1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1907 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Legislative Assembly Board Of Internal Economy Act (Bill 35). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 1907

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 38). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 1907

School Support (Independent) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading –– 1907

Oral Questions

Lyell Island timber values. Mr. Williams –– 1908

Response to federal White Paper on taxation. Mr. Stupich –– 1908

Environmental appeal process. Ms. Smallwood –– 1908

Silviculture audit. Mr. Kempf –– 1909

Free trade. Mr. Rose –– 1909

Meech Lake accord. Mr. Harcourt –– 1909

Minimum wage protection. Mr. Cashore –– 1909

Tabling Documents –– 1910

Expropriation Act (Bill 22). Committee stage. (Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 1910

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Rose

Mr. Williams

Mr. Lovick

Report

Legal Profession Act (Bill 25). Committee stage. (Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 1919

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Rose

Report

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Third reading. (Hon. L. Hanson)

–– 1920

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Lovick

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Clark

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Miller

Appendix –– 1933

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm making this introduction on behalf of

the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier),

who is not with us today. Would the House please welcome constituents

of his from North Saanich, Brent and Inez Alley. As well, I'd like the

House to welcome Mrs. Vickie Tuck of Victoria, and Joyce Ann Diemers, a

political science instructor from Napa, California.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me

in welcoming Mr. Bob Stewart. Bob Stewart is the archivist of the

United Church in British Columbia. He's on the staff of First United

Church and lives in the downtown east side. I ask the House to join me

in welcoming Bob Stewart.

MR. VANT: Today is a special day. Back on June 22, 1916, John

A. Fraser was the MLA for Cariboo. It so happens that the current hon.

first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) was born on that day right

here in Victoria. I know that the House will join me in wishing him a

very happy birthday.

MR. JONES: Joining us today are six members of the North

Burnaby Air Cadets and their supervisor, Mr. Keith Webster. I'd like

the House to make them especially welcome.

MS. CAMPBELL: Like many members, I had the pleasure of

celebrating Father's Day yesterday. I had the good luck to be able to

celebrate it with my father and with my uncle, who is out from

Montreal. Would the House please welcome George and Marg Campbell,

Frieda Parkinson and Carl and Marguerite Campbell from Montreal.

Introduction of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY ACT

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Legislative Assembly Board of Internal Economy Act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members, this is indeed our bill, a bill of internal economy for the Legislative Assembly.

It parallels legislation that exists in most precincts across Canada.

The bill mentions the board, which will be comprised of His Honour the Speaker,

the government House Leader, the opposition House Leader, the government caucus

chairman and the opposition caucus chairman. I should point out that the five

of us spent some time, along with able assistance from other learned gentlemen

involved in this process, and moved with some very good works to having this

bill prepared. I'm pleased to introduce it now. I think it's going to

be of genuine benefit to all members and will help us in our internal deliberations

for years to come.

With that said, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Some time ago, the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations put in place a committee headed by Dr.

David Boyes, one of British Columbia's noted gentlemen in the world of

cancer research and a very qualified individual. That committee has met

for some time now. The government has put in place draft regulations

consistent with other regulations across Canada with respect to waste

management. This legislation will move us toward the formation of

legislation regarding waste management and subsequent regulations. It

follows up the work done by Dr. David Boyes and his excellent

committee, and I'm sure will aid their deliberations in the years to

come.

With that said. I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 38 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.

SCHOOL SUPPORT (INDEPENDENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled School Support (Independent) Amendment

Act, 1987.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: This bill brings to the Legislature some of the items that were announced in the budget speech

earlier this year. In short, it extends for the first time independent school qualification to children of the diplomatic

corps. It also provides for funding of independent schools after one year of operation, rather than three years, as it has

been in the past. We did check across Canada and find that it has not generally changed the number of independent schools

that are formed.

It also requires that the provincial learning assessment program and the grade 12 scholarship exams be a condition for

qualifying for funding for group 2 schools. It changes the

schedule of grant payments from after the school year, for some

of it, to during the school year — between January and December, rather than in August and December, for the previous year.

I might add that the percentage funding is looked after by

order-in-council, so that's not contained in this bill — the changes

we've had there.

One of the things we've added, which I think will be a great

economic benefit to British Columbia and to people who send students

here to private schools, is a voluntary accreditation program. The

private schools — I distinguish them from the independent schools —

that are non-funded can request an accreditation procedure by qualified

people

[ Page 1908 ]

designated by the ministry; they pay the full cost

of that. Then, of course, there is legislation to prevent them from

advertising accreditation unless they have in fact met the requirements.

There are a few consequential amendments that bring this act into

line with the Teaching Profession Act. That said, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to move that the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 33 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]

Oral Questions

LYELL ISLAND TIMBER VALUES

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to file with the House affidavits from

November 1985 with respect to valuation of logs on Lyell Island — Mr.

Beban. The number is $57 a cubic metre, not the $200 that the minister

has been touting. My question is to the minister. Is the minister

prepared to carry on some serious negotiations around realistic numbers

with respect to the logging values on Lyell Island?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, a cubic metre of timber cut in

British Columbia is worth about $200 in economic activity, from the

time you make your initial surveys until the final product is delivered

to the customer. The affidavit that the hon. member refers to has

nothing to do with that. What it states is what the contract that Mr.

Beban has is worth. Those are two different items, and if he's going to

talk about it in the House, he should be comparing apples with apples.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the minister, Mr. Speaker: would the

minister agree that Mr. Behan is a business person, and that Mr. Beban,

before the courts of British Columbia, determined the economic value of

those logs to his business — a free market transaction base; not some

kind of phony number like the minister is pulling out of the air — and

that those are real numbers determined by a businessman appearing

before the courts to establish those values?

HON. MR. PARKER: That's precisely what I said. That's what

the value of that man's contract is. The $200 figure that I gave is the

economic worth of a cubic metre of timber harvested in this province.

The value is to this province, not to Mr. Beban.

RESPONSE TO FEDERAL

WHITE PAPER ON TAXATION

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. I wonder

if the Premier could explain what are apparent contradictions on the

part of this government. On one hand they're prepared to give up the

dream of a national park for what really are fantasy numbers, and on

the other hand when the federal government tells us in their White

Paper that B.C. is going to lose some $15 million over a period of five

years on the new tax system — Ontario is going to gain some $547

million — B.C. is not at all concerned about this. We've had no

response from the province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps this

should be responded to by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier),

but I would just add the following, however. Obviously we're not happy

with the loss of revenues because of Ontario having far more industry

and therefore receiving a greater return from the increases that have

been provided in that area, while ours is more dependent on personal

income tax taxes, which, for a good part, have seen a reduction.

So yes, the tax changes are costing British Columbia. The decision,

do with all of these matters, they consider the whole of the population

of Canada in these changes. As unfortunately happens so often, we

happen to represent only a small portion of that total population, and

thus Ontario comes out the winner and we don't do so well.

We're not happy with it, but we obviously can't change the federal tax laws now before the House there.

MR. STUPICH: The same table shows that B.C. is losing more

than any other Canadian province, so we're worst off when it comes to

corporations versus personal. I would ask the Premier: is this the real

legacy of 32 years of Social Credit government in B.C.?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In dollar terms, the only province that

pays more is Quebec; it's $100 million. For us the cost is nearer $60

million. You're right, on a per capita basis, then, we are possibly

paying more towards that than any other province, which is unfortunate.

We certainly have fought long and hard to diversify the economy, and

we'll continue to do so; it's a priority of this government. But I can

assure the hon. member that we'll not win that battle if we proceed, as

has been suggested from your side, to give away a forest resource —

such as you're proposing at Lyell Island — for a whole lot less than

it's worth.

MR. STUPICH: These are total dollars, not dollars per capita:

B.C. losing $15 million over a five-year period; Manitoba gaining $29

million. Would the Premier admit, then, that Manitoba apparently has

done a better job of attracting corporations per capita than has

British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Perhaps it's fair to say that the

further east one goes, the greater the percentage of industrial

development. That is something we've been attempting to address, which

is why for the first time in the history of Canada we now have a

council made up of federal and provincial ministers to address this. We

certainly also have the support of the western Premiers in addressing

the inequities as they exist. So it will be addressed. But let me

reiterate: while that is being addressed, we must protect our forestry

resource; it's still the number one industry in this province.

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL PROCESS

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Environment.

I shared with the minister the telegram that was sent to the boss of

Hugh Kaufman, with the Environmental Protection Agency, and his letter.

It's ironic that when the ministry intervened in the process of the

appeals hearing to be held in Cache Creek tomorrow, Mr. Kaufman was not

at that

[ Page 1909 ]

point a witness. My question is: will the minister

explain to this House why he is interfering in the appeals process that

is going to be held tomorrow in Cache Creek?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The minister is not interfering.

Perhaps you could explain your letter a little better, so the whole House understands what your question is.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to thank the minister for that opportunity, and would ask the minister to have his colleagues give me that right.

The point the letter makes, and in the telegram.... An official from

waste management asked for the credentials of Mr. Kaufman. What the

ministry is saying in this telegram is that Mr. Kaufman was to be a

witness at the appeals hearing tomorrow. At that time, Mr. Kaufman was

not a witness; the intention was that he would not be a witness,

because the citizens' group couldn't afford the air fare. So what Mr.

Kaufman is saying in the covering letter is that he feels that this is

undue pressure to encourage him not to come up to Canada and give

expert testimony. I would like to know what role the ministry has in an

appeals hearing. The appeals hearing is supposed to be at arm's length

from the ministry.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You can check with your desk mate or any

of the other people who are trained in the law on this issue. When you

have a hearing such as this, all people who are to be witnesses share

with other witnesses their credentials and qualifications and whom they

are representing. We have asked two questions. Number one, is the

gentleman from Washington representing the Environmental Protection

Agency? That's a fair question. Number two, if he is going to be a

witness, what are his credentials? Is he an engineer? Is he a

biologist? What sort of expertise does he bring to the appeal process?

That's a common courtesy. My officials share it with the hearing

process and with other witnesses, and it's a common courtesy in law and

in this type of tribunal.

SILVICULTURE AUDIT

MR. KEMPF: A question to the Minister of Forests and Lands.

On December 12, 1986, a silviculture audit was initiated in the

ministry. Has the minister decided to make the results of that audit

public?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'll take that question on notice, Mr.

Speaker. I'm not aware of that audit, and I thank the member for the

opportunity to bring it forth.

MR. KEMPF: Perhaps I could help the minister. The audit

suggests that the ministry does not have adequate information on

forestry inventory data and growth yield, and does not understand their

future value in volume yield — what will be made from the investment

they put in it today. It also said that there is an apparent excess

emphasis on planting versus other treatments such as thinning,

fertilization, spacing, etc. I hope that that additional information

will help the minister to find the audit.

My second question: when he finds it, will he make that information available to this House?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to take that question on notice.

FREE TRADE

MR. ROSE: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture;

it concerns a leaked document, So far this government has shown blind

faith in the Tories' position on free trade. The farm sector in this

province could be at jeopardy, since the subsidies to agriculture,

including marketing boards and dairy and poultry products, are

subsidies, according to the U.S. What is the government doing to

protect the farm sector from this government, rather than just

depending on the federal government or the federal Minister of

Agriculture to protect us?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To the hon. opposition House Leader, this

government and myself as the minister, and my staff, are monitoring all

of the actions that are being brought forward on the trading table in

the bilateral discussions, as they relate to subsidies that also exist

in the United States. They are substantially higher than those that

exist in Canada.

MR. ROSE: I am pleased to hear that from the minister.

The same document. Mr. Speaker, says the U.S. wants all tariffs

eliminated, with no exceptions. even seasonal tariffs. This is a real

threat to the fruit and vegetable industry. Does the province still

trust the federal government — since they don't have a seat at the

table themselves — to protect B.C. interests?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We certainly are very keen to get our

message across, as it relates to any countervailing action, whether it

is seasonal tariffs, whether it is an east-west, whether it is an ad

valorem duty. We are monitoring all discussions that are taking place.

We have to rely on the reporting coming back to us from the

discussions, and we are doing that through the Economic Development

ministry.

MEECH LAKE ACCORD

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier

about the Meech Lake accord. Other provincial legislatures have placed

resolutions on their order paper about the Meech Lake accord. I would

like to ask the Premier if he intends to place the necessary resolution

on our order paper so that we can have a look at it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that is being worked on now by cabinet and certainly will be forthcoming.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if

he can assure us that the B.C. resolution will include a call for

mandatory discussion of aboriginal rights at a future first ministers'

conference,

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that is not a part of the accord.

MINIMUM WAGE PROTECTION

MR. CASHORE: A question for the Minister of Labour. The

Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) said on

radio this morning that if any fruit grower paid his workers S2 an

hour, that would be in violation of the Employment Standards Act. Many

workers are paid less than the hourly minimum wage because they are

doing piecework.

[ Page 1910 ]

Has the minister decided to take up his colleague's recommendation

by providing fruit pickers with hourly minimum wage protection under

the Employment Standards Act?

[2:30]

HON. L. HANSON: I was not party to the statement that was

made this morning. Certainly there is a provision in the labour

standards act for piecework. I guess the question is whether I am going

to take action on it. The answer is no, not at this moment. Certainly

that is a provision that has long been accepted in the labour standards

act. My suggestion is that those people who are on piecework earn much

more than the minimum wage.

Mr. Williams tabled documents referred to in question period.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Council of Human Rights for the year ending March 31, 1986.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 22.

EXPROPRIATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 22; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move an amendment which is not on the order paper. I gave notice of it on Friday to my

opposite number, Mr. Chairman, and it was filed this morning. It changes the definition of "approving authority" in

section 1

by adding a paragraph: "...for an expropriation made under the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act...or the

Greater Vancouver Water District Act...the Corporation constituted and incorporated, respectively, under those Acts, unless

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council designates the Minister of Municipal Affairs as the approving authority for the purpose

of expropriations under either or both of those Acts, or any particular expropriation...." That simply allows the Greater

Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District and the Greater Vancouver Water District to become their own approving authorities,

which is in accordance with the representations that they have made to us since the bill was given second reading.

On the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the critic have a copy of these amendments?

MR. SIHOTA: Not physically. They were given to me. I just got somebody to go out and pick them up for me. That's

okay; I don't need them. If you have another copy, I'd....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then we're prepared to debate the amendment on

section 1?

MR. SIHOTA: That's right.

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

MR. SIHOTA: There's a point that I'd just like to put on the record. I think we've already debated this. It's with

respect to the exclusion of

section 47 of the Land Act. I think I pointed out earlier on in debate that the ombudsman has

recommended that that 5 percent provision ought to be compensated for, and I see under the provisions of

section 1 that

it will not be compensated for, if I'm not mistaken. If that understanding is correct, I think we have some objections to

that. Other than that,

section 1 is quite okay from our point of view.

HON. B.R. SMITH: This bill doesn't change

section 47, and

doesn't attempt to do so. I suppose that we could go further afield

than this, but we didn't. The member is quite right.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General will introduce an amendment to

section 2.

HON. B.R. SMITH:

Section 2 will add a subsection (4), which

simply says: "This Act does not apply to replotting under Division 2 of

Part 28 of the Municipal Act." That provision, Mr. Chairman, removes

the possibility of the Expropriation Act applying to a replotting under

the Municipal Act.

While it's true that replotting can technically amount to a minor

taking in some cases, the system presently in place is quite

self-contained and complex, and it is inappropriate to apply this act

without a wholesale revision of the plotting process itself. As with

other parts of the Municipal Act, I could see some reform in those

directions over the years ahead, but that should be part of a revision

to the Municipal Act, and for that reason we tried to separate the

plotting provisions from the Expropriation Act.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to raise again an issue that I raised in

second reading on this section. It's simply as follows. I guess I'm

disappointed to see that there's no amendment on this issue,

whereas

there were on others. I've always felt that this is one where a

certificate of independent advice from a solicitor ought to have been

provided, so that the owner who has agreed to transfer his land or to

have land dedicated is fully apprised of his or her rights under the

act. I believe that to be a fairly significant request on the part of

this side of the House, because there ought to be that one additional

assurance that someone who has agreed to dedicate or transfer land

fully understands what his or her rights are under this section. I

prefer to see an inclusion of an additional clause to deal with that

type of situation.

[ Page 1911 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH: I certainly gave thought to those remarks

when they were made in second reading, and it seemed very difficult to

try to translate the rights and responsibilities under this bill to a

kind of certificate which is given all too pro forma, I suspect, in the

administration of the Divorce Act of Canada — a certification that may

be given there that advice has been given. But since advice that would

be given in a case of this kind might or might not touch upon value —

the field of appraisals which members of the legal profession are

perhaps not equipped to advise under — I doubt that you would get such

certificates readily or that you'd get members of the legal profession

who would sign a certificate. I felt that to put in such a provision

would hamstring the administration, rather than protect the rights of

the owner. I'm certainly not averse to considering some protective

provision in the operation of it, but I just could not see a way of

putting in a certification provision when a lawyer is not an appraiser

and could not really give a certificate on anything dealing with value.

That was the problem I had; I certainly gave careful consideration to

the member's proposal.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment to

section 5 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the

Attorney-General for the amendment, in that it is in direct response to

the issues I raised during the course of the recent debate. I guess in

some measure they relieve the concerns that I had with respect to

section 5.

There is still a provision which would allow the cabinet to exercise

its power in certain cases, particularly with respect to emergency and

undue delay, and I guess it's in that area that I'm not satisfied. I

was wondering if the Attorney-General could advise me whether or not he

would agree that there ought to be a provision for appeal from a

cabinet decision.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I was quite delighted to cut down the ambit

of the extraordinary power in the section, because I think the member's

point was very well made. But the reason why you would want to keep

some emergency control there, for what we have described in the

amendment as an "emergency" or "undue delay," without having the actual

taking appealed.... That would be the kind of situation where you have

a road or a bridge that has collapsed. and you have to take some step

which involves taking land. You really have to do your due process on

the question of valuation later you cannot really do your due process

on the taking at that time.

While I admit that it should be very sparingly used, I cannot see

that it would be an emergency power if it was subject to an appeal,

because the first things that would happen in practice, if you had some

very conscientious owners who felt that under no circumstances was it

appropriate to take their land, is that they would appeal that

emergency decision and ask for a stay of proceedings, pending a

determination as to whether the taking was justified. You'd have the

emergency still there, and we would not be able to use that land to

take care of the emergency.

So I think there has to be emergency power without appeal, but I

certainly agree that its use should be tightly circumscribed in its

statutory basis, and that's what we've done. The member has assisted in

much improving and carefully prescribing the ambit of the power, and

I'm indebted to him.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the Attorney-General for those

kind words, and I would hope that when this

section gets implemented it

really will be used sparingly.

The words "undue delay" in particular cause me some concern. I agree

that emergencies will only arise from time to time. If it's a case of

simply acquiring property to deal with the highway that's been flooded

or whatever, I'm surprised that that kind of provision doesn't exist

already within the relevant legislation governing highways. I stand to

be corrected on that, and indeed I must confess that I haven't checked

to see whether or not that is the case.

Having said that, the words "undue delay in the project" really

cause me a lot of concern. I can envision situations, particularly with

large Crown corporations — for example, B.C. Hydro — where, within the

confines of cabinet, a case could be made in the context of undue delay

with respect to a particular project. Without the opportunity for other

parties to intervene and to state their case, it seems to me that that

section can be taken advantage of.

[2:45]

During debate on the essential services component of Bill 19, I

talked about getting trigger-happy with the words "essential services,"

that one can broaden them or narrow them. I feel that one could get

trigger-happy in the same way with the words "undue delay." Would the

Attorney-General agree, therefore, that as a further check cabinet be

required to make a report to the House with respect to its decisions? I

know that that issue was canvassed before. I'm not too sure whether it

has now been amended in the legislation; it's some time since I've

looked at it. If appeal procedures are out — and I see the merit in

that — why not consider a report to the House?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I don't see any problem with inserting a

reporting provision, I would then suggest that we stand the

section

down — under our rules we can return to it — and we'll draft a further

amendment to do that. Sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, we'll hold that one over. We'll continue on to

section 6.

section 6.

MS. MARZARI: I don't know if I'm standing at the appropriate

time, but

section 6,

section 10 and

section 13 are all relevant

regarding the point that I wish to make, which is in response to a

gentleman who approached me a few weeks ago and who has himself been

through a rather disastrous and lengthy expropriation procedure. He has

written a letter — which arrived today — through me to the

Attorney-General and to the critic, the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew.

When we're looking at

section 6, the point that Mr. Harry Kohne would like to make, and which I would like to make

[ Page 1912 ]

on his behalf, is that we're dealing here with the

procedure that an individual actually goes through when his or her home

is expropriated. Part of that procedure has to do with "the purpose for

which the expropriation is required" —

section 6(4)(d). I gather that

under this bill the individual has to be notified as to the purpose for

which expropriation is required. The point is made that this purpose

really does the individual no good. If the individual wishes to

protest, he is told in

section 10 that he is only allowed to go to an

inquiry on a claim for compensation, and he is told in

section 13 that

the necessity for the project or work for which the expropriation is

sought would not be considered at an inquiry.

Would the Attorney-General be good enough to clarify these points

for me, as they are somewhat complicated, and it is a mushing together

of many points? I would like basically to know what we're dealing with

here in terms of the individual's rights when an inquiry comes about.

HON. B.R. SMITH: If his argument is correct, then the power

to expropriate under

section 10 would be something you could call into

question every time it arose. There is not, to my knowledge, any

statute in the country that allows you to do that. What this bill does

is permit a non-linear development for a site-specific development. The

owner can question the wisdom of the expropriating authority to take

that parcel of land as opposed to another parcel. Therefore it's a

tremendous step forward for those landowners who find they're the

victims of site-specific expropriation. Say that it's going to be a

school or a recreation centre or something else, and that it could be

better built somewhere else; then it's up to them to do that. But you

can't do that for a highway. You can't do that for a pipeline or for a

rail.

I just had a very short moment to read this gentleman's letter, and

I wish it had come in some time ago, because the bill has been in the

chamber for quite some time. We deliberately left it there so that we

would get a chance to have representations. I think he is seeing things

that aren't there. It is for the very reason that we have people like

this, who have been victims of expropriations in this province —

airport expropriations and others — that we feel very strongly that we

need a bill that has some fair procedures, that does permit a property

owner to be paid an appraised value up front in advance for his land.

That person can either challenge the expropriation if it's

non-linear, or he can certainly challenge the value if it is linear. I

think that his letter is a reflection of his own terrible experience

with expropriation, and therefore I read it as a very strong emotional

statement. I would hope that our bill is going to prevent more victims

like this gentleman. I know you do as well.

MR. SIHOTA: This concern may be captured under 6(4)(g), but I

do want to raise it again. I referred in

section 3, I believe, to the

requirement for a solicitor to give a certificate of independent legal

advice telling someone what or what was not their rights under this

act. Another way of dealing with my concern, I think, is to make sure

that the notice which is left on the property or served upon the owner

clearly outlines the various options and rights available under this

legislation to the affected property owner.

Could the Attorney-General confirm that that could be done in

section 6(4)(g), and could we not, within the regulations, ensure that

the notice accurately lays out the various options that are open to

people under this legislation?

HON. B.R. SMITH: That's certainly our reading of 6(4)(g), that that could be done in there. It might be appropriate to do that.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier is overly anxious in saying "aye" to

that one. I think that it's fairly well acknowledged that this

provision gives me the most amount of difficulty. With respect to the

exclusion of linear developments from the act, this legislation, fairly

put, is modelled after the 1984 proposed legislation — I believe it was

Bill 30 or Bill 34. That legislation did not contain language similar

to 9(2); in fact, the 1984 version, if I recollect correctly, simply

exempted only expropriations under the Emergency Program Act and the

Health Act. Perhaps the minister could explain to us the history of

this

section so we can understand why it is that linear development has

been excluded from the act and what happened between 1984 and 1987 to

bring about this subsection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The earlier bill was an exposure bill. I

guess one thing that happened during the interval was that close

consideration was given to some major highway improvements —

particularly the Island Highway — and the need that will exist to make

some major decisions, such as with the Nanaimo bypass. I think the

important time to have your public involvement and input is before you

get to any kind of taking.

You obviously have to have a public process and the Highways

ministry has to have a public process. That public process must be

early, before you go ahead and announce your route. Once you announce

your route, you're bound to have somebody who isn't going to like that

route. You cannot then strangle the whole thing with process and put in

doubt as to whether the route is going to go ahead. I think you have to

go ahead with the route. We feel that that's only crucial when you're

talking about the route on a linear development — a pipeline, a railway

or a highway.

Where you don't have that crucial nature of the particular route, we

concede that a pre-hearing process is a good thing. I know it certainly

would be the intention of Transportation and Highways to have an early

public process well before there was any taking, if indeed there has to

be any taking. But to jeopardize a project which may be.... Let's say

it's a pipeline. Let's say it's decided to build a pipeline into some

new part of the province to bring in natural gas as a resource for

development, and that you have a number of investments that turn on

that — and timetables and everything else. You really can't have, late

in the game, a decision in question as to whether the route's a go. I

just think that that has to give way to the urgency of the scheme. You

have to be able to do it.

I don't subscribe to the view that you don't have a public planning

and consulting process when you're planning highways and routes of that

kind in the normal course of things. I know that that's certainly what

the minister intends for the Island Highway, which so many of us on

both sides are committed to.

MR. SIHOTA: I know all of us are committed to an Island

highway. I think those of us on this side of the House would like to

see it built — and quickly. But that's another debate.

[ Page 1913 ]

HON. MR. REID: Hear, hear!

MR. SIHOTA: I see the Minister of Tourism's here — and the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael). Boy, I could tell them about

all sorts of other highways that I think ought to be built in this

province as well, particularly in the riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

That's also another debate for another time. I'm pleased to see that

there are some expenditures in the riding right now, on the Malahat.

I understand that concern. Obviously, I don't think any one of us

wants to frustrate the construction of these types of facilities. I

think that's fairly put. The minister makes an interesting point when

he says he believes that this type of public consultation will happen

in any event, through the Ministry of Highways or any other ministry —

for example, the Ministry of Energy, which may be involved in

pipelines, or through B.C. Rail, which is railways. From what the

minister is saying, lie seems to indicate that it's the government's

wish, if not the government's policy, that these types of hearings go

on well in advance of the construction of the highway or railway. Given

that expression of policy, and wanting to do it outside the purview of

the act.... It's somewhat surprising to me that one would want that

policy specifically exempt from the act. In fact, I think one would

want to send a signal to the ministries involved that they have to have

some type of public hearing. I think all of us can understand that

while we look at the highway as a stretch, the property owner affected

only looks at the property that's going to be taken away from him or

her, and will quickly come to the realization that this

section does

not apply.

It seems to me that there was another way to go on this. I should

say, before I get to that, that I tried to research this, and could not

find one group in the course of my research — and the minister says it

was open for exposure with the 1984 legislation — that publicly said it

wanted a

section like this injected into the legislation. It may well

be that someone may have made a representation that wasn't public. In

any event, the point is that there's another way of dealing with this.

Would it not be — and I guess this is a question to the minister — far

superior to have the Ministry of Highways, or the utility or railway

company, come before the commission and make its case as to why the

inquiry process should be bypassed? Ought not that to be the onus? That

way you're sending a very clear signal to the Ministry of Highways, the

railway company or the utility that says: "Look, you've got to go

through some type of public process." The minister says this is the

government's wish in any event. So why not place an onus clause in

section 9(2) which would allow for the exclusion of an inquiry upon an

appropriate case being made by the utility or ministry involved?

[3:00]

HON. B. R. SMITH: First of all: who asked for this? I am

instructed that the minister of the day, Mr. Gardom, got a number of

representations directly from expropriating authorities — regional

districts and municipalities.

I would also point out that many of the linear developments that

we're talking about in this province are not new ones, but are simply

widenings of an existing right-of-way. Many of these seldom have any

alternative because of the topography of this province, or because of

the existence of agricultural land reserves or fish streams, or because

of environmental or social factors. So our topography makes linear

developments very expensive. Even small variations can result in

significantly increased costs.

I emphasize again that there is a planning process — there certainly

is in Highways: they advertise well in advance — in which public

participation takes place. Maybe at some stage that should be enshrined

in statute. but we are looking at trying to have the authority to do

these widenings and these projects that have to be done topographically

between A and B. They cannot be done A. C, B. There is just no way you

can do them that way. Somebody is in the way of that, and we are now

trying to do something that we should have done a long time ago, which

is to take care of that little person who is in the way and doesn't

want to get out of the way and doesn't want to be pushed aside by a

jackboot government or a jackboot expropriating authority or whatever

it may be. We give him the appraised value in advance and let him argue

that he is entitled to more and use the money that has been paid to him

to do that, if he wishes.

I guess you and I will have to agree to differ on this. I think that that power is needed for linear development.

MR. SIHOTA: You never hear people on this side of the House

using words like "jackboot democracy." Although a good federal Member

of Parliament, a friend of mine from Burnaby, I think used that kind of

expression in Ottawa the other day.

The question still remains: why not place the onus on the

expropriating authority — the highway or the railway company — to come

to make its case as to why an inquiry should be put aside, instead of

just giving them the carte blanche exclusion from the legislation? Was

that option considered, and if so, why was it rejected?

HON. B.R. SMITH: It certainly was considered, because

originally the exposure bill included such a provision. But it was felt

by the government and by the people who made the representation on

behalf of local authorities that it would cause additional expense and

delay, that there would be many projects in which no other route was

possible, and that the delay in cost would far outweigh the advantages.

It is much better to deal fairly, generously and upfrontly with the

property owner than to go through some kind of process in which you

would end up with delays and probably also with the same route. You

would end up with tremendous delays and cost.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to remind the minister that in this act

you have the

section that allows for cabinet to make exemptions. You

have a

section 1n this legislation which allows for speedy inquiries.

You could have the type of

section that I am talking about with respect

to onus. A combination of all those three would clearly allow for an

expedited acquisition of property or expropriation of property if one

was required. So I find some difficulty in accepting the minister's

rationale for it. He is quite correct in saying that we will have to

agree to disagree. I think this

section will clearly be one that we

will be voting against.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I agree to disagree.

Section 9 approved on division.

section 10.

[ Page 1914 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, I got sidetracked there by some comments from my colleagues.

HON. MR. REID: From your leader.

MR. SIHOTA: It is always nice to have the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) in the House.

In any event, 10(1)(

b) says that an inquiry may be denied when the

person who requested the inquiry has, at a previous hearing or

otherwise, already had substantially the same opportunity to object to

the expropriation. I would like to have some explanation as to what

circumstances the minister would envision where this would apply. I

trust that it does not mean that if an attempt to expropriate fails the

first time, the owner would be denied a hearing on the second attempt.

HON. B.R. SMITH: A hearing under the utilities act, I guess, would be one case where there has already been a fullfledged inquiry.

I think those are the main circumstances where it would be expeditious to use that section.

Section 10 approved.

section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, perhaps we could go back and

clean up

section 5, where we're going to have to deal with two

amendments. I think the second amendment has been distributed to all

those who are interested.

Amendments approved.

section 5 as amended.

MR. SIHOTA: Just for the record I want to thank the minister

for making the changes he has with respect to this section, and the

efficiency with which this amendment came across so we could deal with

it. I appreciate that.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

MR. SIHOTA: This

section caused me a little bit of concern. I

want to draw the minister's attention to 15 (3) with respect to

modification of expropriation. If new land is added in modification,

the proposal is that the inquiry may be adjourned for a period of two

weeks. Am I correct in interpreting that to mean that the owners who

will now be included will only have two weeks to make their case?

HON. B. R. SMITH: Yes, you are correct — with power to extend that time.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that the power to extend that time must show up somewhere else in the legislation — so I'll leave it at that.

The obvious reason I raised it is that I really think two weeks is

not an appropriate amount of time to make a case, particularly where

the modification is fairly significant. I would be hard-pressed if I

were arguing that case, and I think the Attorney-General would agree

with me. Any counsel would be hard-pressed to prepare economic loss and

damage statements, to come up with an appraiser's report and assessment

of property within two weeks. Accordingly, it seems to me that the

two-week provision is in the interests of the government or the

expropriating authority, but gives the participant, the affected

landowner, very little time to prepare and make his case. I don't think

there's any disagreement with that.

HON. B.R. SMITH: No, I don't disagree with that. I think the

time is probably too short. It's obviously been put in there to get the

expropriating authority on with its business. I think I would like to

amend that 14 days to 30 days, and then I'll make an appropriate

amendment to

section 49, which clearly gives the power to extend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Attorney-General asking that that

section be postponed under standing orders? Or will he just put an amendment to it?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I can just put an amendment through to change the" 14" to "30." It doesn't need anything in writing. I would so move.

On the amendment.

MR. SIHOTA: I can live with that. I would like to thank the Attorney-General for making that amendment.

Amendment approved.

section 15 as amended.

MR. ROSE: Just so I understand it — I haven't given more than

five minutes study to the bill — does this link to clause 24, where

there's compensation if it's not accepted...? In other words, a

decision is made, and then there is an initial payment, and then

there's something like a year to challenge that compensation. If it's

not challenged by then, it's deemed to have been accepted.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Oh, no, it's got nothing to do with it.

Section 15 as amended approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 16.... The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, the second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey brought up a point that dealt with

section 13, and

I think that it might have just gone by. I don't know if we can go back

to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't quite sure where this point should be made, but I believe it is under

section 13.

[ Page 1915 ]

[3:15]

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: It's agreed.

I gather that there are provisions under federal legislation for

citizen groups and clubs, perhaps, to come forward and request an

inquiry. I am told, once again by Mr. Kohne, that under this

section

that provision is no longer available to someone in British Columbia if

this act is passed. The example, once again, of Sea Island is given. A

park was due to be expropriated. That happened to be public land

already, but even if it had been private land. I think this point

should be heard. A park was under the gun. There was no individual,

obviously, to speak for this piece of land, but citizen groups did come

forward and object to the expropriation and demand an inquiry. As a

result of that, the federal government excluded McDonald Beach Park in

the seventies from the airport expansion, I gather.

Under this bill there is no opportunity allowed for civic parties or

other types of groups to file complaints. In other words, there's no

room there for public objection as opposed to individual objection. Is

this the case? If it is the case, can we make provision for people

other than individuals to come forward?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Certainly if they're the owners of land,

they can come forward as whatever emanation they are — whether they're

a society or a corporation or whatever. Neither this bill nor other

expropriating bills in this province has recognized a right to

challenge a taking for anyone other than the property owner, but there

have been some federal expropriations involving parks and so on where

there has been that different authority. We're not talking about the

approval of an environmental project; we're talking about taking

somebody's land. If we were to open that up to interested people, of

course, you'd have a very different constipation of process, if I could

put it so indelicately. I think it would hold a lot of these things up,

and that would reflect on the costs that all the rest of us would pay

in increased delay for the project.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General introduces an amendment to

section 17.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment to

section 17 standing in my name on the order paper. See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

section 20.

MR. SIHOTA:

Section 20 causes me some concern, with respect

to the two years after the filing of the vesting notice. I think this

is a little bit like the Sea Island case that others have referred to.

This is a

section where, within two years after filing the vesting

notice, if the expropriating authority decides that the land is no

longer required for its purposes, then of course it can deal otherwise

with the land, and must offer the land first to the owner from whom the

land was taken, or to that owner's successor. It also. surprisingly,

establishes a

summary process for determination of the appropriate

quantum of money to be paid out.

What concerns me here is that — from one angle, in any event — the

value of the property may well increase over that two-year period due

to other developments that have nothing to do with the expropriating

authority or its purposes for wanting to expropriate. Take the example

of a subdivision: over a two-year period, particularly in a volatile

and active real-estate market — which I'm sure all of us would like to

see again — the adjoining properties may well go up in value over that

two-year period. The property that is frozen because of expropriation

may also increase in value. Then the expropriating authority decides

not to proceed with the acquisition or the development, and it has to

offer the property back to the original owner. At that time there will

be a

summary hearing to determine the market value of the land, and the

government may actually find itself in a windfall situation. For

example, if it was worth S50,000 at year one and is worth $100,000 at

year three. due to a situation that has nothing to do with the

development, then as I read this

section the original property owner

would have to reacquire his property at $100,000. The government would

make a $50,000 profit, albeit that it did nothing except sit on the

property. That's a gain that would have accrued to the owner if he or

she had sat on that property.

It seems to me somewhat obtuse that you could end up with a

situation in which the government finds itself in a windfall profit

situation simply because it sat on property for two years. I'm just

wondering if the Attorney-General would agree with me (

a) that that

could happen, and (

b) that it would be far more appropriate to offer

the property back to the original owner at what it was worth at the

time of expropriation, or at the time of serving the vesting order, as

opposed to the value of the property two years hence.

HON. B.R. SMITH: First of all, most other jurisdictions don't

have any such provision. If an expropriation doesn't result in the

purpose, the land doesn't have to be given back to the original owner:

it's often disposed of. What this does is protect the right of an

original owner for up to two years to get his property back.

How can you put the parties on an equal footing by doing what you

suggest'? The case that you suggest — that the owner could buy it back

at the price at the time of the taking — overlooks the fact that he

will have been given the use of that appraised value for the period of

the two years, which he could again invest in an expanding market. So

he could have it both wav s. Let's say the land was worth $100,000. He

has two years to play with that in an expanding market, and then he

gets the windfall of his land back. How can you justify giving him that

windfall of S100,000 to invest in the expanding market and also giving

him his property back at the S100,000 price when it is property is now

worth S200,000? How can you have it both ways?

I agree it would maybe be nice to flog the public authority a little

bit for expropriating and then not carrying through, but you're giving

a double enrichment. I don't agree with you. I'm sorry. I think this is

the best way of handling it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to thank the Attorney-General for his

wise words of counsel in this chamber, and for taking on my colleague

from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew and making the exact argument that we've

made about South Moresby

[ Page 1916 ]

and the pricing system that your administration has

tried to establish with the federal government. Why should they be

doubly enhanced, indeed?

Sections 20 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

MR. ROSE: My concern, Mr. Chairman, is just the opposite of

the windfall profit situation discussed here a moment ago. I think

again of the celebrated case of the third runway in the Cora Brown

expropriation about 1973-74 on Sea Island in Richmond. Here is a case

where the expropriation was made.... If you want me to be right on the

clause, I can talk about the gate of expropriation under the clause to

make sure I'm in order. The situation there was one in which they were

expropriated and went through a tremendous number of appeals. In the

meantime, real estate prices skyrocketed. While they were compensated

adequately at the date of expropriation, by the time the dust settled

they couldn't replace their homes. Suddenly in order to replace the

$50,000 home, you needed $100,000.

Is there anything under this

section — and there are parts of it

that I could talk about in terms of compensation — that deals with the

flip side of the argument that we just talked about? Rather than the

land being enhanced in value, the procedure and the tangle of the

courts and so forth consumed a lot of time, and what was a fair

expropriation value — because these people just didn't want to give up

their homes — was no longer adequate for them to replace those homes

with equal facilities in another location.

HON. B.R. SMITH: That's exactly what this bill does. It

prevents that injustice. The moment the notice is filed in the land

registry, the appraisal is given, the payment is made, and then the

owner who is expropriated can immediately go out and purchase other

property, if that's his wish to do so right then, without being the

victim of long procedural delays while the market is changing against

him. That's the whole purpose for the advance payment in full. That

wasn't in the federal statutes for Sea Island, and it isn't now.

MR. ROSE: I think that's a definite improvement.

I'd like to know the Attorney-General's views on the property owner

accepting this and forfeiting his claim — or does clause 24 deal with

that matter, that he could accept the money; in other words, taking it

under protest?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Absolutely. He takes it, can spend it if he

wants, still protest and still have a valuation before the compensation

tribunal to get a further entitlement. If he's successful, he gets that

entitlement and his costs.

Sections 28 and 29 approved.

section 30.

MR. LOVICK: I just have one question on

section 30. Does the

basic formula accommodate certain rather peculiar circumstances, namely

where the market value determination will not be satisfactory, and

where people will suffer as a result? I'm referring specifically to

those instances, let's say, where senior citizens perhaps are living in

a house that they own, but they would be very hard put to replace if

they had to sell their house at market value. In other words, they are

quite content and quite happy to be where they are. and only if they

were forced to sell their house would they suffer. I'm wondering if

there is any other kind of determination for compensation built into

this particular

section that might introduce a factor of "replacement

cost," or some such thing.

HON. B.R. SMITH: No, it's not a replacement value type of

assessment under this act. The only way you can get that in this world,

as far as I know, is to spell it out in an insurance policy and hope

for the best. It's market value, but there is a 5 percent bonus under

section 37 for the compulsory nature of the taking. There really is no

further satisfaction I can give you for that not-too-hypothetical

couple that doesn't want to move. The world is full of such people.

Most of us don't, let's face it. We've got a house; we've been there

for some years; we don't want to move, and we don't want to have the

disruption. The bill tries to make the lot better of such people, but

it doesn't answer their plaintive cry that they're being dispossessed

and moved, and pushed around by expropriating authorities. We just try

to make them do it with more of a smile than they had before.

[3:30]

MR. LOVICK: This begins to look and sound more sinister than

I had anticipated. I think the problem is that the 5 percent factor is

obviously going to be a big or a large factor, depending on the total

value you start with. If we're dealing with a rather small house that

isn't worth much money in terms of a market,5 percent is going to have

absolutely no kind of salutary effect; it's not going to solve people's

problems.

I am suggesting to the Attorney-General, though, that it's not that

people simply don't want to move because of their fear of change or

some such thing, but rather that they can't afford to move. There are

individuals who live in places where roads and highways or bridges are

going in and whose property is going to be expropriated necessarily,

and the value of their residence is insufficient to in any way replace

what they have. The cash value, the market value, is simply not

satisfactory. I am suggesting that if government or the state changes

the rules of the game such that those individuals are no longer able to

comfortably cope with living — in other words, no longer able to

maintain their residence — then the onus ought to be on government to

provide some kind of compensation that is reasonable and fair.

All that this debate and this

section and the minister's answer are

revealing is the inadequacy of the market system as a measurement. To

be sure, in the great majority of cases the market will do very well,

but in this case quite clearly it won't do very well. As the

Attorney-General says, we are not talking simply about hypotheses; we

are talking about many cases with which he is certainly familiar. The

classic ones that come to mind most recently are to do with Annacis

crossing. There were all kinds of people there who got caught in that.

I am familiar with a few of them on personal terms.

Perhaps we can't rewrite the legislation to accommodate, but let me

put the question this way: do we have some appeal mechanism? Do we have

anything beyond that rather heavy-handed and I think somewhat

simplistic 5 percent solution? As I say, the 5 percent solution doesn't

work, because it deliberately discriminates against those who have the

least value within their residences and helps those who have more

[ Page 1917 ]

money. It simply exacerbates the problem and worsens the injustice, if you like.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Let me just say what there is for that

couple that there wasn't before. I am not saying that it is ideal, but

it sure is a lot better. First of all, there is a 5 percent add-on for

compulsory taking, which eliminates trying to factor it in a given

case, which is very difficult. Secondly, there is the money in advance,

which we have spoken about, which they can put to use for investment

purposes or to buy other land before the market gets away from them.

Thirdly, there is a more generous provision for costs. Fourthly, there

are clear moving expenses for them; relocation expenses are paid.

Finally, number five, if the valuation is thought not to be a fair

valuation, there is an appeal from that decision to the court of appeal.

So they are better off considerably than they have been, and I hope

that we are going to have really far fewer of these stories. But they

stick with you, and they hound you all your days. I had them in

practice, and I had them when I was a mayor too. I remember that. I

never forget them, just those few people that were victims of this

system. They didn't feel fairly treated. I think we are going to have

less in this, but I could never guarantee it. I don't think any human

system would ever guarantee you won't have a few.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the Attorney-General for his comments,

and I agree that we are probably taking very important steps and that

these are all to the good, because certainly the situation will be

better than it was heretofore, no question. I think the government is

to be commended for the steps it is taking.

My concern, again — and I think it is an important one and a fair

one — is whether the existing appeal procedure does not make the same

mistake as I have said the 5 percent solution does: namely, that it

starts with what is an inadequate mechanism to begin with, the market.

If the appeal procedure doesn't mean anything more than whether you've

got fair value based on the marketplace dictation, then it isn't

solving the problem. That's the whole point of the question: whether in

fact the formula itself is satisfactory.

I am merely suggesting, perhaps for future reference, realistically,

that what we ought to be looking at is another mechanism that will

enable us to deal with precisely these kinds of situations that don't

lend themselves to ready solution by the vehicle of the market.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I must agree with you, you know. I mean,

you're right. Sure, the market determination is there, and we've added

these other things like moving costs and 5 percent to try to make that

more palatable. But it still is a market system. You're quite right.

Sections 30 to 38 inclusive approved.

section 39.

HON. B. R. SMITH: I move the amendment to

section 39 that was

just filed, which has to do with partial takings. The first amendment

allows a deduction where the partial taking is of an interest less than

the fee simple. We have in mind there things like sewer easements.

Current law provides that an appropriate deduction by way of a

percentage of the fee simple interest is made where there are sewer

easements that are expropriated.

The second amendment ensures that when the per square foot of value

is being calculated for the purposes of subsection (3), that

calculation is made on the basis of bare land rather than including the

per-square-foot value with the improvements on the land, I know that's

crystal clear and will be self-explanatory.

Amendment approved.

Section 39 as amended approved.

section 40.

MR. SIHOTA: On the clause dealing with injurious affection,

as I understand it. the law as it sits right now is what applies. I

guess I have some difficulty with that, because the law as it exists

right now may change in light of a case that is still before the

Supreme Court of Canada. I haven't seen the decision come down.

Philosophically. I have a lot of difficulty with recognizing

compensation on the basis of injurious affection.

I understand and realize that the ombudsman talked about

compensation for injurious affection in his report. He talked about the

broadening of the law of injurious affection. I must say outright that

this is one area where I have to disagree with the ombudsman in his

report and analysis of the 1984 legislation. I think that the concept

of injurious affection is somewhat outdated, and we ought not to be

simply tying ourselves to the Supreme Court of Canada's musings on this

law. It may well allow for third-party landowners to benefit if the law

changes substantially.

I would have preferred to see us do away completely with the law of

injurious affection and the ability of people to make a claim on that

basis. By saying that, I'm sure I'm inviting all sorts of potential

political rhetoric directed against me. That's my own feeling of it. I

guess to the extent that the law right now is quite narrow and

difficult to succeed on, I don't have any problems with it. But if the

law were to expand, I sure would.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think that's right, that we don't know

what's going to happen. If there is an expansion, it's probably going

to be an expansion in the interests of property owners. It may have to

be addressed legislatively if it presents problems. But to try to alter

that law when it's of longstanding judicial

interpretation — going back

to cases like The Queen and Loyselle — seem to us not to be the way to

go. We should try to continue the law as the common law is, and then if

there is some alteration in that as a result of a new Supreme Court of

Canada decision, we should consider dealing with that as law reform.

What I will certainly undertake to do is that if a change in the law of

injurious affection comes down from the Supreme Court of Canada, I will

refer that immediately to the Law Reform Commission of B.C. for their

advice as to what, if anything, we should do. That's why we have a law

reform commission. You'll notice that each year I've been trying to

bring in more law reform commission recommendations. I think that's the

function of a law reform commission. I didn't feel that I was in any

position to be a law reform commission on injurious affection. So I

simply preserved the status quo.

[ Page 1918 ]

Sections 40 to 43 inclusive approved.

section 44.

MR. SIHOTA: This may be another

section where we may agree to

disagree. I guess, quite frankly, I feel that if the owner makes out

his case and gets an award that's higher than that which was originally

provided to him, he ought to receive his costs. I don't agree with

pegging it to 115 percent. I think that if you win, you get your costs.

As I say, we may agree to disagree on that one, but I think that

pegging it at 115 percent certainly invites an argument from the other

side that would, first of all, argue that it be less than 100 percent,

and secondly, if it was going to be more than 100 percent, that it be

less than 115 percent.

I can see myself having a lot of fun with that argument if I was in

front of some kind of board or tribunal, knowing that there are cost

implications. I just think that if you win your case, you should get

your costs. Accordingly, the 115 percent figure is not something I find

a lot of comfort in.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think there has to be some incentive to

settlement. There has to be some slight advantage in favour of the

house — let's put it that way — because what is being given here now is

the appraised value in advance. That is a very major step forward. But

if you had a rule such as the general civil litigation rule, where the

plaintiff never gets his money in advance — if it's paid into court, he

doesn't see it for years sometimes; it sits there, although he gets

better pretrial interest than he did in my day.... There's got to be

some incentive for him to settle, and 115 percent, I would point out to

the member.... If you don't get 115 percent, if you get something less,

it's merely a discretion on the part of the tribunal. They don't have

to give you your costs. Suppose you got between 100 and 115 percent,

which is what you're talking about. They could still give you your

costs if they wanted to. They'd have the power to do that, but they

don't have to give you your costs. If you get over 115, you get your

costs as a right. I think that's fair. I think that balances out with

the payments in advance, and it puts some premium on settlement, for

sure. You've got to have some premium on that.

MR. SIHOTA: This may be a bit of a tangential comment, but we

do have the payment-in clause in the Supreme Court rules. If a decision

is made by the court wherein one receives damages less than what was

paid in, you of course pay double your costs; but if you get one dollar

more.... Certainly in my years as defence counsel for the Insurance

Corporation, I went to some great lengths to try to figure out whether

or not the rule included interest or not — it's been that close in some

cases. You do have that, and if you're one cent over that, you're

entitled to your costs. If it's good enough under the Supreme Court

rules, it seems to me that it ought to be good enough here. That is a

case of advance payment. I agree that, on the other side of the coin,

there are double costs,

whereas in this case you don't have them. There

is an analogous provision in the Supreme Court rules, and all you've

got to do is come out one cent ahead.

HON. B.R. SMITH: That's right, but it's different in other

ways too. One is that it isn't appendix B you're talking about. Even

with the enhancement of that appendix that we made just recently, it

still doesn't reimburse you for your lawyer's bill. You're talking

about that here and not appendix B; you're talking about reasonable

costs, which could be the entire bill of the lawyer — as I read the

section — if that was what the tribunal ordered. They are not limited

to appendix B, so you've got a better tariff, a tariff which you would

dearly love to be taxing on in a Supreme Court action where you were

successful by $1. You'd probably do better on this one than you would

on appendix B, I'll tell you.

[3:45]

Sections 44 to 46 inclusive approved.

section 47.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I would move an amendment to

section 47 that

deals with the case where an owner was paid advance costs and, under

section 44(5), had a substantial part of those costs reduced. There

could be a favourable balance outstanding in favour of the

expropriating authority, and this new

section permits this amount to be

deducted from compensation, or if all compensation has been added, to

be recovered by action in court. So it carries out the intention of the

section.

Amendment approved.

Section 47 as amended approved.

Section 48 approved.

section 49.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have an amendment to

section 49.

On the amendment.

HON B. R. SMITH: I'm going to sign the amendment to

section

49, which has the effect of permitting the time to be extended beyond

30 days where a party is added to an expropriation, as I undertook to

do when we were dealing I think with

section 15. It just carries out my

promise of a few moments ago to do that.

Amendment approved.

Section 49 as amended approved.

Sections 50 and 51 approved.

section 52.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The amendment on

section 52 allows the

chairman to appoint panels of a board consisting of three members to

hear any matter that comes before a board. Where a panel has been

appointed, the chairman can appoint a member of the panel to preside,

and the panel has the jurisdiction, and so on. The reason for all this

is that a considerable body of work may come before this tribunal. The

panels of three that we envisage seem to be the appropriate size,

because that allows for a two-to-one decision. We'll probably have to

have a number of part-time members on these panels, as I see it. I

think that will be permitted under

section 52.

[ Page 1919 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 52 as amended approved.

Sections 53 through 129 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 22, Expropriation Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: And it is

an act: Bill 22, Expropriation Act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 25.

LEGAL PROFESSION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 42 inclusive approved.

section 43.

MR. SIHOTA: I promised the government House Leader at least

five minutes, because he had to go and perform other functions, so I

think we'll deal with

section 43.

I'd appreciate some latitude, Mr. Chairman, on the discussion of

section 43, because I received one letter from a solicitor who was

concerned about the linkage between sections 43, 44 and 58. What I

propose to do is simply.... I apologize; I should have forwarded a copy

of this letter to the Attorney-General. We probably could have resolved

this matter some time ago, but I didn't quite realize we were going to

be dealing with this act until a late stage, either today or Friday....

It doesn't really matter; it just explains why I didn't get the letter

over to the Attorney-General earlier on.

I'll just quote the letter, because I think it lays it out quite

clearly. This member of the Law Society suggests that it may well have

been an oversight in the act that

section 58(

c) allows for an appeal to

a "member who is suspended under

section 43." When one looks at

section

43, it is one of the few sections that uses simply the term "member."

Section 44 and other sections refer to "a member or former member."

The act obviously wishes to give the benchers control over members,

be some concern that with the wording of

section 58, a former member

who is disciplined in some fashion or other may not have the right to

appeal.

That's the only submission I've received, and I must confess that I didn't have a chance to take it all the way through.

I see that the drafters of the legislation are here. Just for the

record, could they indicate to me whether or not that reasoning makes

sense? If not, perhaps an appropriate amendment would be worthwhile.

HON. B.R. SMITH: There's no power to suspend a former member;

there is power to disbar a former member. A disbarred former member,

according to our reading of

section 58, would be a respondent always,

and therefore would have the right to go to the court of appeal. I

don't think his grounds are correct. He would always be a respondent.

He would never be a member suspended under

section 43; he would be

somebody disbarred, but he would be a respondent.

Sections 43 to 77 inclusive approved.

section 78.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I have pleasure in moving the amendment to

section 78 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

This arose out of the representations made in second reading made by

the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, in consultation with myself.

On the amendment.

MR. SIHOTA: Just for the record, I do want to thank the

Attorney-General for bringing forward that amendment. It is much

appreciated, and I think it allows for some latitude within the field

of family relations.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I agree. I think it's a much better

section as it's been amended than it was before.

Amendment approved.

Section 78 as amended approved.

Sections 79 to 93 inclusive approved.

section 94.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The amendment to

section 94 will simply add

a subsection to 94, which will be 94.6. The reason for that is that it

covers an impossible employee problem with the Law Society. It would

still be an offence for someone in the court registry, or otherwise,

who becomes privy to information in the course of a judicial review

application, not to disclose that information that would be subject to

solicitor and client privilege, and it would be an offence in the event

that he did so. This is to give protection to someone in the society

who has to handle that information. It's an abundance of caution — an

amendment which the Law Society requested. That's all I can say; I

can't say that it's of immense moment in the scheme of time.

Amendment approved.

[ Page 1920 ]

Section 94 as amended approved.

Section 95 approved.

section 96.

HON. B.R. SMITH:

Section 96 has exactly the same kind of

amendment, which protects the utilization or disclosure or information

that's obtained in that manner by an official of the Law Society.

Amendment approved.

Section 96 as amended approved.

Sections 97 to 113 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have great pleasure in

making the motion, and before I do make it, I want to acknowledge on

the record the thanks to my opposition critic, the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, for the cooperative and positive approach that

he has taken on this bill of the society, which has been a bipartisan

bill in every way. I thank him for that, and I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 25, Legal Profession Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. B.R. SMITH: With leave, now.

MR. ROSE: I have no objection to granting leave to this bill.

It's non-controversial, and our critic is very happy with it. But as a

rule.... We've done two of these this afternoon and we did two last

Friday, and they're not controversial and probably not very dangerous,

but I'd just like to serve notice that it's not something we're going

to do all the time and that we're not really that comfortable with the

practice, if we've got time to do it the next day — which would take

about 30 seconds anyway. But it does give a person or a group of

individuals another stage, if they've got any concerns, to express

them. If we rush it through, they don't have that chance.

[4:00]

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, you've heard the motion. All in

favour? Opposed? I declare the motion carried. It is

an act: Bill 25,

Legal Profession Act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call report on Bill 19.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

MR. SPEAKER: The question is: shall the bill be read a third time now?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty days.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, Mr. Speaker, it will be less than 60 days and more than six minutes.

I'm sure that all members would agree that this is an unusual step

for there to be any debate whatsoever on third reading of a bill. I

must tell the House that we thought long and hard about whether or not

we would take the opportunity that does exist in the rules to have a

limited debate on the question. Before making a few other comments

about this in third reading, I want to say that it's not my intent, nor

anyone's on this side of the House, to abuse the rules in any way. If,

because this is such an unprecedented activity, we are in any way

transgressing on the rules in respect of what we say, I trust the

Speaker or other members will draw it to our attention. I, in fact,

would welcome that kind of advice as we proceed, given the unusual

nature of this debate.

At the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I intend to move

motion 73, standing in my name on the order paper, in order that we can

focus our comments on the issue of delaying third reading of this

particular legislation for six months, rather than passing third

reading here today.

A few minutes ago in the House, both committee stage and third

reading of the Legal Profession Act passed in the matter of five

minutes or so. One of the members of the government caucus suggested in

a light-hearted way that it would have been nice if we could have done

Bill 19 as quickly and as smoothly as Bill 25. My suggestion to him was

that if we had gone through the same kind of consultation process in

this province in developing Bill 19 as we went through in developing

Bill 25 — and others — then we may well have had a much briefer debate

than we've been forced to have over the last nearly three months now in

respect of this labour legislation.

Our view is that this bill will cause so much problem, so much

discord, and will bring results opposite to those suggested by the

government as their intent, that it is essential that the bill not be

proceeded with. At this stage of the debate there are really only two

ways left for this legislation not to proceed. One is for the motion

that we're proposing today that the bill not be read today but rather

six months' hence; the other is that the government, in its wisdom,

could choose not to proclaim sections of the bill until some additional

process is undergone.

I'm not so naive that I expect the government members to vote with

us on this particular motion this afternoon. To do so, I think, would

be for them an admission that they might have been wrong, and that's

very difficult for people to do. It's particularly difficult for

governments to do.

We make the motion because we believe that that would be the

appropriate way for this Legislature to indicate that it understands

the consequences of the passage of Bill 19. But should the motion fail

at the conclusion of this debate — as I anticipate it will — I want to

say to the government that I hope they consider seriously the final

option that yet remains to them, which is the option of not proceeding

by cabinet order to proclaim any or all of the sections of the bill. It

may be that

[ Page 1921 ]

there are some sections that could be proclaimed.

It could be that there are others which the government wants to proceed

with despite good advice. There are others that are in yet another

category, that would reflect the views expressed in the letter that the

Minister of Labour sent to the Premier on February 28; views that

suggested that some matters were of such concern that they needed to be

delayed, studied and fully examined prior to any legislative initiative.

There are a variety of options yet remaining to the government, all

under the ambit of delaying proclamation. If this motion that we will

move does fail, I just want to say to the government that it will

redound to their credit if they make a decision to take some time over

the next three or four or five months or so to hold the kinds of

discussions with all of the affected parties that they've held, for

example, with the Legal Profession Act, and with many other bits of

legislation governing particular events in our society. If they take

that action, there will no doubt be a few cries of victory: "We've

beaten the government." No doubt some of that will happen. Realists in

this province know that those kinds of comments will be made. No doubt

I too will say something of that kind about how we're pleased and

delighted that the government has seen the wisdom of their ways, and

all that kind of stuff. But that's a two-day, or probably a one-day,

wonder.

The long-term benefit to the government, but more importantly the

long-term benefit to this province, will be quite significant — not to

exaggerate the point — if the government does make a decision to delay

and to go through that process of consultation that is so important.

You cannot in any endeavour in our society.... In my view and in the

view of our party, in the view of the labour movement, in the view of

many, many neutrals in our society, and in the view of many people on

the management side, you cannot develop laws that so closely govern

people's lives without allowing them some say in the development of

those laws. We have made that point repeatedly. I don't need to canvass

all of those arguments again. That consultation, that process, has not

occurred. As a result of that, if nothing else, this law cannot work.

The Premier is fond of saying frequently that we just have to give

it a chance. The only way this bill would ever have been given a chance

is if it had been developed in concert and in consultation. That has

not happened; therefore it has no opportunity to be given a chance. I'm

not sure the government understands that. And I'm not sure that the

advice the government is getting from some of the people who are being

asked for advice in this matter is particularly good. Given what I've

learned over the last few weeks, in some cases the advice is absolutely

inaccurate. Not to name particular individuals, this advice comes from

people who are close to the government, people who will be involved

directly and indirectly in the establishment of the mechanisms that

flow from this legislation. Many of these people, including people in

the legal profession, apparently do not fully understand all of the

implications of this legislation. I know I'm being a bit obscure, but

I'm doing that deliberately in terms of the people I'm talking about.

I'm sure the minister has some idea who I mean. But it's clear that

advice going from those sources to the Premier's office is flawed,

inasmuch as it is not based on either accurate or appropriate readings

of the effect of Bill 19.

During the course of the debate in this House over the last few

months, we saw numerous examples of situations that we said would

develop as a result of enacting this bill. The minister replied by

saying no, that was not likely to happen; he didn't believe it

would happen; he hoped it wouldn't happen — or variations on that

response. Yet on further consultation with people in the business,

people who will make a living appearing before the Industrial Relations

Council, it's clear that some of the scenarios sketched by members on

this side of the House, during committee stage in particular, are in

fact more accurate than the government knows or cares to admit. It's

for those kinds of reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we feel the government,

whether through this proposed hoist motion or through a decision not to

proclaim, should find a way to go through a process so that everybody

is in agreement with what this bill is going to do.

Once there is an agreement about the effect of this bill, then the

government can make up its own mind about proceeding or not proceeding.

Governments have that power and that authority, it's appropriate in a

democratic society that they do have that power and authority, and the

consequences will have to be paid by the government. That's fair

enough. But it's clear that even in the course of the last two and a

half to three months an agreement about the impact of this particular

legislation has yet to be reached.

I want to cite a couple of examples — two in particular. One flows

from the suggestion in the minister's letter to the Premier of February

28 that the issues involved in construction were so complex, so

difficult and so important that any legislative initiative respecting

construction unions and construction employers needed to be delayed to

allow a proper consultation process to take place. We have suggested,

as have construction unions, that the unionized construction industry

in this province has only several years to live; that in two or, more

likely, three years there will be a skeleton, at best, of a unionized

construction industry as a result of several of the changes that we've

been debating.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

The government says no, that's not the case. The government says

that we're not right. Yet repeated conversations and discussions with

people who understand what the arguments will be in front of the IRC in

respect of changes indicate that we are right — or at least, there is

overwhelming evidence that we might well be right. Given that, the

question about what the government's intention is in respect of the

existence of a unionized construction industry in this province needs

to be examined before a bill like this is proceeded with. If the

government does not want to eliminate the unionized construction

industry, then it needs to have a look at what it has done, discuss

with the affected parties the implications of these changes, and, I

would suggest, come back with further changes. If, on the other hand,

the government does want to deunionize construction, then the

government should proceed and my arguments should be ignored.

I'm not convinced that a majority of the government caucus does in

fact want to eliminate the unionized construction industry. I think

there is knowledge on the part of most, if not all, members of the

government caucus that the unionized construction industry plays, and

has played for many years, an important and valuable role in our

society, in terms of education programs, training, safety, pension

plans and a whole variety of other issues, not to mention the

incredible difference in productivity between union and nonunion in the

construction sector. So I suspect that there is a large body of

opinion, and probably a majority in the government caucus, that would

not want to achieve the result that

[ Page 1922 ]

appears to flow from this legislation, which is deunionization of the construction industry.

[4:15]

It's for those kinds of reasons that we make this appeal. This

appeal, incidentally, is being made not in anger, not in hyperbolic or

extravagant statements, but rather, quietly and, in fact, more in

sorrow than in anger. And it's being made seriously, because I think

it's clear to members on this side that some of these points have not

been fully grasped by members on the other side.

I want to talk a little bit about the forest industry as well as the

construction industry. There was absolute surprise on the part of many

government members when we asserted during the course of this debate

that changes, particularly changes to sections 25 and 29 of the bill —

37 and 53 of the Code — could have, and no doubt in some areas would

have, the effect of beginning the deunionization of the contracting

industry in the forest sector in this province. As a result of that

concern being increasingly felt by a wider variety of people out there

in the forest industry.... I would like to make the same argument here:

that I suspect the government has no intention of bringing in a law

that would mean that the contractors who work for the majors,

particularly in the TFLs on the coast, should become deunionized. I

don't think that the government sat down before writing this law and

said to themselves: "We want the Frank Bebans of the world, and all of

the contractors who work for the majors, to become deunionized." I'm

sure that was not their intent. Yet clearly there is a legitimate

concern out there that this may well be the intent of these changes.

There's a telegram that I think must be read into the record, Madam

Speaker. It was sent on June 8 — two weeks ago — by the Truck Loggers'

Association. I'm not sure if it's had much publicity; frankly, I'm not

sure it's had any. The president of the truck loggers is Dan Hanuse. I

believe Dan Hanuse is now living in the Courtenay area. He's a former

candidate for Social Credit. He ran in the 1975 general election in the

old constituency of Comox against Karen Sanford. He's a long-time

active Social Credit member. I believe he's been on the executive of

the B.C. Social Credit Party, and is a fellow whom most of us in this

House have known over the years in one way or another.

His politics certainly are not ours; no one can argue about that.

His politics are not the politics of the IWA. His concerns, obviously,

are not the same as the IWA in respect of their view of this

legislation. But he telegrams the Premier as follows:

OUR ASSOCIATION HAS SOME REAL CONCERNS OVER THE HURRIED PASSAGE

OF BILL 19. THERE ARE SOME ASPECTS OF THE BILL THAT OUR ASSOCIATION HAS COME

TO HAVE SOME REAL CONCERNS WITH AS TO WHAT CAN HAPPEN TO THE INDEPENDENT LOGGING

SECTOR. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF THIS FEAR HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED.

WE APPRECIATE THAT THE ELECTED HAVE A DUTY TO GOVERN, BUT WE SEE NO POSSIBLE

EMBARRASS MENT TO YOUR GOVERNMENT TO FIND A COURSE TO SLOW DOWN THE PASSAGE.

OVER THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS OUR EXECUTIVE HAVE ENDEAVOURED TO GET AN AUDIENCE

WITH YOURSELF AND YOUR CABINET. SO FAR NO LUCK. THE MATTER WE HAVE WANTED TO

DISCUSS WITH YOU WILL NOW BE IMPACTED BY A

SECTION OF BILL 19. THE CONTRACTOR

CLAUSE OF THE FOREST ACT REGULATION NEEDS SOME AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE THAT THE

PASSAGE OF THIS

SECTION OF BILL 19 WILL NOT DESTROY THE INDEPENDENT ENTREPRENEURIAL

LOGGING CONTRACTOR. WE URGE YOU TO DELAY THE PASSAGE UNTIL WE HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY

TO EXPRESS AND EXPLAIN THESE FEARS TO YOURSELF AND YOUR CABINET. WE ARE AT YOUR

DISPOSAL. DAN HANUSE, PRESIDENT

When arguments of that kind were made during the course of the

debate, Madam Speaker, the government's response was, in effect, that

the concerns were unfounded; that they were not realistic; that we were

crying wolf, and so were others; and that others had been stampeded

into crying wolf about the possible effects of Bill 19.

In fact, I think it's a little more complicated than that. I think

some of the people out there who are now beginning to understand the

effects of this legislation are starting to recognize that the way in

which this bill will be interpreted by the Industrial Relations Council

and in the courts is such that organizations such as member companies

of the Truck Loggers' Association, who are unionized on this coast,

will in fact be out of business.

Let me quote from Colin Beale's industry letter. This is the June 5,

1987, issue, which talks about a variety of issues normally canvassed

in Beale's Letter, relating to a lot of the conflicts small operators

find themselves in with the majors and government. Quoting from Colin

Beale:

"This same operator" — an independent truck logger —

"was told earlier by the same" — unnamed — "major forest company: 'If

you want to work for us, you must be a certified union operation.'

"I now believe what your newsletter predicted six months

ago: that the majors plan to squeeze the small operators out of business, or

keep rates so low they'll be forced to start up non-union operations to

survive. Our company, like others, has had rates continuously eroded since 1981."

These are the amounts that are paid by the majors to the contractors for doing their logging.

"'We supported majors during tough economic times. Now

we see a recovery taking place, but licensees have forgotten the

support contractors gave them in the past. We are being asked to hold

the line or accept a measly 2 percent on base rates that at best are

break-even with no profit or fair depreciation allowance.

"'Our company has had its contract rate arbitrarily

reduced by 35.4 percent over the past four years. Now it's been

indicated to us the major corporations don't have the strength to break

the union, but the contractors caught in the middle do. We've also been

told if we can't operate at rates being offered, we should close down

and start up again as a non-union operator."'

So you have the majors telling the contractors: "If you can't do the

logging for these reduced amounts of money that we're giving to you,

then our suggestion to you is that you close down and start up again as

a non-union contractor." That advice is being given to them: given the

changes that are included in Bill 19, that will then be available.

I don't believe that the government — at least I don't want to

believe, and I'm putting my most non-partisan, most tolerant hat on

when I say this — understands these implications, nor do I think the

government really would like to have the kind of chaos that would exist

in the forest industry, on this coast in particular, if all of the

contractors went nonunion, simply in terms of safety issues if not the

economic issues. Yet that's clearly the advice now being given to

[ Page 1923 ]

contractors. It's a concern that the truck loggers

have. It underlies the concern that Dan Hanuse expresses. If his

organization finds that it has to compete on a non-union basis, it will

soon find that the good operators are out of business.

Bill Moore, as I'm sure most members of the House know, is a Social

Credit Party member who has campaigned against me in elections in North

Island. He operates one of the safest and most productive logging

camps, as a contractor to Western Forest Products, on northern

Vancouver Island — just out of Winter Harbour. He will not be able to

compete with non-union operators coming in and undercutting the wage,

sliding on the safety issues, and doing all of the kinds of things that

you have to do to try to keep your costs down. Guys like Bill Moore,

who have been in operation for 40 years — since World War II — will

obviously find themselves unable to bid effectively against companies

coming in and operating non-union.

The ability of the IWA to negotiate the kind of clause that they

would need to protect them in these circumstances will not exist, given

other sections of the legislation. So we're going to find those kinds

of impacts. Most of these contractors are going to find themselves on

the outs as a result of this bill. It won't happen immediately; it's

going to take a few years before the impact begins to show itself. It's

going to take a few years until some contracts expire and we see the

competition beginning to develop with non-union companies. That won't

happen overnight.

The people who are going to be hurt, ironically, apart from the

workers who have worked in many cases for decades for these companies,

are the owners of these companies, who are, for the most part, Social

Credit members and supporters. That's one of the real ironies of the

government's determination to push through this particular legislation.

Bill Moore went public. He wrote a letter that was published in the Vancouver Province ,

if not somewhere else. I don't know if Dan Hanuse went public, but

certainly he sent a telegram to the Premier with copies to us. Clearly

people of that kind who are making these kinds of comments must be

telling the government something that it's not hearing, if it's

determined to proceed. That's something that I find real difficulty in

understanding.

I just have a few final comments, Madam Speaker. During committee

stage, I referred to a report that was done by the Business Council of

B, C. In February 1986. It related to the whole question of our labour

relations and investment. There has been a lot of discussion about the

effect of our labour relations climate in British Columbia on

investment itself. I quoted from this particular press release — it's

not so much a press release as a bulletin — which summarized the

report. The study was done by the Ministry of Industry and Small

Business Development in 1985. Clearly there were indications then that

the perceptions of our labour relations climate abroad and in the rest

of Canada — and, curiously, its perception here in British Columbia —

is very different from the reality. The reality is one thing. The

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development said that and the

Business Council said that, so it's not just New Democrats and trade

union radicals saying it.

The government and the business community are saying that the

reality of our labour relations in this province is that it is much

more harmonious, much more effective and far less disruptive than is

commonly believed. There are all kinds of reasons for that false

perception, and I'm not going to do a dissertation on that at this

time. But the fact is, clearly there was an indication by government

and business that the perception was wrong; the reality was something

different.

That report was then followed.... Without saying too much of what I

shouldn't say in terms of confidentiality, the reports that the

Business Council and the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development did formed the basic underpinnings for the strategy of the

Ministry of Labour following that report in 1986. During the period

between January February 1986 and the summer of ' 86, the Ministry of

Labour clearly was embarking upon policies and a policy direction that

were based on those reports — based on that knowledge that we were

better than we say we are and that we really did have something to

build on in this province: not only good, sound industrial relations,

but the perception that we have good, sound industrial relations.

[4:30]

At the same time — not entirely coincidentally, but partly so — the

B.C. Federation of Labour, for its part, embarked upon a new course as

well. The course has been talked about frequently. It was to attempt to

establish links between the Business Council and the Vancouver Board of

Trade, to find ways of dealing with this perception, to find ways to

build upon the reports of the Business Council and the Ministry of

Industry, and to put into place links that could help to improve not

only the perception but even the reality of our labour relations.

Someone known to every member of this House, whom I will not name —

a very prominent British Columbian not of our political persuasion —

was saying to me the other day that developing good industrial

relations is a little like developing a good marriage. You don't

develop good industrial relations by having some third party lay down a

law which says you are going to love each other and live happily ever

after. What this gentleman said to me was that if you want a marriage

to work, you have to work at it every day, and you have to work at it

slowly, bit by bit, step by step, issue by issue.

It's precisely the same in industrial relations. We were making

those steps in British Columbia. We had a bit of a setback in the fall

with the difficulty of the forest industry dispute — the first in a

decade: the first major dispute for a long time, if you don't count the

construction dispute, which didn't go on for too long. a year or so

earlier. It was a dispute which really was about jobs and job security;

the kind of thing that comes along perhaps once in a decade, the kind

of thing that those of us who live in a free society are going to have

to understand will come along — the kinds of issues that can't be

resolved by painting the issue grey, by taking the black and white and

saying we're going to saw it off in the middle and make it grey. It

wasn't that kind of issue, and it couldn't be resolved in that way. It

was not the kind of issue that could be resolved by some pretty eminent

people in our society at the time. The only way it could be resolved

was to delay. It was a very unusual issue.

Simply because that kind of once-in-a-decade issue came along, and

simply because it happened to come along at a time when there was a new

Premier and we were into an election campaign, there was this

incredible overreaction, one which essentially said: "The step at a

time working-out of this particular marriage is not good enough. We're

going to solve it all at once in one fell swoop." That doesn't work in

a marriage, and it won't work in industrial relations. Just asserting

that isn't going to make it so.

[ Page 1924 ]

Unfortunately, unless the government takes the advice to slow down

this process at this point, it appears as if the only way we're going

to learn that it can't work and won't work is by living through the

period of time it takes to demonstrate that it can't and won't work.

It's similar to the experience we had to go through between 1968 and

1972 with the Mediation Commission. Comparable issues, comparable

reaction; assertions in the early days that the bill could not and

would not work, and it didn't. But it set back labour relations.... I

was going to say a decade, but actually I think you could argue that

the introduction of that bill in 1968 set back industrial relations by

virtually 18 years. It wasn't until the last year or two that we began

to repair the damage caused in 1968-72. I remember it personally,

because from 1970 to 1972 I worked at the B.C. Federation of Labour as

the legislative director. It was my job to explain to them the laws and

legislation that governed workers. I used to travel around the province

holding educationals about various things, whether it was unemployment

insurance or workers' compensation or the labour relations act of the

day; also, of course, the Mediation Commission Act.

Following that period of intense almost warfare — political warfare,

certainly, between labour and government and between labour and

management — as a result of that legislation, labour and management

hardly ever talked to each other. At the B.C. Federation of Labour, I

remember, we did not even talk to the then Employers' Council, the

predecessor of the Business Council. Except on very rare and secret

occasions that no one would ever know about did leadership of either

organization sit down and chat with each other about issues, because if

you were caught having a meeting with the other guy, you would be dead.

The politics were such that you couldn't survive the membership attacks

if you were caught fraternizing with the enemy. That is not how good

industrial relations are built.

It took from that period of roughly 1970 until 1985-86 before the

warriors of that day were either gone or had mellowed, or had changed

their view and come to recognize that you can't survive in industrial

relations without discussion about more than just the contract

negotiations. We were beginning to make that progress here in the

middle eighties, and just when we were beginning to get some good, firm

steps on the ladder, what happens? Without consultation, without

discussion, without any participation of the parties, we get Bill 19,

which, as I've said before — and as others have said in and out of this

Legislature — blew all of those tentative steps right out of the water.

I hope it's not another 18 years before those tentative steps are

once again allowed to be made. The history is that it took that long

last time. I suspect there's more maturity and a better understanding

of history, so it may not take 18 years. But I will tell you, if this

law is allowed to proceed and goes into effect, and if it is attempted

to be foisted on people for two or three years, it will be at least a

decade before once again there will be leadership in labour and

management in this province who will be allowed by their members to

make those tentative steps, as were being made here in the eighties.

I'm not sure that that whole concept that I've been trying to talk

about in the last five or ten minutes is really very well understood by

many people. I would like to believe that most members of this

Legislature do understand that. I would like to believe that most

members of this Legislature understand that Bill 19 is in many ways

even more damaging and more dangerous than was the Mediation Commission

Act of 1968, because that bill essentially dealt with only one issue:

the issue of compulsory arbitration, a mandated settlement forced on

parties who could not agree to contract resolution. This bill does that

in a more sophisticated form. But it does a lot more, and it's the "lot

more" that we've spent a lot of time talking about over the last three

or four weeks in committee stage. The "lot more" includes the points

that I began this discussion with: the fact that in many sectors of our

economy there will be a process of deunionization; in other sectors of

our economy the natural evolution towards organizing will be delayed;

the economy will be affected in a way that is far more profound than

any of the effects that were contemplated by the Mediation Commission

Act. It's for those reasons that the intensity of anger is greater now

than it was then.

Prior to getting involved in this debate, I reviewed all the

clippings from '68 through '72, because I wanted to get some sense of

what was being said then, compared to what's being said now. My own

reading of it is that the intensity was not nearly as defined or as

strong then as it is now. My own sense of it is that at that time, the

predicted results of that bill....

I see the light, and I'm almost finished.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just wanted to ask, hon. member, if you were the designated speaker.

MR. GABELMANN: In the event that I run a minute or two over, yes. I'd not intended to go into that designation, but here we are.

In that period of '68 to '72, there was not the kind of widespread

reaction to that legislation, nor was there the intensity or bitterness

of feelings — in the early days. It developed. As the campaign

developed and as the Teamsters went to the Mediation Commission and got

royally done in — to use a parliamentary word — the level of anger

began to grow in those days.

The intensity that exists now in this province about this bill is

unlike any I have ever experienced in this province, and not just in

labour relations; I also think of some of the intensity of feeling by a

variety of groups against us when we were in government.... I have

never in any of those times seen the depth and width of feeling — by

that I mean the variety of groups in our society who feel so strongly

about this. We've got mainstream churches and non-mainstream churches

coming out and saying to the government: "Please recognize what you're

doing." We've got the newspaper editorial writers and columnists. We've

got former public servants, senior public servants, Graham Leslie being

the most obvious and the most widely mentioned.

I know for a fact, and so do members of the government, that we have

other senior public servants in the employ of the government who are

giving the same advice, because of their perception about what the

impact of this legislation will be. I know for a fact that the

government knows there are senior people in the Social Credit Party and

close to the Social Credit Party around this province who have

connections with business and with other areas of society, and who are

saying to the government: "Back off. What you are doing is wrong."

They're saying that the public reaction is such that you cannot

possibly succeed with this legislation. The public reaction is such

that the Premier's request that it just be allowed to work is not a

reasonable request.

I don't know that we in this province have ever experienced a time —

I don't know of a time; there may have been — when there has been so

much advice about one piece of

[ Page 1925 ]

legislation coming to government from every corner

of the political spectrum — every comer but one, I guess; the one I

would describe, if I were in impolite circles, as the loony right. But

here one has to be more circumspect.

[4:45]

When you look at it, apart from members of this Legislature, who is

it who's standing up strongly, saying: "Proceed, proceed, proceed"?

It's the right-to-work contractors. It's the ICBA. It's a few

contractors from the Fraser Valley, for the most part. It really isn't

anybody else, except members of the back bench doing what good

back-benchers do, which is to support their government in the hope of

getting into cabinet soon. But that's all.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: There may be a few back-benchers who are not hoping to get into cabinet; to them, I apologize.

When you look around and carefully analyze where the push is coming

from for early and quick implementation of this legislation, it's

clearly and unequivocally from members of this House — I make no bones

about that. It's also from the right-to-work contractors in the Fraser

Valley. As far as I can see, it's from no one else in this province.

The Business Council has sort of got into line, and they're saying:

"It's not so bad. We can make it work." They're not saying: "It's the

greatest law we're ever likely to have. Full speed ahead." You have to

listen carefully to what people say. Support for something may not

really be support, if you listen carefully to the words or read between

the lines. From my discussions with people in the industries of our

province — primarily the major industries, because they're so dominant

in North Island — it's clear to me that there is an overwhelming

feeling on the part of these people, almost all of whom are Social

Credit and Tory nationally, that the bill should not be proceeded with.

They say that while they like some of the things that may come from it,

they recognize that unless labour is part of the team, it can't work.

With that, Madam Speaker, I just want to repeat to the House what I

said earlier during this discussion, and that is that for a day or two

there will be some shouts of "We won!" if the government backs down at

this point and accepts our motion. But for years to come, there will be

a recognition that the government acted wisely. I think many in this

province would argue that W.A.C. Bennett lasted as long as he did

because he always had the capacity to leave a door open on every issue,

and whenever he felt it necessary politically, he managed to find that

a second look could indeed lead to a better solution. I guess it's in

our political interests that the government doesn't do that. But it's

in the interest of British Columbia, it's in the interest of people who

work for a living in this province, and it's in the interest of every

single citizen that that second look be taken now.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to move Motion 73 standing in

my name on the order paper: that the motion for third reading of Bill

19, Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987, be amended by deleting the

word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You've all heard the motion. Shall the amendment pass?

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: Excuse me, Madam Speaker, but your question confuses us. Is the amendment our hoist?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, it's now debatable.

On the amendment.

MR. LOVICK: We on this side were certainly saying: "Yes, it

shall pass." The other side was saying nay? All right. I hope you'll

pardon that facetious beginning, Madam Speaker. It's difficult to know

precisely what tone and temper one ought to approach this debate in.

I certainly won't begin my remarks by saying that I am pleased to

stand to support this amendment, this hoist motion, because obviously,

one doesn't any longer take much pleasure in this. A number of us have

spoken at great length about Bill 19. I estimate that I have probably

been on my feet for some ten hours, and I won't pretend that it has

been enjoyable. Indeed, j'ai discut ce projet de loi en franais aussi

— I've also spoken about this bill in French, to Radio-Canada, and that

too was not much fun. I say that in all seriousness, because we like to

think that we on this side have indeed presented the kind of case that

ought to have succeeded. I would venture to say that in terms of logic,

evidence and, may I call it, crass politics we have presented good,

clear and sufficient reasons for (

a) modifying this bill radically, (

b) withdrawing the bill, or (

c) at least delaying the bill. I say that in

as non-partisan and objective a manner as I can.

I think the reason I struggle when we're at this point in a hoist

motion is that I am not sure what it would take to convince this

government. What arguments will work? What can one do to in fact

persuade this government that its course is wrong-headed, misguided and

fraught with peril? I don't know what arguments will work. The only

thing I am tempted to rely on now, Madam Speaker, is some irony,

sarcasm and satire. Again, I realize that that will be much too subtle

for probably some 40 percent of members opposite, so I won't engage in

that.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Not you, Madam Minister, but some others.

Let me just suggest in a very crass, blatantly political kind of way

that there is one very compelling reason for supporting this hoist

motion from the government's point of view. Let me tell them a little

story that they may have not perceived in the hurly-burly of debate and

discussion that's gone on in the last three or four months. The

government does not have a very good track record in the public's mind.

The government has not received too many accolades or bits of applause.

Curiously enough, where the government has been recognized as

demonstrating some intelligence, sensitivity and rationality is when

that self-same government has said: "Yes, we agree to amend X

legislation." Every time this government has agreed to an amendment

proposed by this side of the House, or proposed by interested parties

outside the House, the government has been praised. If the government

wants to restore its own credibility, if it wants to improve its

standing in the public's mind, we are providing you now with that

opportunity.

Hoist this motion, accept the logic of the case we present, and you

will probably come out ahead of the game. Demonstrate to us that you

are not short-sighted or vindictive, or that

[ Page 1926 ]

you are not declaring war on organized labour. Who

knows, you may indeed live to fight another day as government. I'm not

sure that that is the case, but I wonder if in fact this might save you.

On a more serious note, Madam Speaker, I want to suggest that

probably the best argument for the hoist motion is to turn the

proposition around and say: "What is the compelling and urgent reason

for the bill in the first place?" And the answer is just that there

isn't one. We have never seen any evidence whatsoever to suggest that

B.C. requires this legislation now, nor, incidentally, have we seen any

evidence to suggest that it requires this kind of legislation even in

the longer term. There are no compelling reasons. Indeed, the

compelling reasons all