1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 13

[ Page 11935 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: With my colleague the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, I would like the House to join me in welcoming 70 grade 7 students from John T. Errington Elementary in Richmond. They are accompanied by Mr. Ross Lumb and Mr. Paul Petersen. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

D. Lovick: I'm pleased to introduce to the Legislature today the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner, Mr. Flaherty, along with the director of the office of information and privacy, Ms. Lorrainne Dixon. I understand they are accompanied by some other people from the office, among whom is Ms. Cori Ross, who used to be a legislative intern with our caucus some years ago and has now gone on to bigger and better things in that very office. I hope my colleagues will join me in making them welcome.

E. Conroy: In the House today we have a representative of the city of Rossland and probably the best-kept secret in North America -- that being the ski resort of Red Mountain in the constituency of Rossland-Trail. Would the House please make Mr. Eric Skat-Petersen welcome to Victoria.

K. Jones: Visiting in the precincts today is a group of about 48 grade 3 and 4 students from Coyote Creek Elementary School in my riding. Their teachers Mr. Marcus Berndt and Mr. Alan Jones are accompanying them, along with 14 parents. Would the House make them truly welcome.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Visiting with us in the gallery today is my constituency assistant from Kamloops, Laureen Youds. I would like the House to help me make her welcome.

Ministerial Statement

JUNE 14 RIOT IN VANCOUVER

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Before I do I want to express my regret to members of the opposition for being unable to share this with them in advance, as is my normal custom, given the quickly developing events.

Hon. Speaker, the statement concerns the rioting in Vancouver last night. I'm rising today to advise the hon. members of the actions that I've taken following the tragic events that occurred last night in Vancouver. I'm sure that all members join with me in condemning the actions of those individuals who took

part in the rioting and looting so graphically displayed on the television screens. We know that these disturbing events and scenes are unacceptable to British Columbians. The people of British Columbia need to learn how such events could unfold, where some individuals behaved with such disrespect and disregard for the laws and the law enforcement officials of this province and, indeed, for common decency. To ensure a swift and thorough examination of the matter, I have directed the B.C. Police Commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding last night's events, which will include the response of the police, and to report to me and the people of British Columbia as soon as possible.

J. Dalton: I, like many others, had the unfortunate experience of witnessing the events on television firsthand. I'm sure that many of us were witnesses to those events after the hockey game. I certainly agree with the Attorney General that it's a very regrettable experience. In fact, the hon. Speaker will recall that in the hallway this morning, he and I and my colleague for North Vancouver-Seymour were discussing similar events from the Grey Cup days of the fifties and sixties. It seems that we've learned very little from those experiences.

The official opposition welcomes the Attorney General's call for the Police Commission to investigate this most regrettable experience. I just hope that what comes out of the commission's investigation will cause us all to reflect upon the.... I was going to say demonstration, but clearly it was something far more than that. Hopefully, all of us will learn from our experiences.

We should also comment that the police did a commendable job in a very unfortunate circumstance. When we hear through the press or other sources that perhaps the Vancouver police should be criticized, I can assure you that we do not feel that way. No one wanted to be there, I'm sure, other than the ugly few who precipitated this. Again, it's unfortunate. We welcome the call for the commission to investigate it, and we look forward to the outcome.

J. Weisgerber: I too would like to join in recognizing, first of all, that the hooliganism we saw last night involved the actions of a very small group among the people who were out there. We're talking about the actions of a small group of people, who really spoiled what could have been a tremendously uplifting evening. Our B.C. Canucks played a marvellous series and a marvellous game, and it should have been finished on a very positive note. It's a tragedy, really, that a few people could spoil what could have been -- and what was -- a great evening for many, many people. I don't think we should accept the fact that it has been tarnished.

The police were in a very difficult position and, from what I've seen, acted in a very reasonable and responsible manner. The Reform caucus would like to extend our support to the police officers during what must be a very difficult time for them.

The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on a matter?

D. Mitchell: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement as well.

Leave not granted.

Introduction of Bills

F. Randall: By leave, I move that a bill entitled TD Trust Company Act, 1994, be introduced and now read a first time.

The Speaker: I hear a nay, hon. member.

Some Hon. Members: Shame!

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Hon. members, there seems to be some confusion on the question. This is fairly routine, but I will ask it again. The hon. member seeks leave to introduce a private member's bill. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

[ Page 11936 ]

TD TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1994

F. Randall presented a bill intituled TD Trust Company Act, 1994.

F. Randall: The purpose of this bill is to provide for the transfer of the trusteeship and agency business of Central Guaranty Trust Co. to TD Trust Co. On December 31, 1992, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries acquired substantially all the assets of Central Guaranty Trust Co. TD Trust Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of the bank, acquired Central Guaranty Trust's fiduciary business, subject to the condition that TD Trust be appointed as successor trustee to Central Guaranty Trust.

[2:15]

Without this act it would be necessary for each trust and estate previously administered by Central Guaranty Trust to apply to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an order appointing TD Trust as the successor trustee. This cost would be borne by the various trusts, the beneficiaries of which are mostly in British Columbia. Due to the number of trusts and estates involved, it would require an impractical and expensive series of court applications that could take up much court time. This type of act has been passed in similar situations in the past.

It saves not only court time but also the resources of other government agencies such as the office of the public trustee and the various land offices. The bill removes Central Guaranty Trust and appoints TD Trust Co. as successor trustee for every trust, will, letters probate and similar instrument that is governed by British Columbia law, and it sets forth how various court proceedings and public records such as those in the land office are affected.

I would just say, hon. Speaker, that this is a private bill, and it would be reviewed by an all-party committee before it could be considered for second reading.

Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier. Jacques Carpentier, the man who blew the whistle on the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society affair, is alleging today that a massive cover-up is underway. The public of the province is calling this the greatest NDP scam ever invented. That alone should call for a full public inquiry to be launched by this government. Will the Premier, having had a week to ponder this sad and sorry affair in Nanaimo, finally do the right thing today and launch a full public inquiry in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The members opposite have made a number of allegations over the last few months. It turns out that the Attorney General was cleared by the special prosecutor, the Minister of Agriculture was cleared by the conflict-of-interest commissioner, and the freedom-of-information commissioner found that two other ministers did not participate in the breach of somebody's privacy. Hon. member, it's easy to make these allegations under the privilege of this House.

I have said that this matter, which is before the courts, will be heard at the end of this month. There will be a sentencing. There will be presentations on that sentencing of the society, and there will be an appeal period after that. That should be allowed to take its course. I've also asked that there be a full audit by an independent auditing firm to see if there was any connection between that society and the B.C. New Democrats. I think we should let those two processes proceed.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: These are more than allegations. In the financial statements and tax returns filed by NCHS charities in 1987, they claim that over $600,000 was received in revenue and less than $20,000 went to charity purposes. The rest went into the black hole of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society debenture repayment, which has been listed on the balance sheets of the Nanaimo NDP. Mr. Speaker, a paper trail is clearly in place. In light of these and other backroom kickback deals launched by this discredited society in Nanaimo, surely the Premier cannot fail to call a full public inquiry. Why does he refuse to do so?

The Speaker: The member has a final supplemental.

W. Hurd: This scandal has now gone beyond the borders of the province of British Columbia. I have in my hands a copy of today's Edmonton Journal, which lambastes the NDP. Here's what they have to....

The Speaker: The question, hon. member.

W. Hurd: The editorial says: "Under the 'I,' Idiots."

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please put his question.

W. Hurd: It is getting to the point where people across this country are laughing at the province of British Columbia and this Premier.

The Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. member....

W. Hurd: Will the Premier call a full public inquiry into this affair, which really is a black eye to the integrity of his government beyond the borders of the province of British Columbia?

The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands.

Some Hon. Members: Nay, nay.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you've been recognized.

PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS ON FISHING RESORTS

C. Tanner: Maybe I can ask those naysayers over there a question of their Premier. Many fishing resort owners who lease Crown land in B.C. may be driven out of business as a result of astronomical increases in their 1994 property tax assessments, some ranging as high as 500 percent. The Star Lake fishing resort, for example, has watched in horror as its leased-land assessments have risen from $14,700 last year to $53,600 this year. Why is the Premier bent on ensuring that B.C. fishing resort owners are driven out of business when hard-working British Columbians gainfully employed in the industry want to continue to fish for trout, not jobs?

[ Page 11937 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: While the hon. member was flipping his way through the sports pages reading stories about the Vancouver Canucks, I guess he stumbled across a story in theTimes-Colonist, ran off to his caucus and thought he had a question to ask this House. My advice to him is that he should have stayed with the story about the Vancouver Canucks and not focused on any other matters. In any event, I'm pleased to advise the hon. member that I have had occasion to meet with Mr. McMaster, who represents this organization -- as has the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

If the hon. member had taken a moment to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs or myself privately, he could have avoided the embarrassment which will now flow to him. I am pleased to advise the hon. member that in light of ourrepresentations, the B.C. Assessment Authority is now reviewing this matter so as to consider a reassessment of the lodges in question.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member?

C. Tanner: My question is to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. If instead of giving facetious answers he would read Hansard, he would see that in my estimates I asked the minister, and she had no answer. In addition to increased assessments, the B.C. fishing resort industry has been slapped with much higher fees. Heffley Lake Resort, for example, watched its lease fees skyrocket from $1,700 last year to $6,200 this year. To add insult to injury, the B.C. fishing resort industry has also been informed that it is this government's intention to charge an annual fee of $500 to anybody who has a dock on leased Crown land.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

C. Tanner: How can the minister explain these increases when his government has promised that taxes will be frozen and no more taxes introduced? If these assessments and fees do not represent higher taxes, what do they represent?

Hon. M. Sihota: Did the hon. member refer to his estimates? I don't know what he's talking about as an opposition member. It's not surprising that the hon. member, who is consistently confused, would be confused today. In any event, the letter....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that there's a good reason why we have two ears and one mouth. If he'd just chill out for a moment, I'd be....

The Speaker: Will the hon. minister please answer the question.

Hon. M. Sihota: On May 13, my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, wrote as follows:

"B.C. Assessment has commenced its review of fishing resort properties and advised BCFROA" -- if the hon. member doesn't know, that's the B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters' Association -- "that it will take some time to complete the review of valuations and to determine whether the restrictions..."

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Chill out for a moment.

"...in lease documents have been properly taken into account in the values on the 1994 assessment roll. If there are any changes in value as a result of the review, these changes will be placed on a special supplementary assessment roll for 1994."

HOSPITAL FUNDING AND PACE OF NEW DIRECTIONS IMPLEMENTATION

L. Fox: My question today is for the Minister of Health. The Prince George hospital board has said that under-funding by the province is now at a crisis level. Does the minister agree with the board that the current funding levels pose a serious danger to health care services in the Prince George region?

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Fox: So far, the New Directions strategy has only succeeded in driving up health care and wage costs, and in forcing health care services further from home. The so-called strategy is really a non-strategy that is literally moving too fast for our own health. Will the government now listen to the hospital boards and local communities and the people throughout British Columbia and put a freeze on the New Directions strategy?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Steering groups in communities around this province are working on the establishment of community health councils. That's true in Prince George, as it is in other communities. Municipal councillors, school board trustees and health professionals are working on those steering committees. I'm pleased to tell the House that to date some seven CHCs have been designated in the province, and I expect within the next couple of weeks we'll have another seven.

The Speaker: The member has another supplemental.

L. Fox: Severe financial constraint on that hospital in Prince George has caused the hospital to make a presentation to the municipality to look for financial help, because they can't count on this minister to come in and deal with the problems in the health service. Why doesn't this minister simply admit that he's moving too fast too soon? Why doesn't he halt the process until he can see that it will work in a pilot project?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The budget for Prince George Regional Hospital has increased a little over 1 percent this year. That's comparable to other hospitals in the province. We've asked hospitals very clearly to work with community groups to use the new $42 million Closer to Home fund, to make sure that hospital services are established and maintained and that, where possible, services are delivered on a clinic basis or in people's homes rather than requiring people to go to a hospital.

APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS

D. Symons: My question is to the Premier. We understand that since April 1, 1992, the cabinet has heard 138 appeals from decisions of the Motor Carrier Commission. However, the Premier decided to seek outside legal counsel to determine the legality of the cabinet appeal process only after the 135th appeal, the Kimber Cabs application. My question is: will the Premier inform this House what motivated him to seek outside counsel after 134 other

[ Page 11938 ]

appeals? What facts about the Kimber Cabs affair gave this Premier heartburn?

[2:30]

Hon. M. Harcourt: Again the opposition have made up a story. The story they've made up is that the Premier sought an outside legal opinion. The Premier did not seek a legal opinion.

The deputy minister to cabinet sought an opinion on the role of a minister in the appeal process, which this government wants to abolish along with all the other appeal processes to cabinet we have abolished. The deputy minister to the Premier, without talking with me, sought an opinion on the role of an individual cabinet minister who hears those appeals under the old process -- until we bring in the new one -- and whether the cabinet has any role in reviewing or in any way changing that minister's decision.

Very clearly, the opinion came back that no, cabinet did not have any role whatsoever after that minister had heard that appeal. The appeal is to the Supreme Court, if the party feels wronged.

D. Symons: It seems that over the last week the story has changed as to who ordered this transcript. It seems that the Premier, or someone in his office or someone in the cabinet, was curious about the cabinet appeal process. Unfortunately, curiosity didn't kill Kimber Cabs. The Premier -- or somebody, since he's claiming he didn't -- ordered the transcript, read it and sought outside legal counsel as to whether the cabinet could overrule the Minister of Energy's decision. Could the Premier inform the House what specific concerns he or this other nebulous person had about Kimber Cabs' appeal to warrant all this attention? Why this one?

The Speaker: The member has a final supplemental?

D. Symons: Of the previous 134 appeals that came before cabinet prior to the Kimber Cabs appeal, I'm wondering how many times they asked for transcripts.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have never requested transcripts for any of the appeals to cabinet. I have been busy trying to bring in a law that would get rid of appeals. That new law -- a better way of dealing with those appeals -- was brought before this House during this session. I will explain once again what I explained last week: it was the deputy minister to cabinet who asked for a legal opinion, as I have just explained.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

I would like to clarify one matter for the members, regarding a parliamentary secretary attempting to be recognized to put a question. I would advise all hon. members that under our current practices, parliamentary secretaries do not have that privilege.

UTILITIES COMMISSION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM B.C. HYDRO

Hon. G. Clark: Yesterday the member for Surrey-White Rock asked me a question about B.C. Hydro's contract to buy power from Alcan. I'd like to answer the question now.

It's a matter of public record that Alcan has demanded some $350 million from B.C. taxpayers to enrich a power supply contract signed with B.C. Hydro five years ago. It's also a matter of public record that if taxpayers do not pay another $350 million, the company is threatening to fulfil its contract delivery date in 1995 not by completing the KCP but by laying off hundreds of workers at the Kitimat smelter -- in effect, using workers' livelihoods in an attempt to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers.

The member for Surrey-White Rock suggested that this government should act to provide a commercial advantage to a company that, for 40 years, has enjoyed the benefits of one of the most accommodating government deals in this province's history. For our part, this government will stand with the interests of taxpayers. The Liberals may well wish to stand -- as it appears they are -- with Alcan.

Hon. A. Edwards: Yesterday afternoon the member for Surrey-White Rock asked why an information request by the B.C. Utilities Commission had been declined by B.C. Hydro. In fact, the BCUC asked B.C. Hydro to update information that B.C. Hydro had previously provided on a long-term power contract between B.C. Hydro and Alcan. B.C. Hydro had some questions about that update and about how the information could be provided. They discussed these issues with the Utilities Commission.

The BCUC panel that was hearing the issue yesterday morning in Prince George, before the question was asked in question period, said that this issue was resolved. The commission and B.C. Hydro have agreed to B.C. Hydro's provision of the requested information to the hearings. I'm pleased to have extracts of the transcript, which I will make available to the member for his information.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yesterday the member for Surrey-White Rock asked a question about information and about this government's public hearing on the Kemano completion project. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources indicated, B.C. Hydro has released that information to BCUC, and copies of yesterday's transcript are going to be given to the member.

The only information really missing at the hearings into the Kemano completion project is the position of the official opposition. Since the hearings began in November 1993, they have not made any presentations at any of the community or technical hearings, even though they've been held in several communities, including Vancouver, which is at least accessible to the member for Surrey-White Rock. In fact, the opposition doesn't seem interested in participating in these hearings at all, but instead is worried about the needs of Alcan.

On April 27, the member asked when the government would "bite the bullet and compensate Alcan." That portrays a very interesting perspective on behalf of the Liberal Party, and I'm sure the people of my region would be curious about the Liberal Party's interest in the needs of Alcan. To assist the member, I'm going to be tabling the tentative

schedule of hearings set for Prince George and Kitimat, and we'll be keeping the member informed of the socioeconomic phase of these hearings.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the hon. members please come to order.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The leader of the Liberal Party has said: "You have to lay out very clearly a concrete program that the people can peruse." I hope this member will soon make his party's position very clear to the people of British Columbia.

Hon. P. Ramsey tabled documents referred to earlier.

[ Page 11939 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the annual report of the Agricultural Land Commission.

D. Mitchell: I rise under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of definite public importance.

The Speaker: Would the member please state the matter.

D. Mitchell: The matter is the riot which occurred in downtown Vancouver last night following the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs. I appreciate the fact that the Attorney General has made a ministerial statement on this matter. I appreciate even more the paranoia of the official opposition in not allowing me to respond to that statement. Having said that, this standing order 35 application deals with the immediate consequences of last night's unfortunate incident in Vancouver, not with the substance of the Attorney General's announced review today.

British Columbians are very deeply frustrated by the events which occurred in downtown Vancouver last night. The behaviour of those hooligans responsible for the riot and damages to property and persons is completely unacceptable. Law-abiding citizens of our province want our justice system to apply the full force of the law to those who participated in last night's riot. Crown counsel and the Crown prosecutors operating within the Attorney General's ministry will be dealing with the numerous individuals who have been charged by the Vancouver city police as a result of last night's arrests.

They must understand that the public and their elected representatives in this House have had enough of this kind of violent behaviour, and it will not be tolerated in any way, shape or form.

To conclude my statement, this is a very serious matter and can only be addressed by an immediate debate in this House. There is a definite need for our assembly to deal with this now as a matter of urgent public importance.

Hon. G. Clark: While I think all members of the House appreciate the seriousness of the situation and the member's concern in raising it, clearly the matter.... Prior to question period the Attorney General did make a ministerial statement, at which time he referred the matter to the appropriate statutory authority for a full and thorough review of the questions surrounding the unfortunate events of last evening. That appears to me and to the government to be the appropriate forum for the discussion of that question in a rational and dispassionate way, rather than taking advantage of standing order 35 for a political debate on the events of last evening.

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Serwa: Joining us today -- I'm certain they are in wonder and amazement at how democracy works -- are 30 grade 7 students from Hudson Road Elementary School in Kelowna. They're accompanied by parents and by their teacher Mr. J. Holowchak. Would the House please make these people welcome.

The Speaker tabled the annual report of the office of the information and privacy commissioner, 1993-94.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: To begin this afternoon, I'd like to call the

summary of the Committee A deliberations on the Ministry of Education estimates, and thereafter the Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

L. Stephens: We need to make some changes to the education system in British Columbia today. I think we need to look at an additional three R's: reform, reality and results. We need to reform the system, and we need to....

Interjection.

L. Stephens: Yes, the third party should have come and spoken to this.

We need to look at the governance of education; we need to recognize the reality of a changing technological world with fiscal accountability; and we need to boost the results to graduate 100 percent of our students. We need to do this economically, efficiently and effectively. In British Columbia and Canada we are poised to take a piece of the action in the $600 billion environmental support industry. Our nation's research and development industry needs the inquiring minds that our schools can produce when people point education ministries in the right directions.

Parents want to co-educate their children and have the schools depend on them for direct support, not just for help on hot dog-days. We need a place of our own in the schools where parents can congregate and give each other support, advocate, be present on the playground and in the halls and help teachers in a positive way. Many British Columbia parents have given up on the public education system. Parents can't quantify the value of their children's reading, writing and problem-solving abilities; but they want to provide that child with the opportunities to get them -- often at the cost of extra fees, tutor wages, travelling and boarding.

Milestones along the way include directions to schools which emphasize the fine arts, those which incorporate multisensory methods of teaching, Montessori schools and schools that challenge the gifted, promote champion sports, team playing and sportsmanship and that mainstream the handicapped -- alternative schools that allow choice for students, parents and teachers.

We are fortunate to have had forward thinking in Langley a dozen years ago. Our schools today are decentralized and attempt to offer more choices to students and parents. For each parent who despairs about their own educational experience or that of their child, countless others cherish the thought of that particular teacher who was a mentor -- who turned around a life and sparked the earliest interest in eventual career goals.

A renowned American educator, Dr. George McKenna, during a visit to Langley in March, said: "Teachers should be improved or removed. Teachers with great skills are celebrated." As the principal of George Washington Preparatory High School in South Central Los Angeles, he developed and implemented a program stressing academic excellence at all levels. In four years, he successfully changed the inner city high school that had been torn by violence, low achievement and lack of community confidence into a school which now has an attendance waiting list and where nearly 80 percent of the graduates enrol in college.

[2:45]

[ Page 11940 ]

Charter schools are an innovative approach to restructuring education that has a potential to resolve many problems confronting education today, such as bureaucracies, high costs, low accountability and a sameness that satisfies few. According to Stephen Laughton from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, the basic notion of charter schools is that government, through negotiated contracts, can grant the right to organize and manage schools to groups formed for that purpose. The contracts take the form of charters that specify the nature, operation and governance of the school.

The core curriculum would include language, numeracy, national history and governance, with each province including its history.

In Manitoba, competency-based education is catching on, as traditional teaching methods give way to the concept that learning, not time, is the key variable. In New Brunswick the government has launched new pilot projects to explore the potential of competency-based education. The federal government sponsors some of the students, while industry sponsors others. The school calendar-year is far more flexible than in the regular schools, with the school operating six days a week year-round and with students entering and exiting programs on a monthly basis. The same programs are offered during the daytime and in the evenings.

It's clear that our system in British Columbia is dysfunctional. It doesn't work for students, teachers or parents. We must make the changes necessary to provide the most relevant education possible for our young people, to challenge and give a sense of accomplishment for our teachers, and to provide accountability for service and spending to our taxpayers. Some of the ways this government could make those changes happen are to exempt school facilities contracts from the fixed-wage policy and to cancel a $53 million shell company in the Kootenays. It all comes down to making the right choices and doing the right things right.

The Speaker: It's not exactly in order, but the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca for the third party.

L. Fox: I apologize for not being prepared to stand up and take the first spot in replying to the estimates.

I found the estimates were rather a new and unique process this year compared to the previous two years -- at least the estimates I took

part in -- in that in the previous two years it appeared that we spent a lot of time talking about Year 2000 initiatives and how the educational process was changing. It was with some comfort that this time around in the estimates I found that we were talking about back-to-the-basics initiatives.

The new initiatives to the alternative school -- new at least in terms of public awareness but obviously not new to many school districts around the province that had taken some initiatives over the course of the last 15 years to identify similar schools in other school districts.... I found it refreshing that the minister, during the course of the debates on the alternative school, indeed was supportive of that possibility and that opportunity for school districts around British Columbia. That is very heartwarming and welcome, coming from the minister.

The issue around capital projects is something near and dear to my heart and to the hearts of northerners, because the perception out there is that northern school districts are not achieving the same kind of priority in new school buildings that is being achieved in the southern part of the province -- recognizing, of course, that there is overall negative student growth in the northern part of the province. Obviously there is very high growth in the student population in the southern part of the province.

We can understand, to a degree at least, the philosophy of approval today for new schools that is based on new seats required rather than replacement seats as a number one priority. In fairness, it wouldn't matter what party was in power -- that kind of policy would have to be fairly consistent.

All in all, I found the exercise to be a rather warm and comforting one -- not that we agreed on all issues, but we did identify some common concerns within the education system and had some common thoughts on how we might improve the education system to meet the needs of the students today.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think the objective of all of us in this House -- certainly all who participated in the estimates process -- was clear: to maintain a publicly funded, publicly administered education system. To do that, we have four challenges to meet, and various aspects of those challenges were canvassed by all during the estimates. Those challenges are quality, relevance and accountability in our education system and, finally, cost control. With respect to all of those issues, I am pleased to say that this government is taking action, and much discussion during the estimates related to those actions.

With respect to quality, in the paper issued in November on improving education in British Columbia, the issues of emphasizing the basics and the new basics were covered, some additional structure was introduced, and some raising of standards was introduced in an evolutionary way.

With respect to relevance, the entire Skills Now program has been widely received and widely praised across the province for turning the system a little more toward the applied side from the theoretical. That is not to say a lesser side versus a higher side in terms of learning; it is a different learning, with equally high, or higher, rigour required. The introduction of current technology into our schools is essential. That relates, as well, to relevance. If we address the relevance issue it will address the needs of many of our young men and women who currently find our system less than fully relevant to their world and to their job needs, as they see them.

On accountability, we have increased accountability to parents through reforming and modifying the reporting system to parents: plain language; the reintroduction of letter grades or the maintenance of letter grades in the intermediate levels; and increasing the process of accreditation, extending it to all of our schools -- primary schools included -- which is accountability to our communities. I have also increased accountability with respect to special needs and aboriginal children by targeting certain funds in the block this year.

Also with respect to aboriginal students, I was pleased to visit a number of aboriginal schools around the province: public schools, independent schools operated by aboriginal people, and band schools. The framework agreement signed between the government and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs points in a good direction for development of a cooperative approach in signing local education agreements. Many of those agreements are in place already. That is an issue of accountability to our aboriginal people.

With respect to costs, through the introduction of targeting a cap on administrative costs in the fiscal frame-work, this government has sent a strong signal to the system that we are serious about reducing administrative costs. Yet we realize that administration and management play a valuable and necessary function in education. So without wanting to at all jeopardize the quality of administration, we

[ Page 11941 ]

have to look at different models to deliver that at a lesser cost.

With respect to other costs in the system, we have introduced provincewide bargaining. Negotiations will now proceed at a different table, with the employers' association on one hand and the union on the other, and with the long-term view that the containment of costs is an objective.

On the capital side, these are very fiscally trying times, yet over the past three years this government has lived up to its commitment to education and health care. We have committed approximately $1.3 billion in cash out the door on high school and primary-elementary school projects.

This year an envelope of about $340 million has been announced, with a heavy emphasis on meeting requirements where there is exceptional enrolment pressure. I'm sure the opposition members will know that we have been under extreme pressure, both from the opposition and from the media, to contain the total borrowings of government. We're aware of that; we have a duty to cost-control. At the same time, we have 12,000 to 14,000 additional students turning up at the doors of our schools every year, and we must meet the needs of those students; there must be a place for them.

The $340 million that we are committing to in the capital envelope this year will provide some 12,000 to 13,000 additional spaces a year or two down the line.

Since assuming responsibility for this portfolio, I have made it a practice to get out into the field as much as possible. I'd like to report that I have been in perhaps 30 or 35 districts, and I have toured 120 or 130 schools. I have met with parent advisory councils and boards in virtually every district and with representatives of unions in each district. But most importantly, I have gone into three, four, sometimes half a dozen classrooms in each of the schools that I have visited.

I told the students that I was there primarily to listen and have them tell me what they have learned about the system and how it might be changed. At the grade 8 level and up, and particularly at the senior secondary level, I asked for their advice based on their many years of experience in the system. As they approach the point in their lives where they have to make some serious decisions about entering either the world of work or of post-secondary education, I asked them to tell me what parts of the system might be improved. I have heard many intelligent and well-educated young men and women on that subject.

We have a good education system that can be made better and more relevant. The quality can be improved. But we should not leave this debate without recognizing that we have tens of thousands of dedicated support staff, teachers, administrators at all levels and members of the community who have willingly come forward to serve as trustees on behalf of the province. I want to commend them on that activity. Through the media we hear about the negative aspects of our schools; there are also tens of thousands of success stories to be told every year.

In closing, I would like to thank the members for Langley and Prince George-Omineca, the Education critics for the opposition party and the third party respectively, for the comments that they made and for keeping the debate orderly and positive.

The Speaker: Just before recognizing the Government House Leader, I'd like to say to the House that the Chair neglected to bring back a ruling with respect to the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi's resolution. I will do so.

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted to introduce to the House some constituents of mine from that great constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway: 22 grade 7 students from St. Joseph's Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Perreault. I would ask all members to make them welcome today.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

L. Hanson: The Agriculture estimates went as we had expected them to go. I don't think there was any question of the sincerity of the minister in the answers he gave to the questions posed by various members. There is no question that there is a huge dedication -- almost fanatical -- by this government to the Agricultural Land Commission, and that the biggest difficulty with the Land Commission and the freezing of land is that with the restrictions on the ability of what they can do with their land, the farming industry has great difficulty making their operations profitable.

[3:00]

The estimates showed that the priorities of the government are in other areas, and that the dedication to assistance to the farming community is not as important to government as some other priorities. But I think the minister is sincere. Unfortunately, the funding doesn't allow him to assist the farming community as it should be assisted. If the minister doubts those words, he has but to listen to various organizations in the farming community -- particularly those in the Okanagan fruit industry -- about their difficulties.

The estimates went well. I appreciate the appropriate answers the minister provided to questions we had, even though we don't necessarily support many of the withdrawals and the programs that have been discontinued. I would like to thank the minister for his participation. Other than those concerns, the estimates went well.

R. Chisholm: The estimates did go well. I have to second what the Reform member said. There was a good exchange of views on products and on markets such as the cruise ships and new marketing techniques for salmon. But I have to wonder what priority agriculture, fisheries and food have with this government, considering this is a $13 billion retail sales industry. It has approximately 211,000 employees, a $12.5 billion infrastructure without any retail outlets such as stores, and $2.5 billion in sales annually; yet this particular ministry was not even mentioned in the throne speech or the budget speech.

This ministry has seen decreasing amounts of money directed its way to assist it to develop and employ more people, every year; not only with this government but with former governments as well.

One thing about this industry is that it is going to survive no matter what this or any other government does, because of the nature of the farmer himself. The farmers have problems such as CORE and aboriginal land claims, and these were brought up in estimates. There is very little participation or communication. What is happening to the farmer, the farms and the land base is almost secretive.

We are having problems with international trade negotiations, such as with Pacific salmon and GATT. Some of these are in federal jurisdictions, but of course there is overlapping responsibility with the province, and the

[ Page 11942 ]

province has a responsibility to direct their comments towards the federal members so that they take care of the problem.

We have anti-dumping problems with the tree fruit growers and with value-added industries, such as the frozen-food industry. There are other areas we have problems with, and some of them are produced by this government itself. For instance, there's a definite lack of consultation with the cattlemen about the protected areas strategy. The cattlemen have a big industry -- $700 million -- yet they are not even consulted about what's happening with their grazing lands. They turn in reports, and nobody responds to them. The government has got to straighten up its act on that one.

The member of the Reform Party mentioned the ALR. It is a problem, because the ALR was brought in with the assumption that the farmers would opt to get into the ALR and the government would help support the farmers and ensure that farming was viable in this province. These are very good principles. I definitely have to agree with the ALR itself, but there is a lack of support for the farmer. Support programs such as FII and SIMA have been cancelled. Now the farmers feel like they are not being supported by the government.

We have had problems between ministries. I think this is the biggest problem that agriculture has. For instance, wherever you turn, the Ministry of Environment is affecting fisheries and agriculture, yet there's no consultation between ministries. The Ministry of Health has a certain jurisdiction, but again there's no consultation between the two and there seems to be a lot of antagonism. This is one area that government can help by having consultation and making sure that everybody knows what the responsibilities are and whom they are toward.

I would say that we have a definite problem in research and development. This comes down to the amount of money that is directed toward agriculture. Research and development is a big criterion for agriculture; it will produce new products, whether in the marketing end or in the primary sector. I think this is one area where this government can really do a lot of good.

We have to make agriculture very acceptable and attractive to young people of this province so that they get into agriculture. Right now, the cost of getting into agriculture is astronomical. Young people cannot afford to get in.

Another area I'd like to see this government get involved in is education in agriculture. We are into education in agriculture in a minor way, but I think we need to get into it in a major way in this province, such as by having an agricultural college. Agriculture is a very technologically advanced industry; people no longer go along and throw some seed into the ground. We have to have the capability to teach our young people. This is an area where I think this government could help out. They would be very remiss if they did not.

The Speaker: I regret to advise the hon. member that the time allotted for his report has concluded.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to thank members of the opposition, the critics in particular, for being steadfast in bringing every single problem they could think of to my attention and asking for a response. It gave me cause for concern on some items.

I think it comes down to the fact that we have an irony in British Columbia: the industry is in good shape relative to other provinces and other countries, yet we have trouble getting the confidence of our young people. It probably speaks to what happens periodically in primary resource industries, where the industry is going through dramatic changes.

I'm pleased to say that I'm convinced that the $80 million this ministry spends is well spent. It's spent in the interests of the farmers, the farming community in the province and the people of British Columbia to ensure food security, both in terms of having enough food for our needs and having good-quality food. We produce food here that is second to none, thanks in part to some of our health regulations -- regulations that are not a product of my ministry.

I'd like to thank the constructive approach that was taken by the opposition parties. I don't think there were any surprises in the arguments around the agricultural land reserve. But when the charge comes that there's a lack of consultation, I'd like to say that since I've been in this ministry, I have insisted on consultations between my ministry and the client groups. Other ministries sometimes do a job imperfectly, and there's no perfection in the consultation process.

But I have to say that in any of those areas where a weakness has been identified, I and my executive have taken special pains to get involved. I can point to a number of what I think are clear victories in terms of getting better interdepartmental cooperation and consultation.

I mentioned the cattle drive regulations that are there to protect the people who are driving on the roads and the people driving the cattle. Smoke regulations are much improved from the original draft. With respect to the complaints about involvement around the protected areas strategy, we have never before seen the involvement of the stakeholders in as meaningful a way as it has been around the CORE processes, where that sector had a strong voice and direct input into land use planning.

There may be fears, but I suggest that they're overreacting and that this minister and this ministry have taken pains to ensure the information is available to government on those concerns. Wherever there is a table that our people in the field have entered, I can say that agriculture interests have been built into the zoning and the land uses that have been recommended. That's happened wherever parks have been recommended and in fact created. So all the evidence isn't in yet, but I think it's fair to say that when the fight is over and the dust has settled, the farmers will be able to relax in this province.

They won't get exactly everything they want everywhere, but I think they'll find that they have been heard.

I would like to remind this House that the financial position of the industry has improved over the last years. Farm cash receipts have gone up, reaching a record level of $1.5 billion in '93, and the estimated net income in 1993 was over $425 million, up 40 percent from 1992. Overall debt levels have declined dramatically in the last decade, and bankruptcies are at a record low. The average equity levels are very respectable at 87 percent. I don't know whether industries.... Certainly no other provinces can boast that equity level in the agriculture sector, which means low debt, of course.

Net farm income as a proportion of cash receipts is approaching 30 percent, again the highest in the country.

Our seafood industry, too, is substantial. Most people don't realize that, but the harvest has averaged more than half a billion dollars over the past five years. In 1993 the wholesale value of B.C. seafood products was well over $1 billion -- the highest in history, and an increase of $100 million over 1992. We have some 25,000 jobs in the commercial seafood industry. Seafood represents British

[ Page 11943 ]

Columbia's number one food export, worth $702 million per year. The food processing industry employs over 19,000 people and generates gross sales of $4.5 billion, making it the third-largest goods-producing industry in the province.

There are opportunities for growth in agriculture, in fisheries and in the food industries. It is our estimate that the industry is efficient, it's innovative and it has a tremendous base of talent that can now be turned to tapping world markets. However, we also agree that the industry is facing some real challenges. Some of those are outside our control: changing trade rules, changing consumer tastes, and innovations introduced by our competitors. In the estimates, we talked about the shift to whole-farm safety net programs, which is a matter that needs to be resolved between the provinces and the federal government.

At the same time as facing these new economic challenges, the industry is facing new public demands with respect to waste management, food production practices and rural-urban conflicts. The changes faced by industry in recent years have been tremendous, and continued industry success is a real accomplishment. Now industry is better equipped to deal with future change as a result of these experiences. Ultimately, perhaps the most important need we have is to work with the industry to ensure the economic stability of rural families in those communities that depend on them.

We must preserve agricultural land for future generations. I don't think there's any disagreement on that in this House. The government is committed, as has been said, to the land reserve. We've added resources to the commission this year, which will cut the turnaround time for applicants so that people know where they stand with respect to wanting to subdivide within the ALR or to take land out of it. We must continue to educate future generations of farmers and to provide today's farmers with opportunities for the ongoing upgrading of their knowledge and skills.

We want to make sure that agriculture is understood within government and our broader society. I continue to work hard on these issues, and so does my ministry.

[3:15]

I'd like to mention the Buy B.C. program, because that is a clear case where we're working very closely with industry to ensure that there's an increase in the awareness of B.C. food and beverage products and an increase in the loyalty for them. I noted in my presentation that the program has been an unqualified success. It has received an unprecedented level of retailer support, with food retailers distributing 2.5 million Buy B.C. brochures. Retailers have cooperated by putting strips on the shelves, so that people who want to buy B.C. products know how to do that.

They've also included the program logo in much of their flyer advertising, and 80 companies are now using the Buy B.C. logo to promote their own products. Under the partnership part of the program, commodity groups have approved projects, and there are pending projects as well. Taken together, they will account for products that represent 70 percent of all farm and fish cash receipts in British Columbia.

The Speaker: I must advise the hon. minister that the time allotted for reports has expired.

Hon. D. Miller: In Committee of Supply,

Section A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In the main House, I call second reading of Bill 43.

FISHING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Hon. D. Miller: As I stated in my introductory remarks, Bill 43, the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act, in its simplest form, provides access to the Labour Code for individuals in the fishing industry who currently have agreements. There is a long history in British Columbia of bargaining between, essentially, two groups. There are more than two, but let me use two for illustrative purposes: between the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union and the processing companies, and between the Native Brotherhood of B.C. and the processing companies. Other bargaining has taken place.

For example, it has taken place at the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative Association, with the union that represented the fishers in that particular operation, but that had a slight twist from the others. Nonetheless, for illustrative purposes.... People familiar with the issue know that there is a long history of bargaining agreements in British Columbia between the employers and employees.

This bill flowed from a recommendation from the so-called three wise men -- Vince Ready, John Baigent and Tom Roper -- who conducted the hearings on the....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I think they actually were quite wise, given the end product, which was debated fully in this House. It has certainly proven to be a good labour code, and it appears to be doing the job.

Nonetheless, one of the recommendations they made is that fishers be brought into, or be provided access to, the Labour Code. In recognizing the complexities of the fishing industry, in that it has some uniqueness about it, the decision was that that would not be embodied in the Labour Code. It would be accomplished, first of all, through some consultation -- and in that respect we employed Stephen Kelleher, a respected mediator in this province, to consult with the industry -- and secondly it would be housed in its own act.

Therefore the notion of access is fundamental to the bill, because on the one side we've got the body of labour law -- the Labour Relations Code of British Columbia -- and beside it another bill that allows fishers, or those in that position, to access provisions of the code. No doubt, we'll get into some more detailed debate with respect to that in committee.

I also mention -- and I think it's worth repeating -- that this is an issue that has been discussed for many years in Canada, at various times ending up in the courts with various decisions. What ultimately determined the issue was a court case in Ontario that said the jurisdiction to deal with these issues of access to the code rests at the provincial level. For years there has been a back-and-forth debate -- it's federal; it's provincial -- and no one would make a decision. Finally, a court made the decision for us. Given those events, and given the report of the three wise men, this is the logical conclusion that would allow fishers access to the code.

Just briefly, these are some salient issues with respect to the bill. The definition of employer has been expanded to include a person who purchases fish, since this is one of the key factors for employers in the fishing industry. The definition of lockout under the Labour Code has also been expanded in this legislation to include a refusal to purchase fish if that refusal is directed towards enforcing demands on a trade union during collective bargaining. The definition of a strike is also expanded to include a refusal to fish or sell fish only when this action is directed towards a collective bargaining purpose.

[ Page 11944 ]

Our intent is that almost all aspects and provisions of the Labour Relations Code would apply to the commercial fishing industry, unless they are inconsistent with the provisions of this act. As I indicated, there is a long history of negotiation in this industry in British Columbia. The act would recognize those contracts that have been entered into on a voluntary basis. In other words, with the passage of this bill, provisions of those contracts, or disputes that might arise about provisions in those current contracts or collective agreements, can be referred to the dispute settlement mechanisms available through the Labour Relations Board.

Nothing in the act compels the parties to change current practice. I should also say that we have not, in any sense of the word, forced unionization on those who do not want to be unionized in the fishing industry. There are obviously issues about what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit. Those issues are determined by the board. As the act indicates, they will be determined, bearing in mind the kind of bargaining practices that have been historic in this province.

I really don't wish to belabour it. With respect to the individual sections, we can get into a more detailed debate in committee. I did have some meetings subsequent to the initial tabling of the bill, and my staff have had some meetings with some of the interested parties. In fact, there's one taking place today, or it may have concluded by now. Concern has been expressed from various quarters in the industry. Members may know that quite a number of associations represent different gear types in British Columbia. The legislation was not well understood.

As I indicated previously, I think there was a fear that this bill would force unionization. It will not. It is not a bill that should cause any disruption in current relationships that exist in the fishing industry. It is simply providing those working men and women in the fishing industry, who in some cases are represented by a trade union....

For the first time in the history of this province, it is saying that we recognize their position to be legitimate and, like all other workers who have organized and negotiated collective agreements, that those workers will have the right of access to the provisions of the code that may apply and, presumably in most instances, to dispute settlement.

In that respect, there are no new principles here. We're simply extending the principles contained in the Labour Relations Code, and indeed, the principles that were contained in the previous government's labour legislation -- that we, as a society, recognize people's fundamental right to come together to organize. We have not, in this bill, provided automatic certification. Certification will only come through the normal procedures that exist for any other group of workers. A majority of people have to sign up. The appropriate bargaining unit has to be determined. There's nothing new in that respect; it is simply providing that access.

Nor should it disrupt some of the other very fine processes that are taking place in this province. I've previously praised the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for that ministry's renewed interest in the commercial fishery. It is a significant industry in this province. It does generate about $1 billion in gross domestic product. It employs thousands of men and women, many of those being people in my constituency who otherwise would not be able to find employment.

It is a very important industry, and the minister has assembled a task force with key stakeholders representing a cross-section of the people involved in the industry. When I talk to them on an individual or collective basis, they all tell me that the task force, in their view, is making significant progress in terms of how -- as with other resources in this province -- we can obtain more value.

We've lost some of our traditional fresh-fish markets because of the increased worldwide availability of farmed fish. It's important that we do all that we can collectively -- as with the model we've used in forestry and other sectors -- to enhance the values we obtain from the resource and to enhance the opportunities for employment and further development of the economy of this province. That process is ongoing, and I've assured those members of the task force whom I've talked to that this bill should not in any way disrupt that process.

The members of the various sectors, as those of us on the coast know, can quite often end up fighting each other more than they agree. But I'm very pleased that they have really come together around some common issues.

With those words, I will take my place and listen with interest to my critic's comments. I would move that Bill 43, the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act, be read for a second time.

G. Farrell-Collins: Before starting an in-depth comment on Bill 43 and the attached bill, the infamous Bill 84, I'd first like to thank those members of the fishing community on both sides of the issue -- if I can put it that way -- who took the time to meet with me and answer my questions. I also appreciate the couple of times when the minister made accommodation for those meetings to take place before calling this bill for second reading. It certainly leads to a better, more informed debate on both sides of the House, and allows us to bring some of the concerns we hear once individuals and organizations have had a chance to actually look at the legislation as it lands on their desk.

I found that a good number, indeed on both sides of the issue -- what will end up being the employer side and the employee side -- had not seen or read the bill yet and did not really know what the implications of it were going to be. So I expect we will spend some time in committee stage looking through this bill in some detail, trying to ferret out exactly what the intention of the government and the minister is in the various provisions in this piece of legislation.

Having read Mr. Kelleher's report several times and compared it to this legislation, I must say that in many ways this bill does reflect Mr. Kelleher's recommendations. But from day one -- going all the way back to 1991, if I may, into the spring of 1992 and the subsequent debate on Bill 84 -- this government has taken an approach to labour relations that's not necessarily in the best interests of economic development or, indeed, to the long-term benefit of workers in the province, particularly as we end up in this case with Bill 43.

The three wise men, as the minister called them, are well respected for their work in the labour relations field. But as we all find out, sometimes things in the ideal stage don't transform into the practical stage of the application of a piece of legislation as well as we would like them to. Certainly I think that's been the case with Bill 84. There have been, I think, some major glitches and numerous minor ones with the legislation.

The labour disruptions in the education system we saw last spring were a profound disappointment to all British Columbians. The need, and indeed the demands, for education to be made an essential service were widely heard throughout the province at that time. But it seems they fell on deaf ears with the former Minister of Labour, particularly with regard to the numerous rulings he went through from the Labour Relations Board. He was told time and time again that education could and probably should be made an

[ Page 11945 ]

essential service. Yet he refused to act on those findings of his own appointed Labour Relations Board and managed to skate -- rather artfully, I would say -- around the issue for a period of time, until he ran into the brick wall and had to call this House and do something that I think all governments of all political stripes find distasteful, and that's order people back to work. But it needed to be done.

That was a fundamental failure of the Labour Relations Code, of perhaps the consultative process that went on in developing it, and indeed of the drafting of the legislation and of the way that legislation was brought before this House. Time has proven that changes to and problems with the code -- among others perhaps not as large but certainly at least as significant -- have made the wisdom of those three wise men, in the process brought forward by the minister, less and less unanimous around the province.

[3:30]

What we've seen with the development of Bill 43.... It's worth taking a minute to go back and look at how we arrived here. The three wise men who dealt with the Labour Relations Code made a recommendation that fishermen in British Columbia be guaranteed the right to bargain collectively. That's really a right that all workers should have, perhaps in different forms and with different bargaining structures, but it's certainly a right that I think we in this House -- members of all political stripes -- believe in and want to see continue. That's a fine direction, but it's a very general direction.

Indeed, they suggested that the government look at that issue in some greater detail. My understanding is that the government did that by appointing Stephen Kelleher to head an inquiry under the Labour Relations Code to look into the fishing industry and make recommendations on how those bargaining rights would accrue to the fishers of British Columbia. That took place. The hearing process was fairly narrow and constrictive, but the report itself was a long time in coming. It finally did come earlier this year, and those changes were brought out and transformed into Bill 43.

In looking at Bill 43, what we've seen in the series of recommendations that were made, first of all, by the three wise men, is that fishers be allowed collective bargaining rights -- a very general, open recommendation. This was then transformed into the recommendations of Mr. Kelleher, who looked at it and said: "Okay, I've got to give collective bargaining rights.

How do I do it?" From reading the introduction to his report, I think it became quite clear to him, in talking to people who testified before him and offered advice, that his job was to give collective bargaining rights as prescribed by the Labour Relations Code -- to put that model onto the fishery industry in British Columbia and do whatever rejigging or tuning needed to be done in order to have that much larger code and historical structure imposed on the fishing industry. His job was to try and fit those two units together, if you like -- almost like fitting a starter from a Nissan into a Chevy truck.

It's not any easy thing to do; you have to drill a lot of extra holes, put some wire on, and patch it together to try and make them fit. I think that's what he's done. The transformation of his report into legislation was fairly accurate in that the recommendations he made transposed themselves into the legislation fairly closely.

In looking at the bill and in talking to people on both the labour and the employer side, it became quite clear that there was a lack of clarity in the way the government was trying to move here, through no fault of their own. They were unclear as to what extent Bill 84 was going to apply to the code. In talking to the people in the industry -- the fishers, the employers and their associations, and a number of labour lawyers -- it was unclear to me to what extent Bill 84 was going to apply to the fishing industry.

The minister cleared that up for us in his opening statements when he said that almost all aspects of Bill 84 would now apply to the fishing industry and would only be changed where the two were in conflict, which is outlined by this act. Compared to Bill 84, it is a relatively small act in terms of numbers of sections and extent of coverage.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

I will be discussing it again when we reach committee stage, but in

section 3 -- after the

definitions

section and the application

section -- it talks about the application of the Labour Relations Code. To introduce my comments on that, I would like to read that section. Mind you, we will be looking at it in greater detail later. It says: "The Code and the regulations under it" -- that's the Labour Relations Code -- "apply in respect of the matters to which this Act applies" -- the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act -- "but if there is a conflict or inconsistency between this Act and the Code, this Act applies." The first part of that

section is what's important. It says: "The Code and the regulations under it apply in respect of the matters to which this Act applies...."

The question to the minister -- which we will come back later to, but I'd like to issue a warning now that there may be some concern there -- is whether that clause is a restrictive clause or an expansive clause. Does that mean that all of Bill 84 applies to the fishing industry with the exception of where this code differs from the Labour Relations Code, or does that mean that the Labour Relations Code only applies with those handpicked sections that would correspond to those sections which exist in Bill 43? I see the minister thinking about that, and I assume he could clarify that a little bit when he sums up the debate. I know we will get into it more in committee stage.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's the grinding noises and the smoke coming out of your ears, hon. minister, that lead me to that conclusion. I know that happens to many of us.

I want to explore that more in committee stage, and I know the minister will respond when he wraps up debate on second reading.

The question is: is it a restrictive or very narrow

interpretation, or is it an expansive or very broadinterpretation? If it's expansive, the minister and I are going to have major disagreements over what he's trying to do, because I think he is going to be making a very large mistake. I don't think the people in the fishing industry -- either the associations or the individuals on what we would call the employer side, or those people on the employee side or the union side -- were looking for that. I don't think they are looking for successorship rights, because it doesn't really fit with a very complex system of the sale of boats back and forth and the fact that the crew tends to move with the skipper in many cases.

When you move into the aboriginal fishery, it's very common for families to move -- not just the aboriginal fishery, but certainly I would say more so -- with each vessel as the business expands and becomes more and more successful, which is always the trend we hope for. The skipper may purchase a new boat, a better boat, a larger boat, different equipment or better equipment, and some of that equipment is very expensive. What happens is that the crew goes along with it. But now, when that skipper has to turn

[ Page 11946 ]

around and sell that boat, under the successorship provisions of Bill 84, the certification not only attaches itself to the skipper -- or to the owner or to the business, if you want to put it that way -- but it also attaches itself to the physical plant of that boat. So now the skipper may find it more difficult to sell the boat and may find that the value of his boat is less on the open market than an identical boat with exactly the same equipment, the same year, the same quality and the same condition, because his comes along with a certification ticket and the other one doesn't.

I don't think that's what the minister intended. I hope that's not what the minister intended, because this would cause great disruption in the fishing industry over the long term as they try to deal with it. In my meetings with representatives of both the employers' and employees' associations, neither side saw that as something they were trying to do. They saw that as disruptive. If that's not the intent of the minister, then we need to make it clear, either with the minister's explanations, amendments to the code or some explanation with regard to the restrictiveness or the expansiveness of

section 3, which relates to the overall nature of Bill 84 and how it ties in with the fishing industry.

There are a few other things that would cause major problems in the fishing industry if they were transposed or brought into the industry from Bill 84. They include secondary boycotts. What you're going to find is that if you have a large packing plant that's certified under one union or another, as part of their bargaining process those employees could easily throw on the table that they only want fish bought from union boats. That's certainly within the parameters of what we know as a secondary boycott and what's included in Bill 84. That could become part of their bargaining position.

Given the right economic conditions, the owner of that packing plant may be willing, because of the economic pressure and leverage that takes place in collective bargaining, to accede to that demand and include it in the collective agreement. That's certainly happened in other jurisdictions.

I know members of the New Democratic caucus feel that it's an appropriate thing for an employer and group of employees to freely decide among themselves. If you look at it in that narrow frame, I don't think anybody would disagree with it.

The problem is that it forces the employer to only purchase fish from union boats, which means that employees of those boats are now encouraged -- encouraged is perhaps mild; forced is stronger; maybe not strong enough, maybe too strong, I don't know -- if not forced to join a trade union, any trade union or perhaps the same trade union as the processors, depending on the clause in the master agreement, whether it's of their free will or not. There's economic pressure being put on individuals who now are no longer able to freely decide -- and freely is the key word -- (

a) whether or not they wish to be represented by a trade union, or (

b) which trade union they wish to be represented by.

I think that's unfortunate. One of the key points the minister made -- and he paused for a second to add emphasis to his comment -- was that this bill is not designed to force unionization upon workers. I take the minister at his word on that. If that's the case, it's important and incumbent upon the minister to make it clear that the secondary boycott provisions are not something that can easily be transposed onto the fishing industry. We should try to recognize that.

I don't believe that's something either side in the industry -- the owners' associations or the owners in whatever form and the employees in whatever form, whether union or not -- is looking for. I don't know if the minister asked that question of them. The people I talked to didn't even seem to be aware of that provision or that it was something they should be looking at.

One other area that I think we need to look at is that of replacement workers. The minister and I fundamentally disagree on the issue of whether or not replacement workers should be allowed in this province. We've gone through that argument as it relates to Bill 84. The government knows where I stand, and I know where it stands, so I don't want to revisit that whole debate. Of course, I think I'm right, but I'm sure they think they're right. That's just the way it goes.

[3:45]

That provision holds a lot of unknowns for the fishing industry. Any time you have a ban on replacement workers, you have a total shutdown of the industry when there's a strike. That's the way it goes. Some jurisdictions have chosen to go that way, and others haven't. In the fishing industry, you can end up with a very small opening for some fish. Sometimes it's a five-minute opening for herring, for example; it lasts all of five minutes. You can't have a strike for half of that opening and not for the other half. If you're struck, you're struck, and you're going to lose that window of opportunity for that year.

That is very expensive and may mean the loss of boats. It will certainly mean the loss of jobs and incomes for fishers, as well as the loss of homes, automobiles and, in many cases, the breakup of families. That's what happens when that type of severe financial impact is felt by communities, industries and individuals.

That puts economic pressure on both sides -- the union and the employer -- to settle. I don't know who's going to have the bigger club when it comes time to do that. All sorts of little games will be played. I hope that in the end we will never have a strike in the middle of a season, but it has certainly happened before. I think in 1990 or '91 -- I can't recall -- there was a strike, and one of the fisheries was shut down. Despite the fact that the union recommended settlement, the employees decided they were not going back. They continued with the strike, and they lost the whole season.

It's interesting to note one of the peculiarities of the fishing industry in British Columbia, and that is that there are a whole series of fisheries: salmon, halibut, gill-netters, herring. There are a whole bunch of season openings all along. They're essentially divided into four groups. In talking to some people.... There are some other sections in here where that continues, and I will be bringing it up more in committee stage.

You end up with fights being fought in one fishery, and they are poised to put economic pressure on other fisheries. While the intent is to try to divide those and avoid disputes spilling over, you're likely to end up with economic pressure being applied in a fishery where the economic levers are more favourable to one side or the other in an effort to cause settlements or concessions or increased benefits or wages. What we're going to find is that one side that can better take a strike or a lockout will find it advantageous to call a lockout in the hope of getting a better settlement in one of the other areas.

I know the legislation is designed to try and avoid that, but I don't think it can be done. Those economic levers are there, and power goes to one side or the other with the variability and price of the product.

There are a number of things that we're going to be looking at as this bill progresses. Certainly I hope to have a lot of the questions that I've raised answered in committee stage. I hope the minister will take a look at them. I came back from my consultations with the very strong feeling that this bill is not well understood by the people it's going to affect or by the people who are going to be representing

[ Page 11947 ]

those people -- i.e., the lawyers. Indeed, I'm sure it's not well understood by the Labour Relations Board. The last time I looked, I didn't see a lot of fisheries expertise on the Labour Relations Board. I assume that, if this bill goes through, the minister will move to correct that. I had hoped that there could have been more communication with the various parties, and I'm glad to hear that the minister is still meeting with people up to and including today.

I and my colleague, the critic for Fisheries, have been working on this together, have scheduled a number of meetings in the past and will have some in the future, right up to today and beyond. I imagine that, if this bill goes through as it is, we'll be meeting with them for years to come, because I think there are going to be some real problems with this bill if some of the things I have raised aren't addressed in a meaningful and rational way as they apply to the fishing industry.

I do have a couple of questions which, again, I will bring up in committee stage, but I'll just advise the minister. I was a little surprised -- perhaps it was just a poor choice of words -- when he said that the

definitions of strike and lockout have been expanded to include what's in this bill. My understanding is that the

definitions have been changed to the way they're written in this bill as it applies to the fishing industry. The difference is significant, because, if one expands, then one is also including what's in Bill 84, and I don't think that's the intent. I think the intent is to change the

definitions of strike and lockout to be as stated in this bill. It's a small item, but I think it's something worth commenting on by the minister.

The last comment I wish to make -- at this stage of the bill, anyway -- is about the transition. Given the comments I have heard from both sides as to their unawareness of what this bill contains and, in many cases, their complete lack of understanding of what is included in Bill 84, and that very long, protracted, complex, complicated and controversial process of development of a labour code over the last century.... It is something they haven't brought themselves up to speed on at all. It is a big undertaking to reach some level of competency. I know, because I went through it myself.

It took a long time, a lot of talking to people and a lot of taking advice from all quarters in order to get an understanding, however limited, of how that works.

I find that this bill leaves an awful lot up to the Labour Relations Board to decide: the appropriateness of bargaining units, the appropriateness of employers' associations or the employer.... There is a lot of stuff that's sort of.... Mr. Kelleher has said: "Okay, I've dealt with the theory.

Now I'm going to throw this over to the Labour Relations Board and let them deal with it." Indeed, there are references in his report to the fact that the Labour Relations Board has some experience dealing with odd and awkward bargaining relationships, much like those in the construction industry, but in this province there is really no history of the Labour Relations Board dealing with the fishing industry, because up until recently it has always been federal.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: They haven't had access to it, but fisheries have been regulated federally. And there were certainly arguments back and forth, which were finally settled in Ontario. But the fact is that there's not a long history of dealing with the fishing industry in this province, and there's not a wealth of knowledge -- certainly from my exploration of collective bargaining and fisheries in British Columbia.

Perhaps there are a lot of great people out there who have yet to come forward, but I know that the Labour Relations Board doesn't have that wealth of experience, and I think they're in for a rough ride. I think that a lot of questions are going to be raised with this bill and that there will be a lot of long-term impact and a lot of turmoil imposed on an already tumultuous industry. I think the Labour Relations Board is going to have their hands full trying to deal with that.

I hope that, if this bill goes through, the minister will move quickly to put some people on that board who have some experience, who can offer advice to the Labour Relations Board. I don't know that those people are out there. I assume there are some people with good backgrounds. I hope it's not done as a political move, but rather as one that will lead to more expedient decisions being made to the benefit of the fishing industry -- both the employers and employees -- in this province.

So I have concern that the minister hasn't really given much clear direction with this bill in some areas. Appropriateness of the bargaining unit is just one. There are many, many others in the other sections which we'll be looking at: first collective agreements, changes in certification -- all those little intricacies you get into when you start appearing with sharp, top-notch lawyers before the Labour Relations Board. These people will....

The minister shakes his head about the lawyers, but it's true that they'll be there, and their job is going to be to test the resolve of the Labour Relations Board, to test the limits of this bill. I know that's the normal procedure, but it would be nice to see a bit more instruction and direction from the minister -- perhaps picking up the industry, setting it a little further down the road and giving them some advantage by telling them what is allowed and what isn't. We hope to contribute to that a bit in committee stage, through questioning the minister.

I think we're headed for a very volatile period in an already volatile and difficult industry that, in many cases, is experiencing crises because of local and international problems -- through international competitive pressure, international treaties and the fish wars, which we know the member for Chilliwack is going to address at some length because of his experience in dealing with that when working very hard and supportively with both the provincial and federal Ministers of Fisheries.

I know that he has attained a wealth of knowledge far beyond my own and that he intends to speak on what the impact is going to be on the industry from an economic point of view, and to give a better idea of what the state of the industry is presently.

There are many concerns that exist regarding Bill 84 and how it's going to be transposed into the fishing industry. I've only touched on them in second reading. I certainly don't feel that Bill 84 has been nearly as successful as the minister thinks. In fact, I think it has had many unintended results. Small and medium-sized businesses have been shaken by the impact of this code, despite the assurances given by the former Minister of Labour that the code wasn't really meant to apply to them in an expansive way; it was more a code for the industrial level.

That certainly hasn't proved to be the case, with the dramatic increase in the numbers of certifications in small and medium-sized businesses. I'm not saying that's bad, nor am I saying it's good. I'm saying that it has caused shock in small and medium-sized businesses, and it has been very difficult for them to deal with that.

There has been very little information coming forth from the ministry and very little support in helping employers and employees know what their rights are under the Labour Relations Code, without having to go to the lawyers the minister was shaking his head about earlier. I know that as the Labour critic, it has increased my workload in my constituency office tenfold. I can't count the number of

[ Page 11948 ]

photocopies of Bill 84 that I've given out in the last two years -- it's in the hundreds -- to both employees and employers, I might add.

Employers are worried that they're going to get involved in an unfair labour practice action, and they don't know what their rights are or what they can say to people who have worked with them for a long time. Employees who, in some cases, are suddenly enthusiastic about becoming part of a trade union want to know what their rights are with respect to the union. In some cases, they're not so enthusiastic about the process and about the opportunity, if you can call it that, to join a trade union. They have nowhere to turn for advice, aside from the union. They certainly can't go to their employer, because their employer is terrified of telling them anything.

We'll certainly be dealing with this in the estimates process, but I think the government should take a more proactive role in advising both employees and employers about what their rights are and what the process is, so they're more informed. The government should spend some time and effort in ensuring that the fishing industry really understands what this bill is all about before they actually bring it into force, when and if it passes, in its present state.

With that, I think I've covered my concerns, in a general sense. Given the expansive nature of the minister's

interpretation of

section 3, we will be voting against this bill because of the implications, not because we think employees should be denied bargaining rights. The way this bill is doing it leaves us no opportunity to vote in favour of it. We will be voting against it in second reading. We intend to deal with it extensively in committee stage to try to answer some of the questions I've raised and to thrash out where the minister is heading with this. Perhaps we can provide some guidance to the industry employees and employers and the Labour Relations Board as to how the minister intends, in a political and policy sense, to set the industry on the road to completion.

L. Hanson: I listened with interest to the minister's opening remarks, particularly about the three wise men. I remember that not too long ago we were called back to Victoria, on an emergency basis, to deal with a crisis in education. We learned during the process at that time that some members of the executive council found that they at least had a concern that they might be in a position of bias because of past relationships and so on, and they absented themselves from making decisions or taking

part in the discussions.

The minister referred to the three wise men and suggested that they were the source of this wonderful piece of legislation during their studies of labour in British Columbia. A more cynical person than myself might suggest that there was a bias there, because if you look at the background of the three individuals, you see that they are totally dependent on the organized sector and the disputes that arise as a result of the concerns. You might suspect that there might be a bias there, too. Not being a cynical person, and recognizing that those gentlemen have good reputations in the industry, I guess we have to accept the recommendation that they came forward with.

The minister also mentioned in his opening remarks that the new Labour Relations Code, Bill 84 -- although I'm not sure he referred to it by number -- has done its job. I guess where the discussion and maybe the disagreement comes in is over what the job is. It's obvious that this minister's and this government's idea of the job is to organize every person in British Columbia. Certainly that is not a situation that is necessarily bad. What is bad about it is that the process for that certification totally takes away the democracy we expect as part of our rights as citizens of British Columbia in dealing with that sort of issue.

[4:00]

We're talking about a labour bill dealing with the fisheries. The fishing sector of our economy has been facing some very great difficulties, particularly in the last while. I believe something like 200,000 salmon went missing in the Fraser River for whatever reason. As government and as citizens, we are very concerned with the difficulties of reaching an agreement with our neighbours -- in this case to the south and to the north -- regarding the salmon stock and the fishing of that stock.

We would have thought that the government and this minister might be more concerned with resolving those difficulties of the industry, as opposed to putting forward a piece of legislation that is going to cause nothing but more turmoil within an industry that is already having a very difficult time.

We have talked to a number of fishermen. They're concerned about jobs; they're concerned about the fish stocks; they're concerned about overfishing; and they're concerned about ways to become more efficient and competitive. But I haven't heard one say they were concerned about unionization. I don't think they're particularly interested in paying union dues. I suspect that I know where the pressure comes from.

Because if my understanding of the industry is correct, the majority of people working in the processing part are already part of organized labour, and those unions need this further benefit -- or at least are lobbying for that benefit -- from a government that they know is very much on their side. But personal interest in unionization does not make good public policy. Collective bargaining is not appropriate in some areas of the economy, and I don't believe that this particular

section is appropriate in the fishing industry.

There's no imbalance in the relationship that we have seen between the fishers and those people who act on the fishing boats. The relationship between the fishermen -- the owners of the boats -- and the people who work, usually on the basis of a share of the catch, is generally very good, as they depend very much on each other for not only the catch but for safety in the operation of the boat.

I suspect that under some circumstances, if this bill goes through -- which, of course, is just a matter of time, due to the government's majority -- that the safety aspect will be a bit compromised by some of the requirements for length of service, and that the employer's ability to deal with people who may not necessarily be suited for that particular lifestyle will be very restricted.

Hon. D. Miller: Terrible.

L. Hanson: I hear the minister saying "terrible." He will have his turn in a minute, I know.

In principle, this bill will threaten the viability of the fishery by introducing new opportunities for work stoppages and other actions that will hurt the cooperation that already exists between the employers and the sharers of the catch, and exacerbate divisions in an industry that is already in serious difficulty.

I know that there are a couple of other people who want to speak on the bill. We will be voting against the bill, and I look forward with great interest to the minister's remarks when he has his turn.

R. Chisholm: I have to rise today and, unfortunately, vote against this bill.

[ Page 11949 ]

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: It is most unfortunate. Hon. Speaker, do you want to know why? Because this government, in one of its promises, said it would consult. But we've yet to see consultation. As a matter of fact, I've got statements here by various members of the industry or associations which state that when Vince Ready did his little study, he didn't consult with anybody. When Stephen Kelleher implemented his plan, what did he study? Absolutely nothing. He was told; he was given a mandate to put it in place. There was no consultation.

We want to talk about consultation. The day before they tabled this bill, this government was speaking to the fishermen. They didn't even have the intestinal fortitude to tell them they were going to table it the very next day. The minister wouldn't even meet with them; the assistant deputy minister did instead. We're now debating second reading a week later. The same people who were coming down to see the minister are here to discuss this bill tonight at 6 o'clock with Norm Macphee, Patrick Stanton and Stephen Kelleher. We're debating second reading at 3 o'clock. Is that consultation?

If it is, the hon. minister had better take out Webster's dictionary and have a good look at what consultation means, because he obviously doesn't understand it. It's about time he did; after all, he's the minister for this particular ministry.

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: I should hope so.

You have to wonder about the competence of this government, and you really struggle to find out just where these people are coming from. We're right in the middle of a Pacific Salmon Treaty collapse, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is down in Washington, D.C., trying to get the Americans to come back to the table. And what does the Minister of Labour do? He introduces Bill 43 and destabilizes the industry even more. That doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, does it? Every once in a while we have to be a little blunt, so that maybe some of these people on the other side will understand what is being said to them.

Where is the logic? The Pacific Salmon Treaty is collapsing, and the minister is bringing forward labour legislation that he knows is going to destabilize the industry. After all, this industry has been operating under its own steam for over 100 years. They've developed and evolved their own system. It's not broken, so why are we going about fixing it? Is this government paying off or trying to get more union members? Is it trying to drum up more assistance and support? Is that what is behind Bill 43?

All the organizations that we've talked to -- the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of B.C., the trawlers, the seiners, the Aboriginal Fishing Vessel Owners, the Native Brotherhood of B.C. and the Native Fishing Association -- say the same thing: nobody talked to them about this. Then this government wonders why there is confusion in the ranks of the industry. The industry doesn't even understand Bill 84. As a matter of fact, I don't understand Bill 84 -- and I debated it for two months. How the heck are they going to understand it?

An Hon. Member: That's a good admission.

R. Chisholm: It is a good admission, because there are points in Bill 84 which I don't understand; I don't understand where the logic came from. Now we have this appendage to Bill 84. How is Bill 84 going to affect Bill 43, and how is Bill 43 going to affect Bill 84? That has yet to be explained. I hope it will be explained in committee stage, because there are problems in some areas. For instance, there are problems around conflict of interest; successorship, which the Labour critic talked about; replacement workers; dismissal, and unjust and reasonable cause; and exclusive representation.

All of these things have to be explained, because if you read the bill, it is very unclear. It's going to create havoc and problems within the industry. It needs to be clarified and cleared up. I think if there had been a bit more consultation, if the ministry staff had sat down with the industry prior to this, a lot of this might not have been a problem. As a matter of fact, a lot of it might even have been amended.

There are a few other areas that we're going to have a few problems with. The minister says the Ontario government solved the problem of jurisdiction. But the courts solved the problem of the inland waters. What about the coastal waters? Are we now going to have two systems -- one for the inland waters on the east side of the Island, and another for the west side? If you think we have confusion now, wait until we have that. Who has jurisdiction rights over the aboriginal fishing strategy? All of this comes into play.

Who has the problem here? The hon. minister doesn't seem to understand; maybe he doesn't have the rights. Maybe his Labour Relations Board won't have the right to make judgments and decisions. Maybe that will become a problem. It's not that much of a problem for the minister, but it's certainly going to be a problem for those associations.

You have to question the timing of this bill. Why now? All the fishing fleets are going to sea, and guess what we bring in. This bill. They're not here to represent themselves or to fight this bill. The timing for this thing is almost deceitful; the lack of consultation and how the bill was tabled is almost deceitful. Why couldn't the ministry staff turn around and say that they were tabling that bill the next day? Why couldn't the ministry staff tell the associations we were having second reading today?

According to the people I have spoken to -- and I've spoken to Jim White, Phil Eby and a few others -- they didn't realize.... This is a slap in the face of their industry. A little bit more tact could have been used. It's obviously not a very good start to debating the bill, because everybody is starting on the wrong foot. Meanwhile, the fishermen are going out to sea because those windows that the Labour critic was talking about are opening.

What happens when they go on strike and there's a 15-minute opening on herring? The boat owner has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he loses all of his money for the year on the herring. As the Labour critic mentioned, that can have drastic results. Unfortunately, I don't think the minister and his staff care a whit about it. I think they just want to fill the union ranks, and they're going to go about it one way or the other. They did it to agriculture, and they are now going to do it to the fisheries.

[4:15]

Bill 84 was designed for the MacMillan Bloedels, Ford Canadas and Chryslers of the world. It definitely wasn't designed for a fishing industry that operates in this manner. The point is that it wasn't designed for the industrial base. The fishing industry is different than what you see in downtown Vancouver; it's different than what you see with these corporate giants. Fishing operates in its own way. What happens to the family boats when they go on strike? What happens with the families of the aboriginal fisheries when they have problems with Bill 43? Are they all going to go on welfare when it collapses?

If this government's plan is to enhance the aboriginal economy, why would they go ahead

[ Page 11950 ]

with a bill like this that detracts from the manner in which they are operating right now?

I'm going to have a lot more to say in committee stage, but these are a few questions that the minister should muse about. Maybe he should think about giving a little extra time to the associations so that they can understand the bill and understand where they're coming from.

During question period I asked questions of the Deputy Premier about this bill because the minister wasn't there. They were all taken on notice, and nobody came back with answers. That's exactly the way these fishermen feel. Nobody is giving them the answers. And then we wonder why there's confusion.

I come from an occupation where you had to rely on your crew. At times it can be a life-and-death relationship when you're relying on your crew. How is that going to equate in this industry? How is Bill 43 going to equate when a person might be going on strike the next day and may not be there? When you have a crew they work very closely together; they become as family. Right now, this minister has driven a wedge between the owners of the boats and the crews. He is upset at the balance that has worked for a hundred years. Why?

Hon. D. Miller: Nonsense.

R. Chisholm: If it's nonsense, hon. minister, then why are all the associations stating very similar things that I am stating? Why have they been willing to put pen to paper? If it's all nonsense, hon. minister, you had better start reading your mail, because your constituents don't think it's nonsense. They are rather worried about the whole situation your ministry has created.

I'll have more to say in committee stage as we go clause by clause through this bill. I hope that the minister is listening, and I hope that the minister will listen to the industry, because if he doesn't, he's playing with a $700 million industry that I'm afraid could collapse around his ears. It may be even more than that. Does this bill cover aquaculture? Does it cover all of the species that we harvest from the seas? These are questions that need to be answered.

S. Hammell: I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Hammell: In the gallery are some 30 grade 10 students from Johnston Heights Secondary School, one of the new high schools built in Surrey in the past few years. They are accompanied by their teachers Mr. Derbyshire and Mr. Sharpe. Would the House please make them welcome.

Deputy Speaker: I believe the minister is also rising to ask leave for an introduction.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Miller: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House, in the galleries behind me, 22 visitors from Shanghai, China. They're on an executive exchange program sponsored by the University of British Columbia, hosted there by Peter Lusztig and hosted in Victoria, I'm pleased to say, by my former Deputy Minister of Forests, Mr. Philip Halkett. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

L. Fox: It's indeed a pleasure to stand in my place and speak to the principles of Bill 43. Let me set the stage by openly admitting that I know very little about the fishing industry. But being a longtime business person, I understand when I see a bill that is not promoting the best interests of an industry but the best interests of big labour and this government.

When I reflect on the discussions concerning Bill 84 last year, I vividly recall the Minister of Labour of the day promising this House and the people of British Columbia that unionizing small businesses with less than ten employees was not the intention. But if we look at the results, over the course of the last year we see that a major percentage of the certifications that have taken place have been in businesses with less than ten employees. That's extremely unfortunate. I would suggest that in time it's going to lessen opportunities for those small businesses.

I have several concerns with respect to this legislation. The first one has to be with the consultative process. Over the course of the last three years, minister after minister has stood up in this House, saying, "We believe in the consultative process," and minister after minister has not spoken the total truth. They have not consulted all affected parties; they have consulted the people they wanted to consult. When they broadened that, they consulted them in such a way that they endorsed the position that they wanted to take on the issue in the first place.

This particular consultation process is no different than what we've seen from other ministers. In fact, none of the boat owners or their employees were consulted. Who wants this unionization? I suggest, as I suggested during discussions on Bill 84, that union leaders and supporters of this government are pushing this, not the industry and not those who will be affected by it. That's unfortunate.

When we look at what could happen in the fishing industry because of Bill 84, when we look at the succession rights that flow out of Bill 84.... If you happen to have more than one boat and one of them unionizes, that's forced on the rest of your fleet, because according to Bill 84 you can't have two separate businesses, one unionized and one non-unionized. What we're seeing is an initiative where one employee on one boat could force a fleet of those boats -- if there are such, and I presume there are -- to come under this union structure.

This new union will have the opportunity to negotiate the price of the fisherman's catch, and the non-union boats will have to comply with that pricing. As I understand this legislation, they will no longer have the opportunity to sell their fish to the highest bidder. According to my reading, this particular control could force people to sell their fish at the negotiated price. The minister is shaking his head. If I'm wrong about that, perhaps he could straighten it out, and obviously he will.

The minister and I won't agree on many issues within this bill, anyway, because of the different philosophical back-grounds we come from and the different values we have in terms of the rights of employers versus the rights of employees. There is obviously quite a difference, and I'm pleased with that. Differences of opinion are what make the world go around...

Interjection.

L. Fox: ...and around and around -- that's right.

This is not an initiative to protect the fishing industry. This is an initiative to provide more union memberships in the province of B.C., which were shrinking prior to

[ Page 11951 ]

December 1991, and have increased substantially since that point in time, because of Bill 84. That's the one motivation behind this legislation and the minister's bringing it forth at this time. For those reasons, I'll be voting against it.

D. Mitchell: I too would like to say a few words on Bill 43, the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act. Why didn't the minister title the bill a little more creatively or perhaps more accurately? After having read the bill and listening to some of the good debate that has taken place in this assembly this afternoon, I think the bill could easily have been titled You're Going To Need A Collective Agreement If You Want To Go Fishing Act. That's effectively what this bill does. In his opening remarks on second reading the minister said very clearly that this is not an attempt at forced unionization, which leads this hon. member to believe that this may be an attempt at forced unionization.

Bill 43 has a very clear motive. When the minister spoke to the principles of the bill he wanted to avoid that. I don't know why the minister would perhaps want to mislead the House -- and I won't say that he did deliberately. But the minister is the member for Prince Rupert, one of the major fishing centres in the province. I don't believe for a moment that the minister is ignorant of the fishing industry, which is an important industry in our province and one that has gone through dramatic changes in the last while. The minister is not dumb, or he's dumb like a fox, perhaps, because he knows what this bill is going to do.

This bill is intended to bolster declining union membership in an industry that needs and is striving to become much more competitive. The minister is more aware of that than most members in this House because he hails from Prince Rupert. He's sensitive to that issue and he knows that the dominant trend in this industry is increased corporate concentration. Those engaged in the fishing industry -- in harvesting, in canneries and other industries related to fishing -- have increasingly been subject to the forces of corporate concentration.

He also knows that we've seen some declining membership in the trade union movement in this area and in other resource sectors in the province as well. I know the minister and the government, which he's a member of, would like to try to bolster union membership wherever possible in the resource sector, including the fishing industry. The minister should just come right out and admit that. It doesn't need to be an ulterior motive. I think he should be upfront about that.

What is the purpose of this bill? What is this bill really seeking to fix? Surely the government doesn't bring bills to the Legislature simply because they like to pass new laws. No, the bill must have a purpose. What remedy is to be obtained with this bill? Are we trying to fix a problem in a way that's going to make the fishing industry more competitive in today's very tough, internationally competitive environment.

The minister says there have been some concerns expressed about the bill, and indeed there have. A number of constituents of mine involved in the fishing industry are very worried. Individuals and families who own fishing boats are now wondering what is going to happen if all of a sudden they're forced to have a collective agreement -- they're not currently unionized -- in order to participate in the industry. Maybe that's an irrational fear and the minister will want to try to address that, but that's one of the concerns.

If they're forced to have a collective agreement on their fishing boat, what happens if they seek to leave the industry at some point? What kind of successor rights are being contemplated under the bill that this is stemming from, which is the Labour Relations Code that the government brought in a couple a years ago? If we're doing that, we're certainly not making the industry more competitive.

We're not giving small entrepreneurs in the fishing industry, who are having a tough time right now, any comfort that it's going to be easier for them to operate, that their business is going to be more competitive or that they're going to be increasing the value of the assets they invested in the industry, simply because it may not be possible for them to easily exit the business.

What might happen with successor rights -- if that is what is being contemplated, and it certainly seems to be the case here -- is that if they seek to sell a fishing boat, for instance, the collective agreement, the union and unionized employees will go with it. It's one of these perverse situations where people follow property as a result of this kind of ill-thought-out legislation. We don't know if that's what's being contemplated.

It certainly seems to be the case that this bill is trying to plug any possible loopholes as a result of the passage of the labour relations act of this government, to make sure there is no possible way that any employees working in the fishing industry in British Columbia can do so under non-union terms of employment. That's why this bill should be called You're Going to Need a Collective Agreement if You Want to go Fishing in British Columbia Act, 1994. That's why this bill really can't be supported.

[4:30]

The minister says it's not forced unionization. He says that the bill doesn't mean automatic certification. Well, it doesn't have to. Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code, brought in by this government, already takes care of that, and by applying that legislation to the fishing industry, that's almost taken care of; it's virtually a certainty. How is the bill going to make the industry more competitive? The minister hasn't addressed that. I hope he will try to when he closes debate. With that, I think you can take it that I'm not a supporter of this legislation.

R. Chisholm: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Chisholm: I wish to introduce Phil Eby and members of the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of British Columbia to the Legislature. We also have the Aboriginal Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of British Columbia here, and would you make them most welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call upon the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, whose remarks will close debate on second reading.

Hon. D. Miller: I've sat with some impatience and listened to some of the worst gibberish I've ever heard about the fishing industry on the coast of British Columbia. I would only say to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who posed a question about who made.... I don't know. I think that member usually tries to recognize that you have a greater obligation than to simply stand and say whatever irrational thought comes into your head when you're debating. If you have a bit of a duty to inform yourself, you would actually read the bill.

Interjection.

[ Page 11952 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Maybe you haven't any research staff, because clearly, the last point you made is covered in the bill. It's very clear in this bill that we are not providing access to the automatic certification procedures in Bill 84. It's right there in black and white -- read it.

Yet he stands and makes a claim that there's forced unionization. What a bunch of nonsense!

All I can say about the member for Prince George-Omineca is that I'm quite prepared to accept the member's word that he knows nothing about the fishing industry. And for those who have any doubts, I refer them to Hansard. The member for Chilliwack.... I wasn't quite certain, but I became a bit agitated....

Somebody talked about corporate concentration. It seems to me that if you look at what's happening in the fishing industry, quite the opposite is happening. In a moment I'm going to deal with some of the history on this coast and some of the reasons why associations were formed.

If you are so opposed to people combining, are you opposed to these people up here who belong to associations? Why do they belong to associations? What's the principle behind coming together in an association, whether it's the Native Brotherhood or any other of the fishing associations? It's to represent the collective interests of the membership. What's a trade union? It's the same thing. It seems to me that great liberal for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is espousing that it's okay if you happen to be an owner, but it's not okay if you happen to be workers.

The most commonsense criticism of the bill was made by the hon. Liberal critic, and I look forward to committee stage debate with that member.

I get quite offended at an argument from the member for Chilliwack that seems to suggest that if some of the crew on a boat are actually unionized we have compromised safety.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, he came awful damned close. I have worked tugboats, I have been represented by trade unions, and just because there's a trade union in place doesn't mean people can't work together and don't have the view that they are responsible for each other. So it's a view I reject. It's absolute nonsense.

The last thing I read about one of the fishing companies in B.C. was in a magazine called Vanity Fair. Ever heard of Vanity Fair? Does the name Weston ring a bell? Galen Weston? Garfield Weston? He plays polo with Prince Philip. He's just one of the....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I bought the magazine because I have a weakness. I like to know some of the people I may have to deal with, and this was an

article about the owner of a major fishing company in British Columbia. I thought it would be interesting to know what this guy is like. He lives in a castle somewhere, and he plays polo with Prince Philip. I sent it to some of