopefully it will do more. But you know, that community-based

initiative with some indirect federal government support — indirect in

the sense that it's the next agency that's been spun out of this group

— has managed to make a start. I think it's going to continue to be a

good start. It's really interesting to sit there and listen to the

chamber of commerce people and the trade union people working out ideas

as to how they can do more. But you know, the provincial government has

done absolutely nothing to help.

When that committee, among many others, went to this government for

the last two years, as it has, to try to get a $400,000 or $500,000

grant for a museum.... It is a $3 million construction project,

with all the money committed, with the exception of the provincial

contribution. All the rest of the money was committed: $300,000 was

raised in the community through individual donations, and the rest of

the money raised. The federal money was not able to be kicked in — $1.5

million of it — because their policy was that the province had to

contribute.

When this community group comes to the government and says, "For the

sake of $400,000, we can have a $3 million construction project, plus

we can add another couple of dozen permanent jobs to the community and

an additional tourist attraction for this island," the government says

no and has continued to say no. That's the kind of thing in microcosm

that we're talking about. The member for North Okanagan expressed it in

a different way. I wanted just to get it into a narrow focus.

The $400,000 would have been recouped by the province in income

taxes and other sales taxes alone from the construction project. They

would have got it back from the activity created. They could have

reduced welfare payments, the whole thing. You know, calculate the

whole thing out and you're going to get far more than a $400,000

benefit from a $400,000 investment, plus you've got the additional jobs

created. How do we get through? Those of us who sit on the opposition

benches get criticized by the minister for not making proposals. We

make proposals until our knuckles are sore from knocking on doors. We

can't get anywhere.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: This is not an agricultural project. I wasn't

even going to discuss that whole question at this point, but it seems

to me that if we're going to treat this issue seriously, we need to

cite some examples like that. Where is the government's strategy? Where

is the government's program? Where is the government's activity? Zilch.

The federal government, 3,000 miles away, pays more attention. This is

an area of the island where unemployment rivals that of Newfoundland.

It's really appalling.

Having said that, I want to move on to a couple of other things.

Last year, according to the federal government, the B.C.-Yukon area

underspent by $16 million the joint federal-provincial programs under

job development, job entry, skill investment and skill shortages. In

job development the underspending was allocation — and this includes

the Yukon for 1985-86....

[3:15]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't know what the minister is whispering

to me, but let me just say this, and then if my information is

incorrect, I'll be delighted to hear it. But according to the federal

government, in the last year — and it does include the Yukon, but

that's a small part — $32.5 million was allocated for job development,

but only $26.1 million was spent; $15.9 million for job entry, but only

$10.6 million spent; $5.4 million allocated for skill investment and

only $2.3 million spent; $1.5 million allocated for skill shortages and

only $600,000 spent. That's from a total of $16 million.

I guess the point that I was trying to make this morning, and in a

different way the member for North Okanagan was making this afternoon,

is that the allocations and the programs are inadequate, but as limited

as they are, they're not even spent. When we had the discussion this

morning the minister agreed that the summer student employment programs

were not spent — only 90 percent of the money was spent. Apparently the

same kind of thing happened in these joint programs: money not being

spent. I think it totals.... I said $16 million, and I was rounding

off; it's actually $15.7 million according to figures that were tabled

in the House of Commons.

Why? If I'm right, how is it that that kind of thing could happen?

Do we just not have the mechanics to be able to put into place programs

for which money has been allocated? I don't understand, and I'm not now

making the point about what you should do, and how much more of it you

should do; I'm making the point that what you already have agreed to do

you're not even doing. Why? What's happening? What's the problem?

What's the hangup?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I thank the member for his questions. I'd also like to congratulate the member on the

[ Page 7827 ]

initiative that he took in his own constituency

with respect to utilizing the facilities and services of the community

to provide employment opportunities. It is a carry-through of the

philosophy that we talked about this morning: governments and all

agencies of government — Canada, municipal government — working in

partnership with each other and recognizing that it's not just the

responsibility of the government of British Columbia or the government

of Canada. We all have to get involved in the process in creating

employment opportunities for our people.

The member talked about the $16 million of unspent money and said

that it was a joint program of the government of British Columbia and

it's not a jointly administered program, other than the summer

employment program you mentioned that I explained this morning, where

we have a budget, let's say, of $10 million, and employers make

application for students to participate in the program. If you as an

employer make application for ten, you may only take five or eight. In

the meantime we are stuck with the initial request, so what we are

trying to do there is have some follow-up with the employer so we can

get better utilization and total expenditure of that particular fund.

But the program that you talk about in terms of the $16 million is a

they have mentioned in that $16 million are not even running. I'm sorry

that I can't be of further assistance to the member in that area.

MR. GABELMANN: Have you talked to the federal government

about the inadequacy of it, and have you tried to persuade them to beef

up the delivery system? Have you talked to them also in terms of the

current negotiations with CJS, as a way of integrating them, so that we

can have locally administered programs of this kind so that we can take

maximum advantage of federal money?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Yes, hon. member, I did write to the Hon.

Flora MacDonald to express my concerns to her on behalf of the

government of British Columbia. What we're attempting to do in

umbrella agreement that we were talking about this morning is to try to

work out a way where the province of British Columbia and the

one-stop shops for employment opportunity programs throughout British

Columbia that will see the establishment of joint offices — government

of Canada and province of British Columbia — in terms of dealing with

all of those employment programs. To answer the member's question, I

did write to the Hon. Flora MacDonald and did express my concerns to

her, and that's the extent of what we are able to do.

own, and while we would like to influence them in every way we can to

participate in programs, in the final analysis the decision is theirs

to go whichever way they want to in terms of spending their own money.

MR. GABELMANN: Good luck in the attempt to establish one-stop

shopping in this area. It's dreadfully confusing to everybody involved.

Worse than that, it leads to these continued underexpenditures of money

that should be made available.

I just want to go back to the nice words the minister used about my

involvement. I didn't initiate this community activity in Campbell

River, but I was part of it. In those nice words he said that, yes,

it's good to have partnership from the community and the local

government and the province and Ottawa. Mr. Chairman, the partnership

really works very well. We have full partnership involvement with the

business community in Campbell River, the trade union community, the

district of Campbell River itself — the local government — the MLA and

the federal government. There is no partnership whatsoever in any way

with the provincial government, period. The only player not playing the

game is the province. What kind of partnership is that? What we have in

this province, in fact, is an ad campaign called partnership. That's

all we have.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's working.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the program may be working, but people aren't.

I want to move on to some other topics, the first one of which is

minimum wage. We went through this last year. I just want to go back to

when the minister was first named as Minister of Labour. He will

remember, and others will remember, that it was clear that the minister

at that time believed that the minimum wage — and this was some time

ago now — in British Columbia at that time was too low. He made it very

clear it should be increased and said so publicly. It was quoted in the

daily press and elsewhere that his view was that that wage should be

increased. What happened on the way to the cabinet room? Do you have so

little clout in that cabinet that you could not get through your

program to bring up the minimum wage? Do you have so little clout that

you could not effect that change, probably the major task facing the

minister when he took his job? There were others. There was the unholy

mess in the Workers' Compensation Board — and there were others — but

from a moral point of view no bigger task faced the minister, when he

first took that job, than the task of bringing the minimum wage up.

Three dollars and sixty-five cents an hour; $6,500 a year if you

managed to get a full-time job — the lowest minimum wage in this

country. When I made that statement last year I had to say: "except for

the country itself." I no longer have to say "except." British

Columbia, which has historically had the highest standard of living,

the highest wages, the highest incomes and among the highest levels of

minimum wage in the country, is now the lowest. We have become the

Alabama, the Newfoundland. I wonder how proud the minister is of that

fact.

Even the Vancouver Sun is

prepared to go to the extent of describing the minimum wage as "slave

wages." I was amused by that headline in their editorial on the minimum

wage. Just a few days prior to this editorial appearing, a member of

the press asked me if I would be prepared to describe the minimum wage

level in British Columbia as slave wages and I said no, I didn't think

it was quite slave wages. I didn't believe in exaggerating to make a

point so I said no, they're not slave wages. The Vancouver Sun , a few days later, was prepared to go further than I was, in terms of its characterization of the minimum wage.

Mr. Chairman, if you're on minimum wage, your total income....

If you're a women in Vancouver with one child and you manage to get a

full-time job at minimum wage, you're looking at $593 a month. The

other income that that

[ Page 7828 ]

woman would get is $31.27 from family allowance — a

total of $624.27 a month. Mr. Chairman, the minister goes through more

than that in expenses every month.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. GABELMANN: Want to bet?

Mr. Chairman, the minimal poverty line for that mother and her

five-year old, in this particular case, is $749.06 a month. On minimum

wage the income, including family allowance, is $624, a shortfall, in

rough numbers, of $125. I understand that people have even been turning

down jobs at Expo because they can't afford to work for $3.65 an hour

in Vancouver. I know people from the north part of Vancouver Island who

didn't apply for jobs at Expo, because even at $4 an hour — or $4.50 in

some of them — they couldn't afford to take those jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. GABELMANN: I read this document this morning. The

ministry's own information coming out of the women's programs makes the

point quite graphically about the need to increase those incomes. It's

implied. They're careful; they have to be. Government policy is not to

do it, so they have to be. When they say, "it may not be practical to

have the unskilled mother join the labour force," what more do you need

said? That is a very clever and careful way, on the part of the writer

of this particular paper, to say to the government that the

government's policies are inadequate.

I wouldn't advocate a massive hike all at once — I think that would

be too disruptive. But I think the government has to say to the public

in this province that at this time in our history the minimum wage

should be in the $5 range at least. Let's pick $5. It's $3.65 now;

that's $1.35 to go. The government should say that we're going to have

three increases: 50 cents, 50 cents and 35 cents, phased in six months

apart and beginning immediately with a 50-cent increase; another 50

cents six months after that; and another 35 cents six months after

that. By that time we will probably need to review it again. That's not

a particularly radical suggestion. That would just begin to get us into

line with other provinces who have lower standards of living and lower

costs of living than we do. The minister could salvage this whole

estimates debate by standing up now and saying: "Yes, I have a

commitment to raise the minimum wage, and I will do it. I will go to

cabinet, and I will bug them until they agree." Will the minister agree

that he will try to do that?

[3:30]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for North

Island for his question. We've had a lot of discussion about the

minimum wage in British Columbia over the course of the past year, as

has been the case for many years before. I met with a lot of business

people, and employers and employees alike, and talked to them about the

impact that an increase in the minimum wage would have on employment

opportunities for their people.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The member is talking about regulatory increase in the minimum wage.

In discussions I have had with the community.... Indeed, the

Macdonald report on the economy bailed out those discussions where it

said that every increase that you impose in the minimum wage would put

X number of people out of work.

All the discussions I have had with a lot of people with respect to

the minimum wage gave me a better understanding of how the minimum wage

is applied. It is used as an entry level into the workplace, wherever

you are working. As an individual obtains skills in his particular area

of work or expertise or whatever, the employer generally responds by

increasing his wage above the minimum. What the member has said is

quite right. It is a minimum wage. There is nothing stopping anybody

from paying above that amount. That's their choice, and that's worked

out between the employer and the employee.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I have to say that the government's policy at this time is not to

increase the minimum wage in British Columbia. Also, research we have

done shows that the employer community generally responds, as

individuals develop skills, with larger increases and more benefits for

them, in many cases going from $3.65 an hour up to $7, $8, $9 and $10

an hour.

MR. GABELMANN: Welcome back. Mr. Chairman. If raising the

minimum wage above $3.65 is going to cost us jobs — and that's what the

minister said — wouldn't the reverse be true: if you lowered the

minimum wage, we'd get more jobs? What was the magic that enabled you

to arrive at $3.65? Would $3.60 provide more jobs, or would $3.70 cost

jobs? How many jobs lost per nickel up and how many jobs gained per

nickel down?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The argument is ludicrous. The minimum wage is designed to make sure

that no employer pays an employee below a respectable income. Your

argument has only one conclusion. It is the Fraser Institute

conclusion, which is to abolish the minimum wage. If you argue that

jobs are lost as it goes up, you must then have lost some jobs between

zero and $3.65. And if you haven't lost any jobs between zero and

$3.65, how do you know you'll lose any between zero and $4.15? You

don't know.

The employers who pay $3.65 or less because they hire kids are the

McDonalds of the world. It's not just McDonald's. I cite them because

they spend the most on advertising, and I've got their name in my head.

But it is the McDonald's corporations of the world who pay $3.65. Do

you know who is subsidizing that $3.25 that they pay? Not me, but those

people who buy hamburgers and who, by paying an extra nickel, could

ensure that a decent wage could be earned. It probably wouldn't take a

nickel on a hamburger to be able to pay a decent wage in those jobs.

Why should those young people subsidize hamburger-eaters? What's the

logic of that? Are you saying that if you raise the minimum wage

McDonald's will close up shop and Burger King will go away? You don't

believe that. They might have to charge a nickel or a dime more on the

hamburger, but that nickel or dime means that people might earn a

decent level of income and some people who need to support kids might

be able to get a job. Why do you see only young kids in McDonald's and

not people who are supporting families? Because people who are

supporting families can't afford to work in there. So

[ Page 7829 ]

they stay on welfare instead. The reason we have

such low welfare rates, Mr. Chairman, is that the government doesn't

dare raise welfare rates any more because the disparity with the

minimum wage would be even greater than it is now.

I'm not going to persuade the minister, I'm sure, but let me just

say very clearly that $3.65 as the minimum wage in this province is

absolutely scandalous.

I promised a constituent of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that

I would raise this issue, and because it's a good letter I'm going to

read it.

"Dear Mr. Gabelmann:

"I'd like to ask for your help in drafting a new

clause to protect nannies in British Columbia. At present the

Employment Standards Act makes no provision for the unique work and

training of nannies. Unless they live in they are denied the protection

given to a domestic, and 'sitter' hardly recognizes their extensive

specialized training for the work of caring for young children."

Then she goes on to talk about details of her work and her training and her skills in caring for children. She says:

"I hope you will lend your support to quickly

introducing an amendment to the act to recognize the specialized

training and duties of the nanny and to encourage other young women to

take up this vital line of work."

Mr. Chairman, in the scheme of things that's a small point, but an

important one. There seems to me no reason whatsoever that this woman

working full-time in an important job caring for children, simply

because she leaves the home at the end of the day and lives somewhere

else, is not covered by the Employment Standards Act, which provides I

think $29.70 a day for minimum wage.

I raise this because I'd like the minister to consider, if not now

then sometime later, some specific action in that regard, but also to

raise the whole point of the exclusions in the Employment Standards

Act. A worker is a worker is a worker, and it shouldn't matter where

they work, what kind of industry it is. It shouldn't make any

difference whatsoever. They should be covered by minimum wage. And in

that respect the guaranteed minimum wage per day for a domestic worker

.... Incidentally, that is rarely ever met. Because of the kind of

relationship that often exists between the domestic and the employer,

the domestic is often afraid to find out what her rights are. So we've

got some really serious problems there. But in any event, if that

domestic works 10 hours, why should she work the last two hours for

free? Why can't we just have a simple set of standards in this province

that say: "A job is a job is a job, and a worker is a worker wherever

she works." We can set up some exclusions to deal with the piecework

question if you want to do that, in terms of the agricultural industry,

and obviously some of that's in place, but in my mind there is no

excuse whatsoever for establishing these special categories. People who

work in these special categories still have to eat and buy groceries

and exist and support families and do all of those things that

everybody else has to do.

So I raise that, and I'd be quite happy to share that letter with

the minister on a later occasion. If he wants to see the name of the

person, I'm sure she would have no problem with that. But that's a good

example of a case where the law just doesn't apply.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, it's a good suggestion

brought forward by the member for North Island, and I'll be pleased to

take the letter that he has, along with his comments, under advisement,

and see where it is that we can make new provisions to assist those

people, if we can, in the Employment Standards Act.

MR. GABELMANN: On another subject, we have in British

Columbia, as the minister knows, a piece of legislation called the Wage

(Public Construction) Act. It has a

section 6, which allows the

director of this act to establish schedules of fair wages. Do you

intend to bring them in?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: No.

MR. GABELMANN: Why?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Well, Mr. Chairman, the government policy

is at the present time that we not do that. As the member is well

aware, the parties are involved in collective bargaining at this

particular time, and I don't want to leave any.... I'd be lying if

I told the member that we were looking to do that. We're not at this

particular time.

MR. GABELMANN: Now this is not just a labour issue; this is

an issue that goes far beyond interests of people involved in the trade

union movement. I've no need to read all this stuff, but the demand for

the government to implement a fair wage

schedule under

section 6 of

that act is widespread. To pick a couple of examples, the roadbuilders

— the big road building contractors — as the minister knows, would like

the government to bring in a fair wage schedule. Of course the unions

involved in that industry would like them to, as well as in the whole

rest of the construction industry. The unions and the employers in the

CLRA have taken a position in favour.

But you know, I've received a copy of a letter that was addressed to

the minister, dated March 21, 1985, soon after your appointment. It

came from the Christian Labour Association of Canada — CLAC, as we

usually refer to it. I thought, well, we'll see what they have to say.

I got to page 4 of their letter and was actually surprised to see that

they asked for implementation of a

schedule to

section 6 of what I

would call the fair wages act. We've got the employers, we've got the

major unions, and we've even got the Christian Labour Association of

Canada asking for a fair wage schedule.

It might be useful just to make a couple of points about this. The

government has, by matter of policy, determined that they are going to

open access, or allow access, to public construction jobs in this

province to the non-union sector, clearly. That's what the fight was at

Expo. That happened through Coquihalla. It was a deliberate policy on

the part of the government to go to the low bid even though the bidding

was inequitable, because the unionized contractors had a certain wage

structure and the non-union had a different wage structure. That has

the initial public appearance of saving the taxpayers some money, on

what looks like good logic on the basis of cheaper contracts coming in

because the bid can be lower.

[3:45]

But you know, when you do that you don't take into account the cost

to society of having well-established companies go out of business:

major costs in terms of tax policy to both federal and provincial

governments; major costs to

[ Page 7830 ]

society when workers who have worked for years for

those companies have to go on to unemployment insurance and then later

onto welfare, while new people who are non-union come up through a

different route. You've got all kinds of costs involved in that.

You've got costs, because in the unionized sector the job training

is done by the companies and by the unions. In the non-union sector

there is no training. In fact, those non-union companies either put

untrained people on the job and have poor quality — which often happens

— or, because the unemployment situation is so bad, they take people

who have been trained using unionized contractors' funds and put them

on the non-union jobs to compete against the guy who paid for the

training.

The health and welfare benefits, non-existent for the most

part in

the non-union firms, are a cost to society in the long term. Pension

plans: a cost to society, when you take a policy of bringing non-union

into public construction. Long-term disability programs: rather than

using the negotiated plan, people end up having to use

taxpayer-supported facilities, or they go on welfare, or they go on

whatever else. There are immense costs. On top of that, when you have

some non-union companies coming in from other provinces, you have

additional costs because the income tax that the workers pay is paid in

the other provinces, and the profits that the company might have are

retained in the other provinces.

Those are costs that the government doesn't talk about, and the

public isn't well aware of. There are more, but those are the kinds of

costs that are involved, and the costs of shoddy work don't get counted

for some years either. We've seen lots of evidence of that in building

projects and in highway construction too, when bridges fall down on the

Coquihalla.

Mr. Chairman, I'll get off this quickly. I made the point this

morning that what we need in this province is a strong, healthy

contracting industry and a strong, healthy workforce who work for those

contractors. You cannot have that when you develop policy that

encourages this low-bid, non-union, inequitably based competition. One

solution to the problem is to do what the NDP government in 1972-75:

bring in a law that says all government-funded projects can only be

done union. I don't support that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yeah, but you got thrown out for that.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't get thrown out for that.

One of the solutions is to do that. The NDP government did that. I

believe that the proper solution, one that employers and employees

alike prefer and I personally prefer, is the fair-wage policy. Of 50

states, 30-odd have a fair-wage policy. The Davis-Bacon Act in the

United States provides a form of the fair-wage policy as well. We have

a fair-wage policy in Canada. We have fair-wage legislation in British

Columbia. Why have the legislation on the books if you don't believe in

implementing the policy?

It has immeasurable economic benefit to society and to the

government, when you have a stable, continuing construction industry.

You can only achieve that if the bidding out there is based on

equitable factors, and that needs to include the wages. I'm not

suggesting that the fair wage needs to be set at the negotiated rate.

It can be set at some other rate. The formula can be developed. There

are all kinds of mechanisms to do that. But it is essential that a

fair-wage

schedule be attached to the legislation that the minister

already administers.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member for North Island put forward an

argument for fair wage, and we had a presentation recently from the

construction industry and its unions, the teamsters, operating

engineers and tunnel and rock workers, with respect to fair wages.

Our position as a government is that all British Columbians are

taxpayers, and so should have equal access to jobs and projects put out

to tender on behalf of the people of British Columbia. And so I guess

what I am saying is that we're not to discriminate between union and

non-union members or union and non-union companies. I am only a trustee

of the taxpayers' dollars. What the member is suggesting is that we set

a

schedule of wages that should be paid to a group of individuals who

have a general recognition today that they have out-priced themselves

in the marketplace and want the government to come in and resolve the

problem for them in their particular interests. That would continue the

philosophy, hon. member, of buying solutions instead of solving our

problems.

I admire those who are involved in the construction industry. I have

been involved in it myself as an employee for quite a period of time.

People in the construction industry, employers and employees alike,

left their homes in Vancouver and other centres across British Columbia

and have pioneered the development of our province, in hydroelectric

development, railway development, hospital plants and other facilities.

They've pioneered those frontier areas and have made it their home in

many parts of British Columbia. In fact, when I hear about Socred

megaprojects, whether it is the Peace River dam or the Mica Creek dam

or northeast coal or southeast coal or any of those projects, I don't

look at them as Social Credit megaprojects like the members opposite

would talk about; I look at them as a tribute to the pride and the

perseverance of many individual British Columbians, their companies and

their employees who left their homes to make it a better place for all

of us to work and live.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, they have a general recognition that

they have out-priced themselves in the marketplace, and I hope that

they will approach the next set of collective bargaining with the

general realization that they have. It is my belief that once that set

of negotiations has taken its course, they will come out of that in a

far more competitive position than they are today, and we will be able

to continue the tradition begun 50 years ago or more in British

Columbia in developing our province, because they do have a lot of

highly skilled people, they do develop good training programs, and yes,

they have pension programs and so on for their employers. I know that

it is in the interest of the members of the union and the companies

that they not give that up and that they sit down, recognize the

economy of today and negotiate collective agreements that will

recognize the competitive factors that they're facing in 1986.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister thinks it's

appropriate for a Minister of Labour to take a position favouring one

side or the other in a set of contract negotiations.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, nobody can accuse this

Minister of Labour of ever taking sides — one side or the other — in a

dispute. This Minister of Labour maintains the position of trying to

serve the parties, using the

[ Page 7831 ]

personnel, the services and the programs of the

Ministry of Labour. How the parties choose to use those programs is

entirely their responsibility. Nevertheless, we will continue to assist

where called upon to assist.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Labour is

correct that he doesn't want the minister or the ministry — I wasn't

talking about the ministry; I was talking about the minister.... If

he doesn't think it's appropriate for him to take sides on one side or

the other in a set of contract negotiations, why then has he taken

sides in the dispute that's at the bargaining table this week by taking

the CLRA position against the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council —

just now in the House?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. The members of

the bargaining unit, if I understand the member for North Island

correctly, are equal partners in the system. The members of the

bargaining unit — whose members, he says, are today out of work — have

a general recognition that they are in difficult times. The member

himself, in arguing for fair wages for one particular group in our

society, would make that very argument for them. I would hope that the

member for North Island would not draw me into that debate or into

negotiating collective agreements on the part of one side or the other.

MR. GABELMANN: It doesn't take me to draw the minister in,

Mr. Chairman; he voluntarily walked into it himself before I even

raised the question. The minister said — it's obviously too early to

have the benefit of the Blues, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't

remember exactly — that he thought the people in the construction

industry who were bargaining at the present time should recognize the

realities out there and realize that they've overpriced themselves in

the market out there. That's the CLRA argument; that's the CLRA demand

for concessions. The BCYT position is no concessions. I make no comment

one way or the other. My comment about fair wages is a joint

employer-employee position. All my time as opposition Labour critic I

have been very careful not to take a position for or against particular

proposals or particular sides. I'm being criticized internally, in the

labour movement and in my party, for not standing up for a particular

union or group of workers, but I don't think it's appropriate for me as

an opposition critic. It surely is not appropriate for the Minister of

Labour to stand up in this House, while negotiations are actually

underway — they started on Tuesday, they were going on yesterday and I

assume they're still going on today — and argue in favour of the

employer's position. I asked the minister: does he ever take sides? He

says no — he shakes his head.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the roadbuilders and the

construction industry jointly made a presentation to government for a

fair minimum wage in the construction industry. I'm not going to

comment on it, other than to say that when I say "the industry," I mean

the employer-employee community.

They're going through a difficult period of time, a difficult period

of adjustment, and I hope that they will come out of the collective

bargaining process in a healthier situation than they've gone into it.

[4:00]

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not going to pursue it now. I want to have

a look at the Blues first, but I think it's important that your blind

allegiance to the employers in this province not be allowed to show

itself in public if you're going to do a job as an impartial and fair

Minister of Labour. You should in fact be an advocate for labour, for

workers in this province. We've gone beyond that, I suppose, and we

expect the minister to be neutral. We don't expect the minister to be a

shill for the CLR argument.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That's what you said. You talked about an unreasonable wage structure in the construction industry. Overpriced, you said.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not talking now about fair wages. The fair wage

concept is an entirely different one from the issue we're now talking

about. Maybe the minister should learn a little bit about what he's

talking about before he talks. When we talk about fair wages, we're

talking about a particular application under the law of British

Columbia. We're talking about a situation where union contractors can

compete evenly with non-union contractors. That's an issue between the

unionized contractors and the non-union contractors. It's not a

bargaining table issue.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I won't repeat what the minister said, but in effect he's saying it is a bargaining table issue.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I didn't say anything.

MR. GABELMANN: Don't pull a Mulroney on us. When you say, Mr. Chairman,

"It sure as hell is," and I repeat that, leaving out the word "hell,"

and then he says, "I didn't say anything...." When I was brought

up as a Catholic, I was taught never to lie.

AN. HON. MEMBER: What are you suggesting?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No one's lying, hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: I wish other Catholics were the same.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to the estimates.

MR. GABELMANN: I was going to drop it. I'm going to keep on it for another minute.

You talked about the construction workers having priced themselves

out of the market. Those are my words, but that's the import of what

you said.

MR. PARKS: Do you deny that? Do you deny that? I'm asking if you deny it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One at a time, please, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. GABELMANN: Unlike members of the government, I'm not taking sides in this particular set of negotiations.

[ Page 7832 ]

MR. PARKS: Do you deny it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam will not interrupt. Please proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a simple question. Too simple perhaps, given the ….

MR. GABELMANN: The issue at the bargaining table — not

entirely but in part — includes the question of compensation: hourly

wages, the cost of compensation from the employer's point of view. It's

one of the issues at the table, and I think it's inappropriate for the

minister — I've said it before and I close the subject — to make it

clear which side of that table he sits on. Absolutely inappropriate.

I want to ask just a couple of other questions. Last year in the

estimates I asked the minister if he was in favour of a policy that

would bring back the days of W.A.C. Bennett where we would have an

overtime ban in this province. I mentioned last year that the former

Premier had introduced such a ban in the 1960s; not a ban so

restrictive that it would not allow for emergency work or work that had

to be worked and could only be worked on an overtime basis, but banning

the kind of regularly scheduled overtime that goes on constantly. I run

into too many people who are fighting with their employers to get out

of working scheduled overtime because, among many reasons, they want to

go home to their family. They also don't want to pay the high income

taxes involved with the kind of money that comes in as a result of that

scheduled overtime. Employers like the scheduled overtime because they

then don't have to have additional people on the payroll, and the

non-wage costs of having additional people. It's cheaper for them to

pay overtime. Yet that's denying people in this province jobs.

MR. PARKS: Does that mean you're against it?

MR. GABELMANN: I am against scheduled overtime, yes — period.

MR. PARKS: I thought you weren't going to take a position on these bargaining issues.

MR. GABELMANN: That's not a bargaining issue.

MR. PARKS: It certainly is.

MR. GABELMANN: This guy used to be employed in labour relations matters. I can't believe it.

MR. PARKS: You don't consider that a bargaining issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam will come to order.

MR. GABELMANN: A major area where that's a problem is in the

pulp industry, and that's just reached a tentative agreement. It's a

problem elsewhere too.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Where did you find this guy?

The minister has had a year since I raised the issue, and longer

than that to think about the whole question of an overtime ban.

Emergency is fine, but we're talking about non-emergency overtime.

That's one question I want to ask him.

Another question, on an entirely different topic: what do you think about a

landed immigrant in this province being denied the right to work for the government?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member talked about scheduled overtime.

He did raise the question last year in debate in this assembly. Since

that time I've had some discussion with trade unions and industry with

respect to that issue.

When I was a member of the Operating Engineers, working on the Big

Bend highway, the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, brought in an

overtime ban. Construction workers work seasonal hours. They leave

their families and their homes to go, as I said earlier on, into the

frontier areas of British Columbia. The industry is different in that

respect. In many cases camp facilities are set up for those

construction workers. When you're working a 37½ hour week, living in

camp, with lots of free time, it doesn't lead to a good situation at

the camp. So in that particular industry overtime is a way of life.

The member talked about the pulp industry and so on. In many cases

there are professional people working in pulp mills — they're called

professional skilled tradesmen: electricians, mechanics and machinists

and people like that — who are called out from time to time to develop

the plants. Those individuals work long hours. Sometimes they're called

in on an emergency basis, and they may have to work a weekend, in

total, to be able to get the pulp mill back into production by a set

period of time. Likewise, the pulp industry may shut down the pulp mill

for a month's period of time to do upgrading or construction work in

the pulp mill, and the people employed in the industry, men and women

alike, would be called in to rebuild and redevelop that plant. From

that development, again, they would leave their homes in Vancouver or

in other areas of the province, go into those communities and work long

hours over a short period of time in order to get the plant back into

production.

So it's not just as simple as the member said, when he talked about

an outright ban on overtime. It looks good, but in many cases it's not

practical. Nevertheless, I'm open to the suggestions of the employer

and employee community with respect to that particular issue. I haven't

had any trade unions coming forward and making a presentation to me

with respect to implementing an overtime ban in British Columbia.

Nevertheless, consideration would be given to it if the parties of

interest came forward and made that request of me. I have no intention,

Mr. Chairman, of interjecting myself into the bargaining process and

into any set of negotiations that take place between any groups of

people in British Columbia. If unions don't want overtime in their

industry, all they have to do is sit down with the employer and

negotiate those things in their bargaining.

MR. GABELMANN: Perhaps that's why W.A.C. Bennett lasted 20

years, and this government will last 10. The government showed some

vision, at least, in those days.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not talking about a camp construction job, where

people have to move away from home, and suggesting that they should be

limited to 37½ hours and sit around on the Saturday and Sunday; I'm not

suggesting that at all. Nor am I suggesting that in pulp mill operation

restarts there isn't going to be some necessarily worked overtime.

[ Page 7833 ]

Obviously. I was careful to use the word "scheduled" overtime, where

employees know in advance what overtime they're going to be working,

because it's scheduled, because the companies — and the companies will

admit it — don't want to hire more people. That's what we're talking

about here.

Mr. Chairman, I was going to turn over to the member for Okanagan

North (Mr. MacWilliam), but I've just got a few small additional points

I want to make first.

The Paccar decision is, I guess, waiting in the Court of Appeal.

Judgment is reserved, if I'm up to date on that. If the Labour

Relations Board position on Paccar is allowed to stand, the whole

bridging concept that's been in place for all of these years of

industrial relations in British Columbia seems to be doomed. I wonder

what the minister's views are, as a matter of public policy, in respect

of bridging. It seems really quite appropriate that if parties have had

their collective agreement expire, and they're continuing to negotiate

and haven't yet concluded an agreement, even though in some cases

discussions might be going on, or a strike or a lockout might have been

called, or limited job action may have been started, or whatever has

happened in the course.... The stability provided by having the

until the new agreement is signed, which may then provide some

retroactive changes — but nevertheless the old agreement stays in force

— was the very basis in fact of labour relations in this province.

Now the Paccar decision has not had much publicity — a little bit,

but not much. When you can think about the implications of that

particular decision in respect to collective bargaining, if that LRB

decision is allowed to stand, it will change the nature of collective

bargaining in this province entirely. The good companies no doubt will

continue to operate as they have in the past, but all kinds of

operations, where they would like to get rid of the union or they would

like to break the union, will use this particular decision in a way

that will be destructive to labour relations in the whole community —

in the whole of our society.

What I'm asking the minister is...not to make any judgment about

what he thinks the appeal court is going to decide; I know enough not

to ask that. What I'm asking is: if this decision does stand, what will

the minister do to rectify the potential damage that this will no doubt

cause?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't want to frustrate debate at all, but

could the member advise if we have a case of sub judice here, or is

judgment reserved?

MR. GABELMANN: No. It's reserved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. And perhaps to the implications as

opposed to the specific case itself.

[4:15]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'm not going to discuss the case

whatsoever, but the member should know that I've always been open to

suggestions from the parties of interest with respect to those

particular issues, and thus far I haven't had any concerns expressed to

me by either party with respect to bridging. Nor, Mr. Chairman, have I

made it a policy to intervene in the bargaining process in any way.

So what I'm saying is that the parties usually work out those things

themselves in terms of the bargaining process. Their collective

agreements identify and recognize those areas, and

where they have identified those areas, I don't see any difficulty.

What the member is talking about is where it may be shady in terms of

what's in the collective agreement or not. I'm open to suggestions from

the parties, but I haven't had any information from the parties or any

concerns expressed to me with respect to the administration of that

particular area.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister

whether he agrees with the International Labour Organization Convention

87, which was ratified in 1948, entitled "Freedom of Association and

Protection of the Right to Organize."

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of the

correspondence from the International Labour Organization, and the

member should also be aware that they had some concerns with respect to

the compensation stabilization program and to teachers bargaining in

British Columbia. I'd like to just point out to the member that the

compensation stabilization program is under the legislative authority

of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and the area respecting

teachers bargaining in British Columbia comes under the legislative

authority and jurisdiction of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt).

MR. GABELMANN: The minister has sharpened his skates, I see.

Free collective bargaining comes under the Ministry of Labour, right?

The whole principle involved.... If an ILO convention was to be

signed and Ottawa came to the provinces to say, "Will you, British

Columbia, sign this convention?" they would go to the Minister of

Labour. The ILO has made clear in unequivocal terms that British

Columbia is in violation of an international law that British Columbia

has signed: Convention 98, signed in 1948. I don't need to read all of

the committee's recommendations into the record, but they make it clear

that the CSP is "contrary to the principle of voluntary collective

bargaining."

Another

section 1s not in conformity with the principles of

voluntary collective bargaining. If the minister is a good minister, he

would recognize that his responsibility is to uphold the labour law not

only of this province but the labour law that British Columbia has

signed internationally through the ILO, which is a United Nations

organization. We have clearly broken the law, and what I don't

understand is why the minister isn't thumping the table to get this

government to obey the law.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want the member

for North Island to leave the impression that the government of British

Columbia has broken the law. It is not a law; it is a resolution from

an international convention of labour organizations. That's not a law.

The province of British Columbia didn't sign that. The government of

Canada signed it.

We haven't signed that convention or treaty or anything else. This

province has not broken the law, and this member would have to say that

where this Minister of Labour has legislative authority under his

jurisdiction, he can't say that we've broken the law in that particular

area. The compensation stabilization program is under the jurisdiction

of the Minister of Finance, and as I said earlier on, the Minister of

[ Page 7834 ]

Education has legislative authority for teachers in British

Columbia. That's not under the jurisdiction or control of the Minister

of Labour and is not part of our statutes at this particular time.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Labour is

going to do a job as being Minister of Labour, he should know his

history. In 1930 or thereabouts, the Prime Minister of the country....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I hope he impresses you, because he sure doesn't impress me, Mr. Chairman.

In 1930 R.B. Bennett as Prime Minister of this country did sign an

international agreement affecting in some respects provincial

jurisdiction in labour. As a result of an appeal by the Ontario

government, the supreme court overturned that, and ever since then,

international conventions signed by Canada that have a provincial

component have before they are signed required that all provinces agree

and all provinces sign.

Under coalition in the 1940s, British Columbia, as every other

province in this country, agreed with the request from Ottawa that we

sign the ILO convention in this matter of provincial jurisdiction, free

collective bargaining, and we did. Every province agreed.

It may not be law in the technical sense, because we haven't yet

reached that day when international law achieves the level of respect

that it deserves, but it is a moral law, and one that I think this

province has a responsibility to obey.

Can I ask the minister about the report that he has now had for 18

months, which is the apprenticeship report that was submitted to the

former minister and then since February of last year is the

responsibility of this minister. That report deals with the future of

apprenticeship, a report to the Minister of Labour from the Provincial

Apprenticeship Board.

I just want to ask one question about it. On page 6 there is a

recommendation that government should take the initiative in developing

a mechanism to facilitate cooperative apprenticeship training programs

among compatible groups of smaller employers. Has any action been taken

on that particular recommendation?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: To the member from North Island, yes indeed

the Provincial Apprenticeship Board has set up a task force that has

gone back into the community to discuss a number of options with the

employer community, and I am waiting for them to return with their

investigation. We are in a position to be able to respond to whatever

it is they come back with at that particular time.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister is satisfied with the

current level of ability to predict future job needs with the resultant

training then of apprenticeships. I haven't phrased that very well, but

is the minister satisfied that enough information is available now to

make informed and effective decisions about what kind of trades and

skills will be needed in the future and therefore, as a result, what we

should be training now in terms of not just apprenticeship programs but

the whole range of training?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the member for North Island

asked a question, and I'd be less than honest if I said that the

Ministry of Labour was equipped to look into the future in terms of

where technology and all of the other trades and so on are going. I

don't think he has the ability to look that far into the future either.

That's just a general answer to the question that you asked. Technology

is changing at a very fast rate, and to keep up with the changes and to

even begin to lead them is difficult indeed.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, but if you can't predict, how do you know

how many electricians should be in apprenticeship programs this year?

How do you know how many teachers should be in training this year? How

many nurses should we be training next year for 1990? If you say you

can't predict the future — certainly nobody can predict the future, but

do you even have a capacity to have an informed guess so that we can

attempt to develop training programs and apprenticeship programs that

bear some reflection on what might be the reality in the years to come?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of

But all we can do is our best. I'd be wrong if I said to the member, or

gave him the impression, that we knew the number of teachers that will

be available for a certainty down the road 10, 15, 20 or 30 years, or

the number of mechanics or if they'll even be needed; millwrights,

electricians, carpenters and so on. All we can do is take our best shot

closely in those areas, as do other areas of the provincial government

— ministry of advanced education and universities along with the

Ministry of Education. Lots of discussion takes place in those areas,

and yes, a lot of planning goes into it. The member should know that

we've probably spent millions and millions of dollars trying to

forecast the future, but it's difficult to do. I don't know how many

children my children are going to have.

MR. GABELMANN: So I gather from that that the minister is

satisfied. I won't pursue it any further. I suspect that this will

become a big issue in the years to come, because I'm not certain that

we should be satisfied with the level of that forecasting at the

present time.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions about the human

rights branch of the ministry. Let me say first of all that since the

Andrea Fields decision — unfortunate as that was — the human rights

branch has certainly cleaned up its act considerably. I think it would

be unfair of me to be critical of the rather impressive about-turn

following that particular travesty of justice, which was later

rectified in court and later in another hearing. The council has

improved. As difficult as it is to work with that lousy legislation,

they've certainly improved their own act. I'm delighted too, I must say

to be fair, that they've taken on — small as it is — a responsibility

for education on human rights questions. They're not doing nearly what

they should do, they're not doing anything near to what the old Human

Rights Commission was doing, but clearly they listened to the debates

in the House or they recognized for one reason or another that the

legislation was inadequate in that respect, and they've gone beyond the

legislation and they are doing some things — starting at least — that I

think are worthwhile. I want to have that said, because I think it's

important to recognize particularly when

[ Page 7835 ]

people change. For some of us it's hard to do. That change was made quite dramatically.

But there is still a major failing when you have industrial

relations officers required to act as human rights officers. It seems

to me that those clearly distinct and different tasks should be

performed by people who are trained in the different tasks, so that

human rights officers can investigate human rights cases, and IROs can

deal with industrial relations. That is a very important element in the

successful development of a sound human rights policy in this province.

I want to ask the minister if he can tell us what the numbers of

people approaching the human rights branch have been. How many contacts

have been made, how many cases have been investigated, how many have

been resolved and how many remain outstanding?

[4:30]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I don't have all of those

figures with me at the present time, but I can say that the member

talked last year, and indeed there was a lot of discussion in the

House, about the lack in legislation of filing a human rights annual

report. I did ask the British Columbia Human Rights Council to prepare

for members of the Legislature and for the public of British Columbia a

report that could be tabled in the House each year. I mentioned

yesterday to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that I would be

tabling in the assembly over the course of the next week or so the

first annual report of the British Columbia Council of Human Rights.

I'd like to echo the member's comments with respect to how the

Council of Human Rights has worked. They've done an exceptionally good

job; they'll be doing more in the area of education over the course of

the next year or so and beyond. Clearly, as the government pointed out

in 1983, human rights can't be legislated. It's something that we've

got to develop in ourselves and our hearts and in our minds, and we've

got to put our full effort and support into dealing with those areas of

human rights that are abused from time to time.

When I think of the abuse that the government took for implementing

the Council of Human Rights and the level of support that it now has

received in the community, and the number of inquiries that we have

received from other areas of our country with respect to how the B.C.

Council of Human Rights is working, it is indeed a very interesting

turn of events. Around the province back in 1983, you can look and see

all of the pickets and protests and demonstrations that were taking

place in British Columbia in the name of the government of British

Columbia eliminating human rights and peoples' rights and freedoms and

so on and so forth.

All of that emotion is behind us now, and the council has settled

down. It has done a really good job and will continue to do a really

good job as it develops its own way and system of doing so. Indeed

that's consistent with what the minister of the day said when the act

was changed. I will present to the assembly over the course of the next

several days the first Council of Human Rights annual report under the

new structure.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Earlier in today's session, the minister

alleged that members of the opposition are unduly critical without

enough positive and constructive debate coming in terms of solutions to

the problems that that ministry as well as that government faces. I

guess the minister felt a little concerned about the dusting that he

got, but I think his ministry as well as the government deserves to

recognize the very serious nature....

AN HON. MEMBER: Weren't you the campaign manager for the Socreds in Okanagan North?

MR. MacWILLIAM: The more he worked, the lower their vote became.

The minister has to recognize, as well as this government does, the

very serious nature of the continuing high level of unemployment that

faces British Columbia. But you know, the minister brought up a good

point and a point which I responded to earlier and which I wanted to

take the opportunity to respond to in more detail at this moment.

That point is that above and beyond the criticism, there always has

to be positive and constructive comments made in terms of how to deal

with the problem that this entire House has to deal with, and that is

the future of this province. You know, I agree with the minister. I

have no argument with that whatsoever, and that's why I've taken this

opportunity to demonstrate to the member that we do have positive and

constructive comments to make.

I had indicated to that minister that I had submitted a proposal on

economic reconstruction earlier this year, a proposal that was

submitted to the cabinet committee. But I want to take that one step

further and remind the minister that above and beyond that there was

also a proposal on small business taxation and economic growth in

British Columbia submitted by myself on behalf of the official

opposition.

That was done way back in October 1984, even before I was elected.

Without going into great detail, the report does talk about the

importance of small business in British Columbia; it talks about the

benefits of small business in British Columbia regarding job creation;

it talks about structural problems faced by the small business

community; it discusses tax burdens, administrative burdens; and it

goes into quite a bit of detail in terms of the future potential of

small business and means of job creation.

Just to give you a brief outline of it — and I don't intend to take

much time. I just want to read part of the introduction into the record.

"Virtually all studies indicate that small businesses

have been the largest source of new employment, an innovative and

dynamic component of the Canadian economy. Yet despite the benefits

they provide, small businesses are in many respects at a disadvantage

to larger firms and find the problem of job creation to be a

significant one. This brief will demonstrate those many situations that

arise for small businesses regarding the issue of job creation. We'll

also argue that encouragement of small business is a relatively

low-cost, balanced and economically rational method for the province of

British Columbia to create new employment opportunities for provincial

residents."

Mr. Minister, that's a proposal that was submitted in the spirit of

cooperation. I would recommend that the minister have a look at it.

Many of the ideas in there, I think, are positive and constructive

ideas that this government may well heed in addressing the serious,

chronic unemployment problem in B.C.

Above and beyond that, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned to the minister earlier, a paper was submitted by me, as the

[ Page 7836 ]

representative of the North Okanagan. It was entitled: "Economic

Profile of the North Okanagan: A Strategy for Reconstruction." That was

submitted December 3, 1985, to the cabinet committee. Once again, this

brief, I think, is a demonstration of positive examples for regional

job creation that need to be addressed in every community of British

Columbia. It profiles the demographics in the area. It talks about job

profiles, present unemployment, and discusses the important sectors of

the regional economy and selected economic indicators. It talks about

the recent increases in unemployment and the high incidence of

bankruptcies in the community, as well as the number of people on

income assistance.

Again, I want to read into the record just a short portion of the

summary of this statement, Mr. Chairman. It says:

"There is no easy

solution to job creation. We in the North Okanagan are, to some extent,

innocent victims of outside forces. International, national and

provincial economic conditions all influence our fate. However, there's

no reason for us to throw up our hands in despair. We cannot wait

passively for external factors to improve. Other countries, other

provinces, and even other areas in B.C. have done better than we have.

There's no reason we can't do the same. Given the right circumstances,

the North Okanagan can prosper again."

It goes on to say:

"That is why I, as member for that area, have recently

invited numerous local organizations to collaborate, pool resources,

talents and ideas, and establish priorities and a sound plan for local

economic development. Ideally, this group, which represents a broad

cross-section of the community, will come up with a locally generated

program of recovery which is sensitive to this area's needs, strengths

and wishes."

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that that community action team has been

established, and it incorporates members of local councils, local

business associations, labour, native people, social planning councils,

members of the various chambers of commerce, local professional groups,

representatives from the teachers' association as well as the school

board, and even members from the ministerial association.

It's a demonstration, Mr. Chairman, of what I think is an important

concept that this government has failed to recognize: that is, that

economic recovery must be generated through the efforts, the talents

and the energies of the people within the communities themselves. The

past programs — top-down, bureaucratically loaded programs; centralist

programs thought up in the smoky back rooms of this Legislative

Assembly.... In the past those programs haven't worked, because

they haven't addressed the real concerns within the regions, within the

communities, within the interior areas of this province that have

continued to be neglected by this government.

What I'm saying, Mr. Minister, is: take a look at what we're trying

to do in the North Okanagan by involving the communities, by involving

all members of the community, a broad cross-section, a broad consensus

of representation, together with those community groups, and developing

a sound program for economic recovery, a sound program for job

creation. It's the only way it can be done.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister that I feel that

that is a positive proposal. It's a proposal that I've been working on

for almost six months now. I don't expect any overnight miracles, but

we're active, we're serious, and we mean to do something about the

problem of high unemployment in the North Okanagan and we mean to put

the North Okanagan on the map in terms of its future economic

development. I think it's a positive demonstration of what can be done

when you work with the community rather than against it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the lights on the Chairman's

table seem to be malfunctioning. Possibly when members are in debate

they can look at the Speaker's table, and the Chair will endeavour to

warn you....There's no comment with respect to the member for

Okanagan North exceeding his time. But if you would bear with the

Chair, we will try to warn you when there are two minutes still to go.

MR. HOWARD: If the light on the table there indicating the

time is malfunctioning, it's in keeping with the attitude and the

function of the government, because it's a malfunctioning government

from the word go.

I want to talk with the minister about the economy and about the

people who are out of work, about those who are working and the fear

they live in that they may be next into the ranks of the unemployed,

and what this is doing to the whole social fabric of our society. While

there are numbers that one can refer to and percentage figures....

As far as the northwest is concerned, and all across the north — the

Prince George region as well — regretfully those numbers and

percentages have increased in the last month. More people were

unemployed all across the north in March than was the case in the

preceding month.

But I don't want to talk about percentages and absolute numbers,

because we're talking about human beings, Mr. Minister, we're talking

about people. We're talking about families and young kids in school.

We're talking about their livelihood. We've got people living in the

north who haven't been able to do a day's work for the last two or

three years, no matter how hard they try and how extensively they

search. I know of families that have started to sell off their

possessions, their assets and their homes, because they haven't got the

income to keep themselves going. That's destroying family life, when

you have to try to get rid of home furnishings in order to put some

bread on the table. I know of families — and they live all across the

north, as other members well know — that have been reduced to a feeling

of shamefulness. They feel ashamed of themselves because they're not

able to make a go of it.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: If the minister of social housing, who just came

in, would pay some attention to that, perhaps things would be better.

I'm talking about human beings.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Tell the truth for a change.

MR. HOWARD: I'm talking about human beings. Jack Kempf doesn't give a damn about them, that's obvious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing will have his chance to speak, and if the member for Skeena

would address other hon. members by their office it would be

appreciated.

[4:45]

[ Page 7837 ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I was embarked upon talking about

people whom I represent and with whom I live, my neighbours, when the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing decided to bull his way in and

interrupt the debate.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, will you bring those rattle-brains to order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing will

have his opportunity to stand in debate. In the meantime would every

member extend courtesy to the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Those interruptions from cabinet ministers on the

other side of the House — let the record show this — show how little

they care about the people who are in difficulties in this province.

They laugh, giggle and chortle about it. Look at them. If they'd pay

some attention to working families in this province, we'd be an awful

lot better off, instead of chortling and giggling about it. I'm talking

about people in my riding who haven't been able to find a day's work in

the last two years; people who are selling their possessions — and

they're not hot-tubs either, Jack Kempf — in order to put bread on the

table. And we get these shameful interruptions from a gink over here

who sold out for $3,000 just a little while ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We're on the Minister of Labour's estimates.

MR. HOWARD: That's exactly where I am. I've talked with

families, with men.... One in particular comes to mind. He is

almost a grandfather — that is his age. He has got a family and his

children are in the process.... One of them has become married; and

he is about to become a grandfather. This is a working-class family. He

is a good, solid, honest, working guy who broke into tears talking with

me about it, because he was living on welfare. That was all that was

available to him, because of your activities and this government's

miserable record with respect to employment creation in this province.

You've placed families in such an stressful emotional position that

families are breaking up, that individuals feel unwanted after two or

three years of being unemployed, feel that they have no value, that

nobody wants them, that nobody wants to employ them.

They become demoralized and depressed. Does anybody on the

government side know what that does to family life and to children who

live in that kind of environment? Is it any wonder we have miserable

social conditions? That exists all across the northwest. This is a

government that in my view.... And this Minister of Labour as well,

even though he wasn't in the government at the time, betrayed people in

this province, broke faith with them.

The minister remembers the election of 1979. Let's just go back a couple of

years on that. Other members in the House remember when the great promise held

out by Social Credit was a simple one that said: "Elect us and prosperity

will be yours forever. Elect us and jobs will be there. Elect us and the economy

will keep rolling." The people said, "Okay, we'll elect you,"

and where were the jobs? Remember the 1983 election: the same kind of promise.

The minister made it in his own riding. He told people to elect them and prosperity

would be right there. They violated that trust. People entered a pact with you.

They took you at your word, and you broke your word. No wonder people don't

trust you any longer in this province.

I remember when the minister sat down in the corner over here,

telling this Legislature and telling the people of this province what a

tremendous thing the elimination of the Crow rate would be. Thousands

and thousands of jobs would be created in this province as a result of

that. He told people in the Kootenays that thousands and thousands of

jobs would be coming to the Kootenays if we could eliminate the Crow

rate. That was his speech in this Legislature. Did he believe it? Where

are the jobs? Where is the job creation?

Mr. Chairman, this minister has a bounden responsibility about the

economy in this province, and what is he doing about it? Where are

these jobs for people? Where are these new industries? What is he doing

with respect to that? What is he doing about things in the northwest?

What is he doing about searching for and finding industries to locate

there? Is anything happening at all? Do people have any hope whatever

that this government may even recognize that there is a problem? I

haven't seen anything. I haven't read any evidence that the minister is

engaged in any kind of process to inquire, to look into, to discover

industries, to see them located where they are needed.

People in the north and the northwest would like to know that as

well. We have fewer loggers working now than have worked in the past.

We've got fewer sawmill workers now than have worked in the past. We've

got fewer construction workers working now than have worked in the

past. In nearly every endeavour there are fewer people working than was

the case before. It is directly the responsibility of this ministry and

this government to do something about it.

We've put forward alternatives a number of times in this House.

We've put forward suggestions and specific plans. The member for

Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) outlined a moment ago something that he

had done in great detail about the Okanagan area of this province.

We've done it in the northwest as well. What has happened with respect

to the objectives of the minister to deal with the creation of

employment and the finding